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_inquiries/FreedomspeechAustralia

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.

What do you want to say, freediver, which 18C and D precludes you from saying?

Nothing that I am aware of Aussie.

What is the point you are trying to make?

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 9:29am:

Nothing that I am aware of Aussie. What is the point you are trying to make?

I've made it.  No need for change.  It does not inhibit you at all.

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

Aussie are you actually suggesting we should not defend other people's rights unless we are personally and directly affected?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

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

Aussie are you actually suggesting we should not defend other people's rights unless we are personally and directly affected? First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. Pastor Martin Niemöller

Gee, I've never heard that one before.   ::)

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

Gerald Fredrick Töben (director and founder of the Adelaide Institute) has been jailed in South Australia, as well as the UK and Germany for denying the holocaust. This is one of the most ludicrous uses of the law in a supposedly free society - preventing people from questioning historical facts.

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

Gerald Fredrick Töben (director and founder of the Adelaide Institute) has been jailed in South Australia, as well as the UK and Germany for denying the holocaust. This is one of the most ludicrous uses of the law in a supposedly free society - preventing people from questioning historical facts.

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. 

He was jailed for denying the holocaust Aussie.

If you know so much about this, why all the silly questions?

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

He was jailed for denying the holocaust Aussie. If you know so much about this, why all the silly questions?

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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Fredrick_T%C3%B6ben

Töben rejects what he calls the "official conspiracy theory" that Germans systematically exterminated European Jewry. Töben has stated that "the current U.S. government is influenced by world Zionist considerations to retain the survival of the European colonial, apartheid, Zionist, racist entity of Israel."[33]

In 1994 he established the Adelaide Institute, which he directed until 2009. Töben and his associates at the Adelaide Institute have denied "being Holocaust deniers" in interviews conducted by Australian media, claiming they cannot deny that which never happened.[34]

On 10 October 2000, the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ruled that the Adelaide Institute should remove website material the Commission considered racial hate speech.

On 17 September 2002, the Federal Court of Australia affirmed on appeal the application of Australian anti-racial hatred laws against speech on Töben's website. It did not, however, force Töben to apologise. The ruling in Toben v Jones (2003) 129 FCR 515, was one of the first applications of Australian anti-racial hatred laws to speech against religious groups.[35][36][37]

In 2005 in an interview with Iranian state television he indicated that it was his belief that "Israel is founded on the Holocaust lie."[38][39] In 2006 Töben attended the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust in Iran.

In 1998 Töben was imprisoned for nine months at Mannheim Prison for breaching Germany's Holocaust Law, Section 130, that prohibits anyone from "defaming the dead".[3]

In April 2009, Töben was found guilty of contempt of court for breaching a court order to refrain from publishing material on his website vilifying Jewish people. He unreservedly apologised for his breaches of court orders and said he would not withdraw his apology as he had in the past.[40] He appealed against the sentence, but on 13 August 2009 the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia rejected his appeal, and he started his 3-month jail sentence, one week in maximum security-punishment block – first at Yatala Labour Prison, and later at Cadell Training Centre, a low security prison farm.[41]

The contempt arose from an action by Jeremy Jones, former President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. In 2012 Jones sought his court costs of more than $175,000 from Töben, who pleaded that he had no money. The Federal Magistrates Court declared Töben bankrupt and, consequently, his passport was confiscated.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Fredrick_T%C3%B6ben Töben rejects what he calls the "official conspiracy theory" that Germans systematically exterminated European Jewry. Töben has stated that "the current U.S. government is influenced by world Zionist considerations to retain the survival of the European colonial, apartheid, Zionist, racist entity of Israel."[33] In 1994 he established the Adelaide Institute, which he directed until 2009. Töben and his associates at the Adelaide Institute have denied "being Holocaust deniers" in interviews conducted by Australian media, claiming they cannot deny that which never happened.[34] On 10 October 2000, the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ruled that the Adelaide Institute should remove website material the Commission considered racial hate speech. On 17 September 2002, the Federal Court of Australia affirmed on appeal the application of Australian anti-racial hatred laws against speech on Töben's website. It did not, however, force Töben to apologise. The ruling in Toben v Jones (2003) 129 FCR 515, was one of the first applications of Australian anti-racial hatred laws to speech against religious groups.[35][36][37] In 2005 in an interview with Iranian state television he indicated that it was his belief that "Israel is founded on the Holocaust lie."[38][39] In 2006 Töben attended the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust in Iran. In 1998 Töben was imprisoned for nine months at Mannheim Prison for breaching Germany's Holocaust Law, Section 130, that prohibits anyone from "defaming the dead".[3] In April 2009, Töben was found guilty of contempt of court for breaching a court order to refrain from publishing material on his website vilifying Jewish people. He unreservedly apologised for his breaches of court orders and said he would not withdraw his apology as he had in the past.[40] He appealed against the sentence, but on 13 August 2009 the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia rejected his appeal, and he started his 3-month jail sentence, one week in maximum security-punishment block – first at Yatala Labour Prison, and later at Cadell Training Centre, a low security prison farm.[41] The contempt arose from an action by Jeremy Jones, former President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. In 2012 Jones sought his court costs of more than $175,000 from Töben, who pleaded that he had no money. The Federal Magistrates Court declared Töben bankrupt and, consequently, his passport was confiscated.

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


Quote:

Those orders are the orders to which reference is made in the primary judge’s reasons (at [105], as extracted at [3] above) and to which Dr Toben has referred as a ‘gag’ order (see [22] below). Dr Toben unsuccessfully brought an appeal from Branson J’s decision. In subsequent proceedings heard by Lander J (Jones v Toben (2009) 255 ALR 238; [2009] FCA 354), Dr Toben was found to be in contempt both of Branson J’s orders and of an undertaking he had given to Moore J in the Federal Court in late November 2007 that he would abide by those orders. His breach of the orders and non-compliance with the undertaking was found to be wilful and contumacious, amounting to a criminal contempt for which Dr Toben was sentenced in May 2009 by Lander J to three months’ imprisonment. Dr Toben’s appeal against the severity of that sentence was dismissed in August 2009 (Toben v Jones [2009] FCAFC 104). In his affidavit of 29 October 2014 sworn in the defamation proceedings the subject of the present appeal, Dr Toben has deposed to this period of imprisonment for contempt of court ([18]). 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. Nevertheless, in the defamation proceedings before the primary judge (and before this Court), he contends that the imputations conveyed in the matter complained of that he spent time in prison in Australia for anti-Semitic activities and for Holocaust denial are false. Similarly, although Dr Toben has deposed to having spent five months in prison in Germany in 1999 on a charge of an offence under s 130 of the German Criminal Code of “defaming the memory of the dead” (for which he says he was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment but released on payment of a sum of money – [21]), and though he wrote in the Adelaide Institute newsletter of April 2006 (No 282), of this event, that he was “worked over by the German judicial system at Mannheim” where he was sentenced for “daring to discuss and dispute matters concerning the ‘Holocaust’”, Dr Toben asserts that the imputations conveyed by the matter now complained of in relation to his time in prison in Germany are false.

Link.

Aussie wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 12:58pm:

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.

Thanks Aussie. I guess that settles it. No doubt all this legal stuff is very complicated for you, and I do not really expect you to read your evidence before posting it. However, surely you must appreciate your right to express your view on this important issue, no matter how wrong it is?

Quote:

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18D Exemptions                    Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:                      (a)  in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or                      (b)  in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or                      (c)  in making or publishing:                               (i)  a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or                              (ii)  a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

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.

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 1:14pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 12:58pm: 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. Thanks Aussie. I guess that settles it. No doubt all this legal stuff is very complicated for you, and I do not really expect you to read your evidence before posting it. However, surely you must appreciate your right to express your view on this important issue, no matter how wrong it is?

It sure does.  You lied in the most scurrilous manner.  You have form for that in the cause of promoting a falsehood.....how many did Mo kill in that alleged massacre, for example.

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

Quote: RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18D Exemptions                    Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:                      (a)  in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or                      (b)  in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or                      (c)  in making or publishing:                               (i)  a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or                              (ii)  a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment. 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.

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.)

Spurious complaints were made against Hanson years ago and each one was dismissed....

18D should be a get out of gaol free card for everyone.  Even delusional Muslim Jihadists.

The Racial Discrimination Act is a Nanny State farce and so is the Australian Human Rights Commission and its Commissioners.

All should be abolished.

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

Grendel wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: Quote: RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18D Exemptions                    Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:                      (a)  in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or                      (b)  in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or                      (c)  in making or publishing:                               (i)  a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or                              (ii)  a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment. 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. 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.)

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... :D :D :D :D :D

Grendel wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 1:30pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 1:26pm: Grendel wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: Quote: RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18D Exemptions                    Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:                      (a)  in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or                      (b)  in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or                      (c)  in making or publishing:                               (i)  a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or                              (ii)  a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment. 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. 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.) 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... :D :D :D :D :D

So early in the discussion, and you have already resorted to your usual ad hom abuse.

Link.


Quote:

Today Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg found Bolt had breached the act because the articles were not written in good faith and contained factual errors. He said the articles would have offended a reasonable member of the Aboriginal community.

See, he lied, so lost the capacity to use the defences in 18D.

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

freediver wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 1:14pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 12:58pm: 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. Thanks Aussie. I guess that settles it. No doubt all this legal stuff is very complicated for you, and I do not really expect you to read your evidence before posting it. However, surely you must appreciate your right to express your view on this important issue, no matter how wrong it is? It sure does.  You lied in the most scurrilous manner.  You have form for that in the cause of promoting a falsehood.....how many did Mo kill in that alleged massacre, for example.

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?

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 6:14pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 1:20pm: freediver wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 1:14pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 12:58pm: 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. Thanks Aussie. I guess that settles it. No doubt all this legal stuff is very complicated for you, and I do not really expect you to read your evidence before posting it. However, surely you must appreciate your right to express your view on this important issue, no matter how wrong it is? It sure does.  You lied in the most scurrilous manner.  You have form for that in the cause of promoting a falsehood.....how many did Mo kill in that alleged massacre, for example. 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?

Yes I am.  He was ordered by a competent Court not to do stuff (irrelevant to his eventual fate what that stuff was) and he defied the Order of the Court.  He was imprisoned for three months for that contempt......defiance of the Order of a competent Court.

That is why he was imprisoned.  Simple fact, and you can be as obviously disingenuous as you like, freediver, those facts will not change.

You lied to pursue your own little pathetic crusade you say you have mounted for others and not yourself, one you floated here, (even with a sticky no-one else can use here to ensure prominence) to push a barrow of complete bullshit.

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

Grendel wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 1:30pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 1:26pm: Grendel wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 1:17pm: Quote: RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18D Exemptions                    Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:                      (a)  in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or                      (b)  in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or                      (c)  in making or publishing:                               (i)  a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or                              (ii)  a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment. 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. 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.) 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... :D :D :D :D :D So early in the discussion, and you have already resorted to your usual ad hom abuse. Link. [quote]Today Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg found Bolt had breached the act because the articles were not written in good faith and contained factual errors. He said the articles would have offended a reasonable member of the Aboriginal community.

See, he lied, so lost the capacity to use the defences in 18D.


[/quote]
You keep missing the point....  as usual...  deliberately it would seem. :D :D :D :D :D
Stop wasting my time...   ::)
My point is clear and stands... 
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

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.

I really can't be bothered with that crap.  The Judge was biased was he?  Gee, did Bolt manage to establish that anywhere?  Does his 'conviction' stand or has he successfully appealed?

Perhaps you can have a go on this.  What is that you want to say that 18C/D prevents you from saying?

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

freediver wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 6:14pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 1:20pm: freediver wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 1:14pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 12:58pm: 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. Thanks Aussie. I guess that settles it. No doubt all this legal stuff is very complicated for you, and I do not really expect you to read your evidence before posting it. However, surely you must appreciate your right to express your view on this important issue, no matter how wrong it is? It sure does.  You lied in the most scurrilous manner.  You have form for that in the cause of promoting a falsehood.....how many did Mo kill in that alleged massacre, for example. 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? Yes I am.  He was ordered by a competent Court not to do stuff (irrelevant to his eventual fate what that stuff was) and he defied the Order of the Court.  He was imprisoned for three months for that contempt......defiance of the Order of a competent Court. That is why he was imprisoned.  Simple fact, and you can be as obviously disingenuous as you like, freediver, those facts will not change. You lied to pursue your own little pathetic crusade you say you have mounted for others and not yourself, one you floated here, (even with a sticky no-one else can use here to ensure prominence) to push a barrow of complete bullshit.

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?

Oh and BTW after the decision the counsel for the plaintiffs conceded Bolt's writings did not incite “racial vilification or racial hatred”.

So 18C is flawed and the case should never have been brought...  18D also would exclude such a travesty.

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.  He committed a contempt of Court by defying an Order of a competent Court.  When will that get through to you?


Quote:

....but that is different to being jailed for denying the holocaust?

Indeed it is.


Quote:

Is this really what you are saying Aussie?

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.

Grendel wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 8:13pm:

Oh and BTW after the decision the counsel for the plaintiffs conceded Bolt's writings [highlight]did not incite “racial vilification or racial hatred”[/highlight]. So 18C is flawed and the case should never have been brought...  18D also would exclude such a travesty.

You'll excuse me if I don't accept that blind.  Link please.

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.

Aussie wrote on Nov 27^th, 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.

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

Aussie are you actually suggesting we should not defend other people's rights unless we are personally and directly affected? First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. Pastor Martin Niemöller

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

Aussie wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 8:23pm:

Grendel wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Oh and BTW after the decision the counsel for the plaintiffs conceded Bolt's writings [highlight]did not incite “racial vilification or racial hatred”[/highlight]. So 18C is flawed and the case should never have been brought...  18D also would exclude such a travesty. You'll excuse me if I don't accept that blind.  Link please.

It's the truth...  not that you ever believe anyone...  not that you actually know anything and as usual you expect others who tell you the truth to do your researching for you so you can keep denying what they told you in the first place...

You have wasted far too much of my time on this already. :D :D :D :D :D

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

I dare say the 2007 FD would have had something to say about 18C too.

Post-2007 FD wants the Freeeeedom to tell porkies about Boongs a la Bolt.

You know, first they came for the Boongs...

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

I doubt Andrew Bolt will publish your views in The Australian either. You are still free to express them.

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:

Mr Bolt said of Wayne and Graham Atkinson that they were “Aboriginal because their Indian great-grandfather married a part-Aboriginal woman” (1A-33). In the second article Mr Bolt wrote of Graham Atkinson that “his right to call himself Aboriginal rests on little more than the fact that his Indian great-grandfather married a part-Aboriginal woman” (A2-28). The facts given by Mr Bolt and the comment made upon them are grossly incorrect. The Atkinsons’ parents are both Aboriginal as are all four of their grandparents and all of their great grandparents other than one who is the Indian great grandfather that Mr Bolt referred to in the article.

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.

Excellent post, Raven.

I think what Bolt, FD and some others are arguing for is the right to express hate speech. FD has often asked why Muslims should not be free to insult their own prophet.

They are, of course, but why don't more Muslims do it?

This is FD's sole reason for defending free speech: he wants to institutionalise hate speech against Muslims.

In the nicest possible way, of course.

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.

Quote:

For example, you could argue the guy who was jailed for denying the holocaust was wrong.

What guy.  Link?

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:

Sorry, FD.  I'm not playing anymore.

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

No more from me.

Quote:

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.

And who was successfully prosecuted under 18C/D for their inflammatory or provocative work which became celebrated?

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 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.

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.

.....and as the Man said.....'No more from me.'  (Until I forget or change my mind.)

See you in 20 minutes then.

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 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.

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.

Quote:

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

Sheer, and utter crap.  A lie even.

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

.....and as the Man said.....'No more from me.'  (Until I forget or change my mind.)

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

See you in 20 minutes then.

Aussie wrote on Nov 30^th, 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.

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 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.

freediver wrote on Nov 30^th, 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?

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:

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.

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

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

Complete nonsense.

Raven wrote on Nov 30^th, 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.

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. 

Raven wrote on Nov 30^th, 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.

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 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?

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:

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.[/quote]

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.

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 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?

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.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 1^st, 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.

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 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.

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?

freediver wrote on Dec 1^st, 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.  ::)

Aussie wrote on Dec 1^st, 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.
[/quote]

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.

Raven wrote on Dec 1^st, 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 person’s 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.

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.

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 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.

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

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.

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 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 person’s 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.[/quote]

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

Don't want to answer the question?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 2^nd, 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.  ::)

I'm sure the 2007 FD would be shaking in his boots to hear he's now on Team Mistie.

Raven wrote on Dec 2^nd, 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 2^nd, 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.

;D ;D ;D

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

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.

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.

freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 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? 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. 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.[/quote]

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

Yes it is. If what you say is the truth you cannot be sued for defamation

[/quote]

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.

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. 

freediver wrote on Dec 3^rd, 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 30^th, 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?

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?

G asked you a question, FD.

Karnal wrote on Dec 3^rd, 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?

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?

freediver wrote on Dec 3^rd, 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?

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?

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.

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:

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 3^rd, 2016 at 8:40pm:

Even for an apologist you are going to elaborate lengths to avoid the question.

freediver wrote on Dec 3^rd, 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.

freediver wrote on Dec 3^rd, 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.

Quote:

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

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?

freediver wrote on Dec 4^th, 2016 at 8:17am:

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

There you go yet again with deceptive language.  He was jailed for Contempt of Court.  His contempt was defiance of a Court Order.  The Court Order was that he cease distributing holocaust denial material.  He then distributed that material.  Ergo, he was not jailed for denying the holocaust.

How hard is that to understand?

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

freediver wrote on Dec 4^th, 2016 at 8:47am:

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

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Angry-Mr-Bean-Shakes-Head.gif

freediver wrote on Dec 3^rd, 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?

I've found it FD.

Here's what you actually say:


Quote:

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

Do you stand by it?

Sure. Has anyone suggested an alternative means of arriving at damages?

Gandalf, do you agree that Toben was jailed for denying the holocaust, or do you take the learned Aussie's view that he was jailed for not refraining from denying the holocaust (and anything else is a blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind)

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

Sure. Has anyone suggested an alternative means of arriving at damages? Gandalf, do you agree that Toben was jailed for denying the holocaust, or do you take the learned Aussie's view that he was jailed for Contempt of Court by defying a Court Order not refraining from denying the holocaust (and anything else is a blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind)

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.

Aussie wrote on Dec 6^th, 2016 at 6:11pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 6th, 2016 at 5:57pm: Sure. Has anyone suggested an alternative means of arriving at damages? Gandalf, do you agree that Toben was jailed for denying the holocaust, or do you take the learned Aussie's view that he was jailed for Contempt of Court by defying a Court Order not refraining from denying the holocaust (and anything else is a blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind) 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.

Your own words Aussie:


Aussie wrote on Dec 2^nd, 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.

Your own words again Aussie:


Aussie wrote on Dec 3^rd, 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.

The evidence you introduced Aussie:


Aussie wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 12:58pm:

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.

After agreeing with all this, do you still insist it is a "blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind" to suggest he was jailed for denying the holocaust?

Quote:

After agreeing with all this, do you still insist it is a "blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind" to suggest he was jailed for denying the holocaust?

Yes.

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

Sure. Has anyone suggested an alternative means of arriving at damages?

Please provide the relevant legislation from any jurisdiction in Australia that shows a financial loss must be incurred in order to bring a suit of defamation against someone

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 8:26pm:

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

Yes Raven does know the answer, he'll show you his if you show him yours.

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

Sure. Has anyone suggested an alternative means of arriving at damages?

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:

Gandalf, do you agree that Toben was jailed for denying the holocaust...?

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:

While I acknowledge that Toben was punished, it is unclear to me exactly what for.

Aussie wrote on Dec 6^th, 2016 at 7:15pm:

Quote: After agreeing with all this, do you still insist it is a "blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind" to suggest he was jailed for denying the holocaust? Yes.

Do you always find it this easy to promote two contradictory positions at the same time? Is this why you kept promising to run away from this discussion and not return?


Quote:

Yes - Raven has explained it to you several times.

So far none of Raven's 'explanations' contradict my own view, or provide any detail at all. Saying you can get compensated for loss of reputation does not contradict saying you can get compensated for the lost income associated with loss of reputation.

No alternatives have been put forward. You, Raven and Aussie have come up with nothing more than "you are wrong, but we can't say what the right answer is".


Quote:

Could you explain to me how Joe Hockey demonstrated financial loss in his win in the 'treasurer for sale' headline?

No.

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

Aussie wrote on Dec 6th, 2016 at 7:15pm: Quote: After agreeing with all this, do you still insist it is a "blatant lie of the most scurrilous kind" to suggest he was jailed for denying the holocaust? Yes. Do you always find it this easy to promote two contradictory positions at the same time? Is this why you kept promising to run away from this discussion and not return? [quote]Yes - Raven has explained it to you several times.

So far none of Raven's 'explanations' contradict my own view, or provide any detail at all. Saying you can get compensated for loss of reputation does not contradict saying you can get compensated for the lost income associated with loss of reputation.

No alternatives have been put forward. You, Raven and Aussie have come up with nothing more than "you are wrong, but we can't say what the right answer is".


Quote:

Could you explain to me how Joe Hockey demonstrated financial loss in his win in the 'treasurer for sale' headline?

No.[/quote]

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

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

So far none of Raven's 'explanations' contradict my own view, or provide any detail at all. Saying you can get compensated for loss of reputation does not contradict saying you can get compensated for the lost income associated with loss of reputation.

Oh my. Is that how you are trying to twist "your view" now? Just so we don't fall down the endless FD obfuscation spiral - lets remind ourself exactly what "your view" is:


Quote:

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

For such a statement to be true, it would need to be specifically set out in the law. Thats just common sense. Thats the first point. The second point is that as it so happens, the legislation on defamation actually has a section concerned  specifically with "Damages for non-economic loss". So in answer to your question - how on earth can they calculate an amount of money for damages in these non-economic cases? Well they have a formula based on average weekly total earnings of full-time adults in Australia, and it is capped. Here is the NSW legislation: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/da200599/s35.html#maximum_damages_amount

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.

No more questions at this time, habibis. FD has left the building.

Freeeedom, innit.

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

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.

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.

Sorry, FD, are you taking questions?

Mother has a brilliant article on the Amerikan empire on the Amerikan board.

Would you care to comment?

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

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

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

Raven wrote on Dec 8^th, 2016 at 10:44pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 8th, 2016 at 8:40pm: Raven wrote on Dec 7th, 2016 at 4:17pm: 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. 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. The point is your comment that one can only sue if they lost money is false

Only if they demonstrate they lost money. We mustn't forget FD's actual words - as he always insists.

Would you like to try to make a point Gandalf?

Have you made a submission yet?

freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 12:36pm:

Would you like to try to make a point Gandalf? Have you made a submission yet?

I've made a question, FD. Would you care to answer it?

freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 12:36pm:

Would you like to try to make a point Gandalf?

Yes FD I would. My point is that your claim that you can only sue someone for defamation if you could demonstrate they cost you money - is wrong.

And yet you cannot cite any other measure on which damages are based.

The closing date for submissions is today. Are you going to send anything in?

freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 6:59pm:

And yet you cannot cite any other measure on which damages are based. The closing date for submissions is today. Are you going to send anything in?

I have, and you ignored it.  I even gave you a link.

Ima glad submissions close today.  You can take this Thread out of Relationships, which would be appreciated.

Would you mind reposting it Aussie?

freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 7:17pm:

Would you mind reposting it Aussie?

So you can ignore it again?  It is up there ^^^^^^ in this Thread. 

Have a look at Posts # 73 and 77.  I see the Link in # 77 is corrupted.  It was to the Corby defamation case.

Aussie wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 7:07pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 9th, 2016 at 6:59pm: And yet you cannot cite any other measure on which damages are based. The closing date for submissions is today. Are you going to send anything in? I have, and you ignored it.

Ah.

I'm guessing you fell short and produced more vague waffle about being compensated for loss of reputation 'instead' of lost income.

freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 9:29pm:

I'm guessing you fell short and produced more vague waffle about being compensated for loss of reputation 'instead' of lost income.

Nah, I produced convincing proof that your comment:


Quote:

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

....is not only wrong, it is also idiotic, irresponsible and a lie.

Aussie wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 9:35pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 9th, 2016 at 9:29pm: I'm guessing you fell short and produced more vague waffle about being compensated for loss of reputation 'instead' of lost income. Nah, I produced convincing proof that your comment: Quote: I could only sue you for defamation if I could demonstrate you cost me money ....is not only wrong, it is also idiotic, irresponsible and a lie.

A lie? Never.

FD, you prove Aussie wrong once and for all. You tell him how you would never use porkies in your campaign against the Muselman.

You'll see, Aussie. FD will show you.

freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 6:59pm:

And yet you cannot cite any other measure on which damages are based.

Yes I can - and I already did. I cited an entire section of the NSW defamation law called "non-eonomic loss" - and explained to you that in those cases damages are measured using a formula based on the average earnings of full-time adults - obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

How did you miss that FD?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 10^th, 2016 at 6:20am:

freediver wrote on Dec 9th, 2016 at 6:59pm: And yet you cannot cite any other measure on which damages are based. Yes I can - and I already did. I cited an entire section of the NSW defamation law called "non-eonomic loss" - and explained to you that in those cases damages are measured using a formula based on the average earnings of full-time adults - obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. How did you miss that FD?

FD doesn't read them. Instead, he asks you to post them again. When you've done that, he asks you what you said. When you say that, he questions the syntax. When you answer that, he questions the intention behind the syntax. When you answer that, he makes up your beliefs and puts them in their own thread. When you point out how dumb this is, FD tells you to prove him wrong. When you do that, he asks you to quote yourself.

When you do that, he asks you to post them again. When you've done that, he asks you what you said...

The process takes a few months, give or take. In the end, FD says he never read any of your posts to begin with.

Just think, FD does all this to avoid saying he got it wrong.

Has anyone ever successfully sued for slander and obtained only aggravated damages?

Did you make a submission Gandalf?

Aussie do you support 18c?

Quote:

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18D Exemptions                    Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:                      (a)  in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or                      (b)  in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or                      (c)  in making or publishing:                               (i)  a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or                              (ii)  a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 10:48am:

Aussie do you support 18c?

With 18D, yeas.

Would you change your mind if you discovered a link between 18c and Toben's jailing?

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 4:53pm:

Would you change your mind if you discovered a link between 18c and Toben's jailing?

Probably not.  However......What link is there to be discovered?

Aussie wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 5:13pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 4:53pm: Would you change your mind if you discovered a link between 18c and Toben's jailing? Probably not.  However......What link is there to be discovered?

What do you think was the cause of the court order?

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 5:30pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 5:13pm: freediver wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 4:53pm: Would you change your mind if you discovered a link between 18c and Toben's jailing? Probably not.  However......What link is there to be discovered? What do you think was the cause of the court order?

Why do you answer a question with a question?  You answer mine.  It'll be a first.

I have asked you this question at least a dozen times already Aussie. You always have an excuse for not answering.

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 5:30pm:

Aussie wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 5:13pm: freediver wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 4:53pm: Would you change your mind if you discovered a link between 18c and Toben's jailing? Probably not.  However......What link is there to be discovered? What do you think was the cause of the court order?

The court had ruled that the article was a form of racial vilification that failed to contain any of the exceptions contained in 18D.

As a result he was instructed by the court to remove the article.

His refusal to follow the courts direction made him guilty of:


Quote:

Magistrates Court Act 1991—1.8.2016 Part 7—Miscellaneous 45—Contempt in face of Court (c) refuses, in the face of the Court, to obey a lawful direction of the Court, is guilty of a contempt of the Court.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 7:27pm:

The court had ruled that the article was a form of racial vilification that failed to contain any of the exceptions contained in 18D. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Why not? Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 9:47pm:

Why not? Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

do you believe in freedom of speech FD?

John Smith wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 10:18pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 9:47pm: Why not? Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech? do you believe in freedom of speech FD?

How can he believe in something he cannot even identify?

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 7:27pm:

The court had ruled that the article was a form of racial vilification that failed to contain any of the exceptions contained in 18D.

How do you know this? Are you just making it up as you go along?

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 9:47pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 7:27pm: The court had ruled that the article was a form of racial vilification that failed to contain any of the exceptions contained in 18D. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Why not? Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

I am saying that it is ok to ban racial vilification.

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:38am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 7:27pm: The court had ruled that the article was a form of racial vilification that failed to contain any of the exceptions contained in 18D. How do you know this? Are you just making it up as you go along?

It was an assumption that I found to be incorrect when I subsequently read the ruling. 18D was not considered because he never contested the case. He didn't claim any exemption or argue that his article wasn't racial vilification.

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:38am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 7:27pm: The court had ruled that the article was a form of racial vilification that failed to contain any of the exceptions contained in 18D. How do you know this? Are you just making it up as you go along?

You seem to have got to the point where you are supporting racial vilification as well as the right to ignore court orders and be allowed to act in contempt of court.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 8:27am:

freediver wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 9:47pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 7:27pm: The court had ruled that the article was a form of racial vilification that failed to contain any of the exceptions contained in 18D. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Why not? Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech? I am saying that it is ok to ban racial vilification.

Oh. It looked to me like you were making a statement about freedom of speech. I have highlighted the relevant bit for you. Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech? Or are you backpedaling?


Quote:

You seem to have got to the point where you are supporting racial vilification as well as the right to ignore court orders and be allowed to act in contempt of court.

John Smith came up with the idiotic idea that if we oppose people being jailed for their opinion, we should oppose contempt of court legislation rather than 18c. If you are saying that is stupid, we are in agreement. Let the backpedaling begin.

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:46pm:

John Smith came up with the idiotic idea that if we oppose people being jailed for their opinion, we should oppose contempt of court legislation rather than 18c. If you are saying that is stupid, we are in agreement.

it is stupid. Just as stupid than opposing 18c because it restricts your 'free speech'. That's why I suggested it.

I was waiting for you to get that bit, but I gave up.

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:46pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 8:27am: freediver wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 9:47pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 7:27pm: The court had ruled that the article was a form of racial vilification that failed to contain any of the exceptions contained in 18D. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Why not? Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech? I am saying that it is ok to ban racial vilification. Oh. It looked to me like you were making a statement about freedom of speech. I have highlighted the relevant bit for you. Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech? Or are you backpedaling? Quote: You seem to have got to the point where you are supporting racial vilification as well as the right to ignore court orders and be allowed to act in contempt of court. John Smith came up with the idiotic idea that if we oppose people being jailed for their opinion, we should oppose contempt of court legislation rather than 18c. If you are saying that is stupid, we are in agreement. Let the backpedaling begin.

Feel free to start back peddling any time you like.

Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech?



18 c has very little impact on freedom of speech. It is not unreasonable to take racial vilification off the table.

Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

What, if not 18c, were you referring to when you said this has nothing to do with freedom of speech?


Quote:

Just as stupid than opposing 18c because it restricts your 'free speech'. That's why I suggested it.

Why is that stupid John? There are an aweful lot of people doing this. Are they all idiots?

freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2016 at 8:59am:

Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech? What, if not 18c, were you referring to when you said this has nothing to do with freedom of speech? Quote: Just as stupid than opposing 18c because it restricts your 'free speech'. That's why I suggested it. Why is that stupid John? There are an aweful lot of people doing this. Are they all idiots?

There are only a few far-right nutjobs shrieking about 18C, FD, and they do so for one reason and one reason only: to stand by Andrew Bolt and News Ltd.

You?