Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10
Send Topic Print
be heard on 18c and freedom of speech (Read 23791 times)
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1542
Around
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #60 - Dec 1st, 2016 at 4:09pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 1st, 2016 at 1:40pm:
Raven wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:49pm:
freediver wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:29pm:
I could only sue you for defamation if I could demonstrate you cost me money, and my only recourse to get you to compensate me for my financial loss. There is no compensation for loss of reputation beyond that. The fact that it is such a controversial and provocative accusation is irrelevant. The truth of the claim is only relevant because it determines whether your actions or my actions were the cause of the financial loss, and most jurisdictions do not consider truth a universal defense against slander charges. You are more likely to get sued for defamation by accusing a retailer of ripping you off than you are for accusing someone of being a pedophile (unless they work in childcare or children's TV, in which case, get a lawyer).

In this case there is genuine and demonstrable harm - financial loss - and the law restricts itself to that demonstrable harm. In the case of 18c there is no demonstrable harm. There is endless vague waffle about degree to which people responded by feeling offended, how 'significant' the claims are etc. It is not trading off one value against another. It is a complete rejection of the fundamental precepts of freedom of speech.

No-one has the right not to be offended. End of story.


Incorrect you can sue for defamation if what was published would tend to lower a personís reputation in the eyes of an ordinary, reasonable person.


Are you attempting to contradict me?


No the Law is. Under Australian Law you can sue for defamation if:

- A comment or publication (which contains the alleged defamatory material) was communicated by the defendant to a third party

- The comment or publication adequately identified the plaintiff

- The comment or publication contained defamatory imputations

- The defendant is not able to rely on any defence which may be available to him/her

- Action has commenced for defamation within 1 year of the date of the comment or publication.

You do not need to have been impacted financially to sue for defamation. You only need to show that the publican would lower your reputation in the eyes of an ordinary reasonable person.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 1st, 2016 at 4:16pm by Raven »  

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Whatever you're good at, there is probably an Asian that's better
 
IP Logged
 
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1542
Around
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #61 - Dec 1st, 2016 at 4:15pm
 
Culture Warrior wrote on Dec 1st, 2016 at 10:01am:
Raven wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 1:28pm:
Here's the thing about free speech.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence, it just means you can not be prevented from saying it. And it also means others have a right of reply

Who remembers Barry Spurr? He was the poetry academic at the University of Sydney who resigned after private emails on his university account were exposed as containing derogatory language about Muslims, Aboriginal people and Chinese people.

His emails breeched the University's Policy on the Use of Information and Communications Technology Resources. Spurr would have agreed to be bound by the terms of this policy as a condition of his employment.

Once these emails were brought to public attention, he was suspended from the university, until he eventually resigned.

He is free to repeat these terms in private email or private conversations. By losing his job at the University of Sydney, he has not been silenced or censored. The university has simply said they don't want to be associated with his conduct.



Barry Spurr was witchhunted by leftards. If the university regulations were consistency applied, then leftards would be stood down everywhere. There was a similar case recently with Roz Ward. She stated something controversial on race, was suspended, then reinstated when leftards had a cry about it. Double standards abound. The left are only too happy to protect their own on these issues and send their opposition down the sh*tter for the same issues. The lesson here is not to be merciful or half-arsed when dealing with the left. F**k their freedom of speech.


There was also Scott McIntyre who broadcast opinions on his Twitter account that denigrated Anzacs and Australia on Anzac Day.

Unsurprisingly, there was a public backlash against his tweets. SBS's Social Media Protocols are very similar to those of the University of Sydney.

After being contacted by SBS management, he was reportedly offered a way to acknowledge his conduct may have offended some people and options for disciplinary action. McIntyre refused to do so, so SBS management sacked him.

So what's the difference between Spurr and McIntyre? The subject matter is different. Spurr's emails were private. McIntyre's tweets were public. Both were against their respective employer's policies.

But some people seem to think McIntyre's free speech has been compromised. That's rubbish.

Like Spurr, McIntyre was free to express his repugnant views before he worked for SBS and now that he no longer works at SBS. He was also free to do so when he was working at SBS; he just had to accept that it may be in breach of his contract.

Throughout most of Australia, it's not illegal to say things publicly that are sexist or homophobic, or that mock disabled people. According to this logic, if an employee goes on sexist or homophobic rants, or attacks disabled people, it'd be censorship to condemn their behaviour and fire them.

It's possible that workplace codes can become too onerous, particularly when they are set by government employers. But neither the University of Sydney's, nor SBS's, go too far. They don't stop people talking about political matters or important, even sensitive, public matters.

As Spurr and McIntyre have discovered, these protocols just require that if people want to keep their employment, then they need to be mindful of their conduct and the impact it can have on others.

Back to top
 

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Whatever you're good at, there is probably an Asian that's better
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45797
Gender: female
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #62 - Dec 1st, 2016 at 4:48pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 1st, 2016 at 1:40pm:
Raven wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:49pm:
freediver wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:29pm:
I could only sue you for defamation if I could demonstrate you cost me money, and my only recourse to get you to compensate me for my financial loss. There is no compensation for loss of reputation beyond that. The fact that it is such a controversial and provocative accusation is irrelevant. The truth of the claim is only relevant because it determines whether your actions or my actions were the cause of the financial loss, and most jurisdictions do not consider truth a universal defense against slander charges. You are more likely to get sued for defamation by accusing a retailer of ripping you off than you are for accusing someone of being a pedophile (unless they work in childcare or children's TV, in which case, get a lawyer).

In this case there is genuine and demonstrable harm - financial loss - and the law restricts itself to that demonstrable harm. In the case of 18c there is no demonstrable harm. There is endless vague waffle about degree to which people responded by feeling offended, how 'significant' the claims are etc. It is not trading off one value against another. It is a complete rejection of the fundamental precepts of freedom of speech.

No-one has the right not to be offended. End of story.


Incorrect you can sue for defamation if what was published would tend to lower a personís reputation in the eyes of an ordinary, reasonable person.


Are you attempting to contradict me?

Quote:
So you don't think being wrong counts. Alas, it does in libel law.
But I'm curious. Do you think porkies should be a factor?


Read what I just posted Karnal.


Raven's right. Joe Hockey successfully sued Fairfax for libel over their Treasurer for Hire headline. He did not need to show a loss of any income or the possibility thereof.

The defense for libel is whether published comments are true, and in the public interest.

But I'm curious. Do you think they should allow porkies?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Culture Warrior
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 9607
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #63 - Dec 2nd, 2016 at 8:39am
 
freediver wrote on Dec 1st, 2016 at 1:40pm:
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism for the stupid things you say.


I am sure the lefties are shaking in their boots from such logic.  Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Putting antagonistic tribes into the one country will and has lead to civil wars - Jovial Monk.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35872
I like fish
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #64 - Dec 2nd, 2016 at 12:57pm
 
Aussie wrote on Dec 1st, 2016 at 1:57pm:
Quote:
In case you have forgotten already, you were attempting to claim that getting jailed for contempt of court that takes the specific form of denying the holocaust is somehow different from getting jailed for denying the holocaust.


Correct.† You said he was jailed for denying the holocaust.† He was not.† He was jailed for defying a Court Order, i.e. contempt of Court.

Quote:
Would you also claim that getting jailed for manslaughter is different to getting jailed for killing someone?


The definition of manslaughter specifically includes the unlawfull killing of someone.

Another fail on your part, freediver.† Yer clutching at straws, freediver.


Likewise the definition of a court order specifically includes the order given - in this case (not) denying the holocaust. In case you are confused Aussie, I am not claiming all people jailed for contempt of court were jailed for denying the holocaust, only the guy who was jailed for denying the holocaust.

That is why your own evidence clearly states he was jailed for denying the holocaust.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35872
I like fish
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #65 - Dec 2nd, 2016 at 1:00pm
 
Raven wrote on Dec 1st, 2016 at 4:09pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 1st, 2016 at 1:40pm:
Raven wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:49pm:
freediver wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:29pm:
I could only sue you for defamation if I could demonstrate you cost me money, and my only recourse to get you to compensate me for my financial loss. There is no compensation for loss of reputation beyond that. The fact that it is such a controversial and provocative accusation is irrelevant. The truth of the claim is only relevant because it determines whether your actions or my actions were the cause of the financial loss, and most jurisdictions do not consider truth a universal defense against slander charges. You are more likely to get sued for defamation by accusing a retailer of ripping you off than you are for accusing someone of being a pedophile (unless they work in childcare or children's TV, in which case, get a lawyer).

In this case there is genuine and demonstrable harm - financial loss - and the law restricts itself to that demonstrable harm. In the case of 18c there is no demonstrable harm. There is endless vague waffle about degree to which people responded by feeling offended, how 'significant' the claims are etc. It is not trading off one value against another. It is a complete rejection of the fundamental precepts of freedom of speech.

No-one has the right not to be offended. End of story.


Incorrect you can sue for defamation if what was published would tend to lower a personís reputation in the eyes of an ordinary, reasonable person.


Are you attempting to contradict me?


No the Law is. Under Australian Law you can sue for defamation if:

- A comment or publication (which contains the alleged defamatory material) was communicated by the defendant to a third party

- The comment or publication adequately identified the plaintiff

- The comment or publication contained defamatory imputations

- The defendant is not able to rely on any defence which may be available to him/her

- Action has commenced for defamation within 1 year of the date of the comment or publication.


None of that actually supports this conclusion:

Quote:
You do not need to have been impacted financially to sue for defamation. You only need to show that the publican would lower your reputation in the eyes of an ordinary reasonable person.


If damages are not based on the financial impact of the loss of reputation, what else do you think they might be based on? Or have you not gotten that far yet?

Quote:
The defense for libel is whether published comments are true, and in the public interest.


The defense varies significantly with jurisdiction.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1542
Around
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #66 - Dec 2nd, 2016 at 1:10pm
 
Freediver

Yes you are certainly free to receive financial compensation for loss of character. You do not need to have suffered a financial loss to sue for defamation, you only need to show that your reputation has suffered as a result.
Back to top
 

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Whatever you're good at, there is probably an Asian that's better
 
IP Logged
 
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1542
Around
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #67 - Dec 2nd, 2016 at 1:13pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 2nd, 2016 at 1:00pm:
Quote:
The defense for libel is whether published comments are true, and in the public interest.


The defense varies significantly with jurisdiction.


Not so significantly, in every jurisdiction the truth is an absolute defence to defamation.
Back to top
 

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Whatever you're good at, there is probably an Asian that's better
 
IP Logged
 
Ye Grappler
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 28862
Mid-North Coast NSW
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #68 - Dec 2nd, 2016 at 2:23pm
 
Just getting my 18c worth in - it seems the cop-out is 'public interest'.....
Back to top
 

ďFacts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.Ē
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 27928
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #69 - Dec 2nd, 2016 at 5:12pm
 
Jaybuz, but you can be quite a bewildering in your comments, freediver, even ignorant of basic legal concepts like Raven, Karnal and I have pointed out to you.† Your assertion that you can only sue for defamation if there is financial loss is a very irresponsible thing for you to be posting.† There may be people here who foolishly think you actually know what you are talking about.† You are negligently misleading them.

Quote:
Likewise the definition of a court order specifically includes the order given.....


The bloke was jailed for contempt of Court, and for nothing else.† What was his contempt?† He defied a Court Order.

He had already published his denial of holocaust rubbish, and was not jailed for doing so.† He was ordered to cease publishing that material, an Order he defied, and was then jailed for contempt.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 2nd, 2016 at 5:21pm by Aussie »  

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.† ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45797
Gender: female
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #70 - Dec 2nd, 2016 at 5:18pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 2nd, 2016 at 1:00pm:
Raven wrote on Dec 1st, 2016 at 4:09pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 1st, 2016 at 1:40pm:
Raven wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:49pm:
freediver wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:29pm:
I could only sue you for defamation if I could demonstrate you cost me money, and my only recourse to get you to compensate me for my financial loss. There is no compensation for loss of reputation beyond that. The fact that it is such a controversial and provocative accusation is irrelevant. The truth of the claim is only relevant because it determines whether your actions or my actions were the cause of the financial loss, and most jurisdictions do not consider truth a universal defense against slander charges. You are more likely to get sued for defamation by accusing a retailer of ripping you off than you are for accusing someone of being a pedophile (unless they work in childcare or children's TV, in which case, get a lawyer).

In this case there is genuine and demonstrable harm - financial loss - and the law restricts itself to that demonstrable harm. In the case of 18c there is no demonstrable harm. There is endless vague waffle about degree to which people responded by feeling offended, how 'significant' the claims are etc. It is not trading off one value against another. It is a complete rejection of the fundamental precepts of freedom of speech.

No-one has the right not to be offended. End of story.


Incorrect you can sue for defamation if what was published would tend to lower a personís reputation in the eyes of an ordinary, reasonable person.


Are you attempting to contradict me?


No the Law is. Under Australian Law you can sue for defamation if:

- A comment or publication (which contains the alleged defamatory material) was communicated by the defendant to a third party

- The comment or publication adequately identified the plaintiff

- The comment or publication contained defamatory imputations

- The defendant is not able to rely on any defence which may be available to him/her

- Action has commenced for defamation within 1 year of the date of the comment or publication.


None of that actually supports this conclusion:

Quote:
You do not need to have been impacted financially to sue for defamation. You only need to show that the publican would lower your reputation in the eyes of an ordinary reasonable person.


If damages are not based on the financial impact of the loss of reputation, what else do you think they might be based on? Or have you not gotten that far yet?

Quote:
The defense for libel is whether published comments are true, and in the public interest.


The defense varies significantly with jurisdiction.


These factors are the same in every Australian jurisdiction, FD.

Don't want to answer the question?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45797
Gender: female
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #71 - Dec 2nd, 2016 at 5:20pm
 
Culture Warrior wrote on Dec 2nd, 2016 at 8:39am:
freediver wrote on Dec 1st, 2016 at 1:40pm:
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism for the stupid things you say.


I am sure the lefties are shaking in their boots from such logic.† Roll Eyes


I'm sure the 2007 FD would be shaking in his boots to hear he's now on Team Mistie.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35872
I like fish
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #72 - Dec 2nd, 2016 at 7:30pm
 
Raven wrote on Dec 2nd, 2016 at 1:10pm:
Freediver

Yes you are certainly free to receive financial compensation for loss of character. You do not need to have suffered a financial loss to sue for defamation, you only need to show that your reputation has suffered as a result.


You said this already. The question I asked in response is, how do you place a value on the reputation for the purpose of compensation if not a measure of lost income?

Raven wrote on Dec 2nd, 2016 at 1:13pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 2nd, 2016 at 1:00pm:
Quote:
The defense for libel is whether published comments are true, and in the public interest.


The defense varies significantly with jurisdiction.


Not so significantly, in every jurisdiction the truth is an absolute defence to defamation.


No it is not, and the passage you quoted explains this.

Quote:
Jaybuz, but you can be quite a bewildering in your comments, freediver, even ignorant of basic legal concepts like Raven, Karnal and I have pointed out to you.


Which concepts? Raven's concept that truth is always an absolute defence? Or Karnal's that public interest can also be a factor? Can you tell the difference?

Quote:
The bloke was jailed for contempt of Court, and for nothing else.  What was his contempt?  He defied a Court Order.


Try stringing three thoughts together now Aussie. I'm sure you can if you concentrate. How did he defy the court order. If you are not sure, refer to the evidence you posted earlier that clearly concludes he was jailed for denying the holocaust.

Quote:
He had already published his denial of holocaust rubbish, and was not jailed for doing so.  He was ordered to cease publishing that material, an Order he defied, and was then jailed for contempt.


Grin Grin Grin

So he was not jailed for denying the holocaust. He was jailed for not ceasing to deny the holocaust?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 27928
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #73 - Dec 2nd, 2016 at 7:51pm
 
Finally...after how many pages, you get it correct:

Quote:
So he was not jailed for denying the holocaust. He was jailed for not ceasing to deny the holocaust?


....as he was ordered to do by the Court.

Quote:
The question I asked in response is, how do you place a value on the reputation for the purpose of compensation if not a measure of lost income?


If I punch you in the head causing you no economic loss....just some pain and suffering............the Law will put a dollar value on it.....and you will get monetary compensation....just like it will with a person's harmed reputation.

FD....I have refrained from personally abusing you, yet you continue to personally abuse me with pathetic snark.† Please desist.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs..yuk.† ~ GordyL.
Nicole Page 2016 exhorts that we kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Post # 14 here ~  http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=14
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 35872
I like fish
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #74 - Dec 2nd, 2016 at 9:52pm
 
So you agree that he was jailed for not refraining from denying the holocaust, but think this is fundamentally different from being jailed for denying the holocaust?

Quote:
If I punch you in the head causing you no economic loss....just some pain and suffering............the Law will put a dollar value on it.....and you will get monetary compensation....just like it will with a person's harmed reputation.


I did not ask whether the law puts a dollar value on physical harm. I asked how, besides lost income, the law puts a dollar value on harm to reputation. There are plenty here who insist it does, but none can come up with an answer.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10
Send Topic Print