Forum

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

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10
Send Topic Print
be heard on 18c and freedom of speech (Read 25463 times)
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1600
Around
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #75 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 2:59am
 
[quote author=freediver link=1480201951/72#72 date=1480671057][quote author=Raven link=1480201951/66#66 date=1480648235]

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.[/quote]

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?

[color=#ff0000]That is up to a court to decide. However Raven was arguing the point you made that you can only sue for defamation if you suffered a financial loss. This is false. You can sue for defamation if your character has been damaged.[/color]

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

The defense varies significantly with jurisdiction.[/quote]

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

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

[color=#ff0000]Yes it is. If what you say is the truth you cannot be sued for defamation[/color]

[/quote]
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 3rd, 2016 at 3:10am by Raven »  

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36537
I like fish
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #76 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 7:48am
 
Quote:
That is up to a court to decide.


Thanks Raven. I thought it might be some kind of lottery. Do you think the courts might award damages based on financial loss suffered?

Are you attempting to argue that you can technically sue for defamation regardless of financial loss, but if there is no financial aspect, you get no damages?

Quote:
However Raven was arguing the point you made that you can only sue for defamation if you suffered a financial loss. This is false. You can sue for defamation if your character has been damaged.


Again, you fail to actually contradict me. The loss of reputation is the mechanism behind the financial loss.

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: 30150
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #77 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 2:26pm
 
You seem very confused, freediver. 

First, your position was:

Quote:
I could only sue you for defamation if I could demonstrate you cost me money
,.........


Of course, that is outrageously incorrect, and instead of just acknowledging you were gobbing off in complete ignorance, you....second:  And in a mammoth goal post movement......

Quote:
I asked how, besides lost income, the law puts a dollar value on harm to reputation.


Actually, you did not ask that at all, because you were insisting one can only sue for defamation if there has been proven monetary loss.

The Court will decide what to award (in the case of no proven monetary loss) based on all the circumstances, not some 'carved in stone' algorithm.

For example:

Link.

Raven has explained this, and you just ignore him as you do with anyone who correctly challenges your bullshit. 
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Violent cods ~ I know if he had touched my kid  he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance.
 
IP Logged
 
gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14705
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #78 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 5:12pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 3rd, 2016 at 7:48am:
Are you attempting to argue that you can technically sue for defamation regardless of financial loss, but if there is no financial aspect, you get no damages?


Don't overcomplicate this FD. He's merely pointing out that this statement of yours is BS:

freediver wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:29pm:
I could only sue you for defamation if I could demonstrate you cost me money


If you are right, could you explain to me how Joe Hockey "demonstrated" The Age "cost him money" with the 'treasurer for sale' headline?
Back to top
 

Frank wrote on Apr 10th, 2017 at 7:57pm:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36537
I like fish
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #79 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 7:46pm
 
Quote:
The Court will decide what to award (in the case of no proven monetary loss) based on all the circumstances, not some 'carved in stone' algorithm.


Who said anything about algorithms Aussie? I just said it was based on loss of income. After accusing me of lying, incorrectly, for the second time in this thread, are you now saying you actually agree with me?

Can you clarify that when you accused me of lying about whether the man was jailed for denying the holocaust (without explanation) you merely meant that he was jailed for refusing to cease denying the holocaust? Why is it that the evidence you introduced does not make the same distinction? Did you introduce a lie as evidence?
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
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 47589
Gender: female
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #80 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:09pm
 
G asked you a question, FD.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 30150
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #81 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:22pm
 
Karnal wrote on Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:09pm:
G asked you a question, FD.


I'll add another one.

FD, do you still assert that you cannot sue anyone for defamation unless you can prove economic loss because of the alleged defamation?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Violent cods ~ I know if he had touched my kid  he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36537
I like fish
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #82 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:38pm
 
Thanks for the question Aussie. Please quote me saying it the first time round, then I will tell you whether I "still" assert it.

Or, you could just keep things simple by sticking to what i actually say. Have you found the quote button yet?

After accusing me of lying, incorrectly, for the second time in this thread, are you now saying you actually agree with me?

Can you clarify that when you accused me of lying about whether the man was jailed for denying the holocaust (without explanation) you merely meant that he was jailed for refusing to cease denying the holocaust? Why is it that the evidence you introduced does not make the same distinction? Did you introduce a lie as evidence?
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: 30150
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #83 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:40pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:38pm:
Thanks for the question Aussie. Please quote me saying it the first time round, then I will tell you whether I "still" assert it.

Or, you could just keep things simple by sticking to what i actually say. Have you found the quote button yet?

After accusing me of lying, incorrectly, for the second time in this thread, are you now saying you actually agree with me?

Can you clarify that when you accused me of lying about whether the man was jailed for denying the holocaust (without explanation) you merely meant that he was jailed for refusing to cease denying the holocaust? Why is it that the evidence you introduced does not make the same distinction? Did you introduce a lie as evidence?


Your words:

Quote:
I could only sue you for defamation if I could demonstrate you cost me money....


They were yours, yeas, freediver?
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Violent cods ~ I know if he had touched my kid  he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36537
I like fish
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #84 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:43pm
 
That wasn't so hard, was it Aussie.

Do you assert anything different? So far none of you have been prepared to suggest an alternative means by which the court arrives at damages.

After accusing me of lying, incorrectly, for the second time in this thread, are you now saying you actually agree with me?

Can you clarify that when you accused me of lying about whether the man was jailed for denying the holocaust (without explanation) you merely meant that he was jailed for refusing to cease denying the holocaust? Why is it that the evidence you introduced does not make the same distinction? Did you introduce a lie as evidence?
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: 30150
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #85 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:49pm
 
Quote:
That wasn't so hard, was it Aussie.


No, it wasn't especially given I have quoted it for you at least twice before.

Tobin was jailed for defying a Court Order.  Contempt of Court.  That is what he was convicted of and jailed for.  If you have proof otherwise, let's see it.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Violent cods ~ I know if he had touched my kid  he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36537
I like fish
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #86 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:50pm
 
Can you clarify that when you accused me of lying about whether the man was jailed for denying the holocaust (without explanation) you merely meant that he was jailed for refusing to cease denying the holocaust? Why is it that the evidence you introduced does not make the same distinction? Did you introduce a lie as evidence?
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
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 47589
Gender: female
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #87 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:56pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:50pm:
Can you clarify that when you accused me of lying about whether the man was jailed for denying the holocaust (without explanation) you merely meant that he was jailed for refusing to cease denying the holocaust? Why is it that the evidence you introduced does not make the same distinction? Did you introduce a lie as evidence?


Can you answer G and Aussie's question?

freediver wrote on Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:40pm:
Even for an apologist you are going to elaborate lengths to avoid the question.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 30150
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #88 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:58pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:50pm:
Can you clarify that when you accused me of lying about whether the man was jailed for denying the holocaust (without explanation) you merely meant that he was jailed for refusing to cease denying the holocaust?


How many times must I do that for you freediver?   I have agreed with that.

What you originally said (and it was a lie) was that he was jailed for denying the holocaust.  Are you now denying you said that, freediver?

Quote:
Why is it that the evidence you introduced does not make the same distinction? Did you introduce a lie as evidence?


No, I did not.  I highlighted your lie, one you offered to suit, yet again, your personal agenda.
Back to top
 

And Indian women aren't exactly LBFMs.  ~ GordyL.
Nicole ~ kill every man woman and child, who is a Muslim.
Violent cods ~ I know if he had touched my kid  he [taxi driver]would need an Ambulance.
 
IP Logged
 
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1600
Around
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #89 - Dec 3rd, 2016 at 11:23pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 3rd, 2016 at 7:48am:
Quote:
That is up to a court to decide.


Thanks Raven. I thought it might be some kind of lottery. Do you think the courts might award damages based on financial loss suffered?

Are you attempting to argue that you can technically sue for defamation regardless of financial loss, but if there is no financial aspect, you get no damages?


The courts can certainly award damages for financial loss if you can prove said loss.

And no Raven is not arguing that as you well know. There is no legislation in any jurisdiction in Australia that says you must have suffered financial loss to sue for defamation. Your original statement that you can only sue if you suffered financial loss is false

If Raven told told a third party  that you like to molest horses you could sue Raven for defamation.

Back to top
 

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10
Send Topic Print