Please make a submission to the government inquiry into section 18c of the racial discrimination act. You have until December 9. Make a submission online here (button on right of page):

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Human_Rights_inqui...

Key points you might want to address:

* A fundamental precept of free speech is that no-one has the right not to be offended. Citing offense as a justification for restricting speech legally is a fundamental attack on freedom of speech.
* Likewise, insult, humiliation and intimidation are entirely a measure of people's response to speech, rather than the speech itself.
* These terms are vague to the point of meaningless and will inevitably be used to further social and political agendas rather than protect people from genuine harm.
* The racial discrimination act should not be used to silence people who offer alternative views on history. It is completely inappropriate for example to jail someone for denying the holocaust, regardless of how strongly you feel about their views.

Nothing that I am aware of Aussie.

What is the point you are trying to make?

Well even Triggs admits 18c etc need changing...
So thanks FD I'll be putting in my opinions on it too.

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 10:04am:


Gee, I've never heard that one before.   

What is that anyone wants to say that 18C/D prevents them from saying?

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 11:41am:


I am not here to defend any European Law.  18C/D has nothing to do with that.  And, it is a blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind on your part freediver to assert he was jailed in SA for denying the holocaust. 

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 12:26pm:


It is a blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind, freediver, to assert he was jailed for denying the holocaust.  Would you like the relevant links to the actual cases?

What is also relevant is that you must rely on bullshit to support your contention.  Telling.

Do you have any better examples of what you are bullshitting about than Töben?

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 12:42pm:


So, your retraction and apology will be in your next post?

Quote:


Link.

Quote:


Bolt should have been let off then because of 18D yet wasn't....  gee I wonder why?  As long as we have politically biased people and ideologues in our institutions we will never have fair systems.

Grendel wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 1:17pm:


He was done because he lied on relevant issues.....a lie can hardly ne made in good faith, can it.

(We've done this to death here before.   Bolt came undone because of falsehoods and for no other reason.)

Aussie wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 1:26pm:

Bolt was done for not being a PC Leftwing Progressive...
18D as it stands should be a get out of gaol free card for anyone, unless you are a bonafide mindreader that can actually prove otherwise.
You are such a fool...

Aussie wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 1:20pm:


Read the rest of the sentence Aussie. What form did the criminal contempt take? Or are you seriously suggesting that because the name of the crime was 'criminal contempt' rather than 'denying the holocaust' that he was therefor not jailed for denying the holocaust?

Aussie wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 1:36pm:

You keep missing the point....  as usual...  deliberately it would seem.
Stop wasting my time...   
My point is clear and stands... 


The judge's decision proves 2 points I made...
1/ Bias in the judiciary.
2/ That 18c needs to be abolished or amended.

You are such a loser when it comes to factual refutation aren't you.

Aussie wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:


So let me get this straight. The man committed contempt of court by denying the holocaust and was jailed for it, but that is different to being jailed for denying the holocaust? Is this really what you are saying Aussie?

Quote:


Read the Judgement I gave you the link to.  He committed a contempt of Court by defying an Order of a competent Court.  When will that get through to you?

Quote:


Indeed it is.

Quote:


People with a brain and not a political agenda will already have noticed that is exactly what I am saying.

Would you mind removing this from Relationships where you have stickied it.)  It has (a) nothing to do with that Sub-Forum and (b) I don't wish to host it.

Oh.....I see now.  FD has stickied this Thread over the entire Forum!!!!!!!!!  Sorry, FD.  I'm not playing anymore.

It is a political topic having nothing to do with any of the Sub-Forums.

No more from me.

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 10:04am:


Good point, FD. First, you came for the Muslims...

Daresay that Labor Polly and Triggsy would have a few words to say about the attempt to ban free speech Section 18c.

Its odd you're championing free speech but wont let a minority comment on Feedback FD

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.

His freedom of speech has not been violated.

Free speech, like many other human rights, is not absolute. It can be legitimately limited to protect against the serious harm that can flow from some speech such as sexual harassment, threats to kills, misleading and deceptive conduct and defamation.

After the Bolt case Tony Abbott responded to the decision by saying “we should never do anything that restricts the sacred principle of free speech.”

This from a man who successfully sued a book publisher for defamation over false and offensive remarks about him, receiving a significant compensation order in 1999 for damage to his reputation.

In regards to Bolt the court made it very clear that it’s not unlawful to publish articles that deal with racial identity or challenge the genuineness of someone’s racial identity.

To rely on the free speech exemptions, the offensive racial conduct must be done reasonably and in good faith.

Take Pauline Hanson's book The Truth that argued that Aboriginal people were unfairly favoured by social security policies. This was found to fall within the free speech safeguards as it was genuine political debate done reasonably and in good faith.

Bolt’s articles didn’t fall within the exemption because the court found that his articles contained multiple errors of material fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language. This meant that he could not rely on any of the free speech exemptions.

This extract from the court's decision provides an example

Quote:


And Bolt, a so called free speech crusader, and his ilk have some of the strongest censorship of free speech. Try writing what ever you want on Bolt's blog and see how far it gets you.

Bolt made an arse of himself so don't cry "free speech" when people condemn him.

Quote:


I don't think being wrong should be a factor as far as the law is concerned. For example, you could argue the guy who was jailed for denying the holocaust was wrong. In fact, this is exactly what should have happened, instead of putting him in jail. Likewise, Bolt's errors should have spurred public debate around his errors of fact, which should have undermined his reputation. Instead, the opposite happened. It became an issue of rights rather than facts, and Bolt is more popular than ever, despite being wrong.

Using "inflammatory or provocative" language should also be protected under freedom of speech, or at least, not a justification by themselves for legal recourse. Some of our most celebrated works are celebrated because they are provocative.

Don't be embarrassed Aussie. Everyone's memory fails them occasionally. See the lengthy discussion you participated in about this very topic, earlier in this very thread.

Here are some links:

Aussie wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 8:27pm:


Aussie wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 8:27pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 5:08pm:


If you are referring to Tobin, he was jailed in Australia for defying a Court Order, and for nothing else.  The embarrassment is yours freediver.  You simply refuse to acknowledge the truth, as usual.

See you in 20 minutes then.

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.

Aussie wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 6:34pm:


Wasn't far of eh Aussie?

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 5:08pm:


Aussie wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 5:11pm:


freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 5:13pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 6:29pm:


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

Don't worry Aussie, FD was a little more circumspect about the Tobin case a couple of years ago:

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2014 at 1:11pm:

Raven wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 1:28pm:


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.

Raven wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 6:49pm:


Are you attempting to contradict me?

Quote:


Read what I just posted Karnal.

Quote:


Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism for the stupid things you say.

Sure Aussie. I let you do it all the time. For example, here is the last legal discussion you ran away from promising not to come back. 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. Would you also claim that getting jailed for manslaughter is different to getting jailed for killing someone?

Don't forget that this is a global announcement on a public forum so people might read what you post.

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 8:44pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2016 at 1:40pm:


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.

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 2016 at 1:40pm:


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?

Aussie wrote on Dec 1^st, 2016 at 1:57pm:


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.

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.

Just getting my 18c worth in - it seems the cop-out is 'public interest'.....

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2016 at 1:00pm:


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

Don't want to answer the question?

Raven wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2016 at 1:10pm:


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 2^nd, 2016 at 1:13pm:


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

Quote:


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:


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:




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

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:


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.

Quote:


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:


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

freediver wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2016 at 7:48am:


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

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 6:29pm:


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

G asked you a question, FD.

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?

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?

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?

freediver wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2016 at 8:50pm:


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:


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

Quote:


You have hinted at it once so far, then avoided it. So you actually agree that he was jailed for "refusing to cease denying" the holocaust, but describe as a "blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind" my description that he was jailed for denying the holocaust, then produce evidence that supports my interpretation without making the distinction you do.

Is that why you spent so long avoiding going into any detail Aussie?

Why is it deceptive Aussie? Evidence that you produced made the same conclusion.

freediver wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2016 at 8:38pm:


I've found it FD.

Here's what you actually say:

Quote:


Do you stand by it?

freediver wrote on Dec 6^th, 2016 at 5:57pm:


I've corrected the question so that I am not verballed, and to make it accurate in terms of what I said, and not what FD wishes I had said.

Quote:


Yes.

Are you trying to say that you know I am wrong but you don't know what the right answer is?

freediver wrote on Dec 6^th, 2016 at 5:57pm:


Yes - Raven has explained it to you several times.

Could you explain to me how Joe Hockey demonstrated financial loss in his win in the 'treasurer for sale' headline? I mean thats the only way he could have won right?

Quote:


Yes FD - I was the one who explained that to you remember? I'm glad you understand this now since in our previous discussion you were far less sure:

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2014 at 1:11pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 12:15pm:


Incorrect.  All you have to do is read my Posts with both eyes open.

Freediver

Most complaints of defamation are dealt with under civil law. That means that cases go to a civil court and are punished by awarding money (called damages) against the person found to have committed the offence. In civil defamation, the principle is the same as for someone who has been physically injured as a result of someone else's actions, either through carelessness or a planned attack.

Under the uniform law, it is usual for juries to determine whether defamation took place and whether the publisher or broadcaster has a defence. If defamation is proved and there is no acceptable defence, the judge will decide how much harm has been done and express that in the amount of damages they award.

General or compensatory damages are damages a court may award for a person's loss of reputation, shame or hurt feelings. Under common law, once the court has found that he has been defamed, the plaintiff does not have to prove that actual harm has been done.

Raven wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 4:17pm:


Of course they don't. Proving it would be next to impossible. This is like Gandalf demanding evidence of the Indonesians not saying things they are not saying.

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2016 at 8:40pm:


The point is your comment that one can only sue if they lost money is false