Forum

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

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
Send Topic Print
be heard on 18c and freedom of speech (Read 79158 times)
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #45 - Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:03pm
 
freediver wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 5:01pm:
Quote:
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.


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.


Let's say Raven is a popular TV personality with an audience of a million plus people. One night Raven does a story where he accuses "Freediver of being the worst child rapist in Australia" using words like predator, vile, abuse of trust. A story that has zero basis in reality.

What do you do?

Obviously you sue Raven for defamation, but what you are doing impinging on Ravens right to free speech.

Yes he used provocative language and the story presented was wrong but by your argument being wrong or provocative shouldn't be a factor.

Freedom of speech, like all rights is a balancing act. Is Raven's right to free speech more important than your right to freedom from defamation? Or your mother's right to freedom from sexual harassment? Or Ms Eatock's right to freedom from racial vilification?

Amartya Sen uses a good analogy.

3 children fight over a toy flute, each has a just claim to the flute. One child has no toys while the others have many, one can play the flute while the others can't and one made the flute when the others did not.

As a society we must balance these rights, which is why 18D is a "get out of jail free" card.

It is a measure of Andrew Bolt's egregiousness in his two columns that he could run afoul of these expansive exemptions.
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
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #46 - 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.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #47 - Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:34pm
 
Quote:
I could only sue you for defamation if I could demonstrate you cost me money,.....


Sheer, and utter crap.  A lie even.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #48 - Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:40pm
 
Aussie wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:34pm:
Quote:
I could only sue you for defamation if I could demonstrate you cost me money,.....


Sheer, and utter crap.  A lie even.


Wasn't far of eh Aussie?

freediver wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 5:08pm:
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 27th, 2016 at 8:27pm:
Sorry, FD.  I'm not playing anymore.


Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 8:27pm:
No more from me.


Aussie wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 5:11pm:
.....and as the Man said.....'No more from me.'  (Until I forget or change my mind.)


freediver wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 5:13pm:
See you in 20 minutes then.

Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #49 - Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:42pm
 
Aussie wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:34pm:
Quote:
I could only sue you for defamation if I could demonstrate you cost me money,.....


Sheer, and utter crap.  A lie even.


Consider me your conscience.  I'll always turn up when you post lies to further your personal agenda.


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


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #50 - 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 person’s reputation in the eyes of an ordinary, reasonable person.
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
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91854
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #51 - Nov 30th, 2016 at 7:33pm
 
freediver wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 5:01pm:
Quote:
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.


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.


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?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #52 - Dec 1st, 2016 at 8:11am
 
Don't worry Aussie, FD was a little more circumspect about the Tobin case a couple of years ago:

freediver wrote on Oct 8th, 2014 at 1:11pm:
While I acknowledge that Toben was punished, it is unclear to me exactly what for. It appears it was ineffective in silencing him, and as Brian pointed out, there are plenty of other Australian groups and individuals doing the same.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #53 - Dec 1st, 2016 at 8:19am
 
freediver wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:29pm:
I could only sue you for defamation if I could demonstrate you cost me money,


Complete nonsense.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Postmodern Trendoid III
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 10259
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #54 - 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Postmodern Trendoid III
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 10259
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #55 - Dec 1st, 2016 at 10:35am
 
Libertarians are so naive. Do they really think people with an axe to grind care about their opponents' right to free speech? How do you think the left won the culture war? For the past 40-50 years they have purposely suppressed and demonised their opponents. The alt-right are fully cognisant of this, so are some like Mark Latham. Time for pussy-footing around is over. The left set the standard and now they're going to get it back. Alinsky has become a rightist. 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #56 - 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 person’s 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.

Quote:
Libertarians are so naive. Do they really think people with an axe to grind care about their opponents' right to free speech? How do you think the left won the culture war? For the past 40-50 years they have purposely suppressed and demonised their opponents.


Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism for the stupid things you say.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Dec 1st, 2016 at 1:45pm by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #57 - Dec 1st, 2016 at 1:46pm
 
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 person’s reputation in the eyes of an ordinary, reasonable person.


Are you attempting to contradict me?


Just about everyone is.  Your are posting absolute garbage.....what you say is totally incorrect, in Law.  Do you think you ought be allowed to mislead people on what is a simple legal concept?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #58 - Dec 1st, 2016 at 1:51pm
 
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 27th, 2016 at 8:44pm:
Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 8:22pm:
Quote:
So let me get this straight. The man committed contempt of court by denying the holocaust and was jailed for it,


Read the Judgement I gave you the link to. 


I did Aussie. I even quoted it back to you and suggested you read it yourself (but reassured you that I would understand if you could not, given all the complicated legal stuff in there). Here is is again for you - you're own evidence remember:

Pausing there, it follows from the above that there is no room for dispute that Dr Toben has spent time in prison in Australia for criminal contempt constituted by the publication of material found to have racially vilified the Jewish people and which conveyed imputations including that there was serious doubt that the Holocaust occurred.

Would it be fair to describe this as I did above - that the criminal contempt for which he was jailed took the form of holocaust denial?

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


I understand it. I just don't believe you are actually saying it. You have said some strange things in the past, but this is plumbing new depths. Normally you are furiously backpedaling by this stage.

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


You have until December 19 to make yourself heard Aussie. I will take it down after that. I am sure you agree this is important. If I can find a way to control which sub-forums this appears on, I will let you know. In the meantime, thank you for your patience and understanding.

Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #59 - 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
Send Topic Print