 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | Having read the summary of the judgement and Section 18C of the RDA, this is simply not the case. The judgement was made against Bolt because he offended/humiliated etc members of a certain race. |
Rubbish.
| The judge himself, in his finding wrote: | | “The deficiencies I have relied upon … are about deficiencies in truth. The lack of truth in conduct which contravenes s 18C, seems to me to have an obvious bearing on whether the conduct should be exempted from unlawfulness” |
Bolt humiliated people because of their race. That was not disputed. Bolt's defence was that his racial humiliation was exempt under the act because it was fair and honest comment which is protected under the free speech. This was rejected because, according to the judge, Bolt's comments were neither fair nor honest. Bolt wasn't convicted because he abused people of colour, he was convicted because he abused people of colour using made-up untruths and made no attempt to correct these lies.
Notice that Bolt, despite having the unlimited wealth of the Murdoch empire to pay his legal bills for him, didn't even try to appeal the verdict.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
 |
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^^^ Hence, my observation in my previous post that the defences in Section 18D seem to deal with Wokko's concern. Bolt simply couldn't make any of them out. That is, he couldn't make out, eg, even the bare requirement that his comments were "reasonable" and "in good faith": the part you quote from the reasons for decision is the decision-maker in the very act of rejecting that defence (that is the importance of the reference to "exempted from unlawfulness").
But, really, when it comes to interpreting Australian statutes, what would I know?   |
|
|
|
|
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So can someone please tell me this? With all this free speech stuff, can a club or player now criticise the umpires without getting into trouble with the AFL? Otherwise, we still don’t have free speech do we??  |
|
|
|
|
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Most reasonable people find the policing of athletes' social media behaviour abhorrent.
(Note that I am using a very subjective definition of "reasonable". )
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | nomadjack wrote: |
I'm not a bigot by any stretch of the imagination as my posting record here over the last 8 years shows and I challenge you directly to show anywhere I've misrepresented your views. As far as bigotry and straw-men go that's exactly what your entire argument is based on - fear and suspicion of other people and their motives and the bogeyman of big 'guvvamint'. Government is an instrument which can be used for good or evil purposes. In the hands of moderates its the most effective guarantee of genuine freedom and security humans have invented and the foundation stone upon which most human pursuits are based. I'm quite prepared to trust the electorate to hold government to account for its actions in a democratic country such as Australia. As far as I'm concerned, paranoid ideologues who spew and chant some bullshit imported anti-government rhetoric are a far greater threat to democracy and freedom than government is.
Government itself is just the instrument...you know, sort of like governments don't kill freedom....people kill freedom |
You quoted 'guvvamint', who were you quoting?
Government is not an instrument of the people, it is a monopolization of force and nothing but an instrument of tyranny. Governments are good until they're bad!? No shit, but once they're bad they terrorize and massacre their populations, conscript citizens into pointless wars, stealing money at gunpoint via taxation and the legal system or lock them up for such heinous crimes as growing a plant, not handing over money they demand from you or writing an insulting opinion piece.
You use the fact that Australian governments have been historically 'good' and expand that to say that government itself is 'good'. Anyway, I'm a supporter, not a scholar of Libertarianism, if you have a genuine interest then read some Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and even Ayn Rand (Rand is kind of Introduction to Libertarianism via overly simplistic power fantasy and rape fetish stories) There are many arguments against governmental systems beyond your overly simplistic characature of a right wing religious fundamentalist. |
I've read Hayek thanks...and Friedman (even interviewed some of his old postgrad students from Chicago)...and Smith, and Locke, and Hobbes, and Paine, and Burke, and Rousseau, and Godwin, and Proudhon, and Kropotkin, and Bakunin, and Rawls, and Bentham, and Mills, and Marx...(even understood most of them) So I'm pretty right for reading thanks...
I've also spent a long time watching flogs on the extreme left and right chant platitudes like 'statist scum' and 'taxation' is theft' and 'government is nothing but a force for tyranny'...Usually, in the next sentence they talk about the Mt Pellerin Society, the Bildebergers, the Freemasons and One World Government...Am I getting warm? |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: |
I've read Hayek thanks...and Friedman (even interviewed some of his old postgrad students from Chicago)...and Smith, and Locke, and Hobbes, and Paine, and Burke, and Rousseau, and Godwin, and Proudhon, and Kropotkin, and Bakunin, and Rawls, and Bentham, and Mills, and Marx...(even understood most of them) So I'm pretty right for reading thanks...
I've also spent a long time watching flogs on the extreme left and right chant platitudes like 'statist scum' and 'taxation' is theft' and 'government is nothing but a force for tyranny'...Usually, in the next sentence they talk about the Mt Pellerin Society, the Bildebergers, the Freemasons and One World Government...Am I getting warm? |
No, but your bigotry sure is. |
|
|
|
|
Stupied
Joined: 14 Mar 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I am so glad I've managed to avoid this thread for so long. You're doing an amazing job Wokko, but the VPT is a poor battleground of choice for any conservative. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Stupied wrote: | | I am so glad I've managed to avoid this thread for so long. You're doing an amazing job Wokko, but the VPT is a poor battleground of choice for any conservative. |
Battle of Little Big Horn, The Alamo, Battle of Iwo Jima, Battle of Berlin, Not being a left winger on Nick's, it's always the hopeless defenses against all odds that are immortalized. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Stupied wrote: | | I am so glad I've managed to avoid this thread for so long. You're doing an amazing job Wokko, but the VPT is a poor battleground of choice for any conservative. |
Toughen up, princess. I worked that gig here for years before defecting. So can you.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Stupied wrote: | | I am so glad I've managed to avoid this thread for so long. You're doing an amazing job Wokko, but the VPT is a poor battleground of choice for any conservative. |
Toughen up, princess. I worked that gig here for years before defecting. So can you. |
Come back to the dark side David.
We have cookies. 
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Is it not remarkable how paranoid and fantastic the delusions of so many modern day right-wingers become? It's an extraordinarily consistent pattern: (1) engage in discussion, (2) discover yourself at variance with known and demonstrated facts (such as, in this case, the Bolt verdict and the reasons for it as set out by the judge himself and not appealed by Bolt), (3) discover huge conspiracy of loonie left-wing free-love communists to explain why everyone else can see what you are determined not to see.
But of more interest - since this repetitive pattern of behavior is so commonplace these days and hardly news to anyone with a brain - is the reason for it. I'm open to other suggestions, but one possibility which occurs to me is this: in the past two or three decades we have seen a great number of traditional right-wing touchstone beliefs, one after another, get comprehensively demolished by reality. (Most notably, the near-completer collapse of trickle-down economic theory, but there are many others, of course.) In response, we have seen the right-wing as a whole back away by moving further and further to the right, at the same time gradually losing adherents with a more moderate and flexible form of mind. Look at the Liberal Party for example: it's almost unrecognisable - Menzies certainly would have been shocked and horrified - and there are just two or three moderates remaining, swamped by a large number of extremist Tea-Party types who, of course, cannot defend their views rationally because those views are not themselves rational: climate change denial, economic suicide, tobacco harm denial, denial of evidence and science in every form.
The thing is, these few (few in society as a whole, but many within certain small and self-regarding circles such as the IPA and the Liberal Party and the tiny remaining readership of The Australian) pay so little attention to anything outside their own narrow, bigoted world view that they think that they are "normal". Hence their weird, paranoid responses to arguments from actual normal people, let alone anyone from the left.
But perhaps someone here can propose a better reason. It's certainly bizarre, and a good explanation would be most helpful.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I'm using dialup so I cant see your webcam. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | Is it not remarkable how paranoid and fantastic the delusions of so many modern day right-wingers become? It's an extraordinarily consistent pattern: (1) engage in discussion, (2) discover yourself at variance with known and demonstrated facts (such as, in this case, the Bolt verdict and the reasons for it as set out by the judge himself and not appealed by Bolt), (3) discover huge conspiracy of loonie left-wing free-love communists to explain why everyone else can see what you are determined not to see.
But of more interest - since this repetitive pattern of behavior is so commonplace these days and hardly news to anyone with a brain - is the reason for it. I'm open to other suggestions, but one possibility which occurs to me is this: in the past two or three decades we have seen a great number of traditional right-wing touchstone beliefs, one after another, get comprehensively demolished by reality. (Most notably, the near-completer collapse of trickle-down economic theory, but there are many others, of course.) In response, we have seen the right-wing as a whole back away by moving further and further to the right, at the same time gradually losing adherents with a more moderate and flexible form of mind. Look at the Liberal Party for example: it's almost unrecognisable - Menzies certainly would have been shocked and horrified - and there are just two or three moderates remaining, swamped by a large number of extremist Tea-Party types who, of course, cannot defend their views rationally because those views are not themselves rational: climate change denial, economic suicide, tobacco harm denial, denial of evidence and science in every form.
The thing is, these few (few in society as a whole, but many within certain small and self-regarding circles such as the IPA and the Liberal Party and the tiny remaining readership of The Australian) pay so little attention to anything outside their own narrow, bigoted world view that they think that they are "normal". Hence their weird, paranoid responses to arguments from actual normal people, let alone anyone from the left.
But perhaps someone here can propose a better reason. It's certainly bizarre, and a good explanation would be most helpful. |
You're not seeing the forest for the trees. You say that rigid conservative ideologies are steadily and progressively changed due to some inherent rightness in the left wing alternative but don't see the middle path that the competing dichotomy produces. Radical progressives want and fight for vast, revolutionary changes to society (you can slot the libertarian movement in here, it is certainly NOT conservative, although conservatives are drawn to some of the platforms, but often through pragmatism. Not many christian conservatives want to make drugs legal for example) and hard nosed conservatives fight equally hard to maintain the status quo. With these competing 'wings' you generally get slow, methodical change of society. This gives the culture time to adapt and integrate new thinking and also gives time to adjust incorrect 'progressions'. If either movement had its way (radical, revolutionary upheaval or staid, rigid status quo) there would be a disaster. Instead everyone thinks they're unhappy but generally things slowly move into the future. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | But of more interest - since this repetitive pattern of behavior is so commonplace these days and hardly news to anyone with a brain - is the reason for it. I'm open to other suggestions, but one possibility which occurs to me is this: in the past two or three decades we have seen a great number of traditional right-wing touchstone beliefs, one after another, get comprehensively demolished by reality. (Most notably, the near-completer collapse of trickle-down economic theory, but there are many others, of course.) In response, we have seen the right-wing as a whole back away by moving further and further to the right, at the same time gradually losing adherents with a more moderate and flexible form of mind. Look at the Liberal Party for example: it's almost unrecognisable - Menzies certainly would have been shocked and horrified - and there are just two or three moderates remaining, swamped by a large number of extremist Tea-Party types who, of course, cannot defend their views rationally because those views are not themselves rational: climate change denial, economic suicide, tobacco harm denial, denial of evidence and science in every form.
The thing is, these few (few in society as a whole, but many within certain small and self-regarding circles such as the IPA and the Liberal Party and the tiny remaining readership of The Australian) pay so little attention to anything outside their own narrow, bigoted world view that they think that they are "normal". Hence their weird, paranoid responses to arguments from actual normal people, let alone anyone from the left. |
This narrative seems to miss one important point: how did these radicals—and I agree with you that they are radicals—manage to get voted in? I can only conclude that, on average, Australians are in general much more politically conservative than we would like to think.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
King Malta
RIP Flip
Joined: 24 Mar 2008
Location: Gettin' Wiggy
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | But of more interest - since this repetitive pattern of behavior is so commonplace these days and hardly news to anyone with a brain - is the reason for it. I'm open to other suggestions, but one possibility which occurs to me is this: in the past two or three decades we have seen a great number of traditional right-wing touchstone beliefs, one after another, get comprehensively demolished by reality. (Most notably, the near-completer collapse of trickle-down economic theory, but there are many others, of course.) In response, we have seen the right-wing as a whole back away by moving further and further to the right, at the same time gradually losing adherents with a more moderate and flexible form of mind. Look at the Liberal Party for example: it's almost unrecognisable - Menzies certainly would have been shocked and horrified - and there are just two or three moderates remaining, swamped by a large number of extremist Tea-Party types who, of course, cannot defend their views rationally because those views are not themselves rational: climate change denial, economic suicide, tobacco harm denial, denial of evidence and science in every form.
The thing is, these few (few in society as a whole, but many within certain small and self-regarding circles such as the IPA and the Liberal Party and the tiny remaining readership of The Australian) pay so little attention to anything outside their own narrow, bigoted world view that they think that they are "normal". Hence their weird, paranoid responses to arguments from actual normal people, let alone anyone from the left. |
This narrative seems to miss one important point: how did these radicals—and I agree with you that they are radicals—manage to get voted in? I can only conclude that, on average, Australians are in general much more politically conservative than we would like to think. |
To be honest I think that there are more than a few Australians who are simply uninformed/don't really care enough about the core policies of either party and basically vote in the party that Channel 9 news and the Herald Sun aren't bashing continuously.
The responses I've gotten when asking people why they voted in Liberal have mostly been: "Because Labour was going shithouse mate", "Don't you watch the News?", "Abbott seems like an alright dude" and of course, my favourite "I don't know, just thought it was time for a change I guess".
Of course there are people who vote for them because they have conservative political views but I feel there's a fair amount that simply don't care and more or less vote for who mainstream media has been suggesting they should. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
