Brandis: "People do have a right to be bigots, you know."

[medusala]

Was Life of Brian expressly designed merely to offend Christians and make fun of their religion? No. It was made with genuine artistic endeavor (and succeeded, I'll add) so 18c wouldn't apply.

How does one define genuine artistic endeavour? Ask Ali Hirst about that. Ask editor of Danish cartoons re mohammed.

Again its all ARBITRARY.

 

[The Coup]

How does one define genuine artistic endeavour? Ask Ali Hirst about that. Ask editor of Danish cartoons re mohammed.

Again its all ARBITRARY.

No I think we have a pretty excellent judiciary. I'd trust them to make the reasonable person test and apply it to the intent of the author or publisher.

Certainly at any stage, a publisher or author can correct themselves. That's the thing about 18c, it doesn't really have a penalty other than forcing prejudiced people to actively defend their idiocy, or look like gutless fools and lose all credibility anyway.

 

[medusala]

No I think we have a pretty excellent judiciary.

I wouldn't trust someone like Kirby to adjudicate an egg and spoon race.

 

[The Coup]

I wouldn't trust someone like Kirby to adjudicate an egg and spoon race.

Kirby is a gun.

 

[Power Raid]

Technically any abusive language can be a crime, there's a rarely prosecuted crime for causing offense. Because of how subjective it is, it only ever gets enforced by cops trying to remove troublesome protesters and then gets dropped.

What I like about the Racial Vilification Act is that it gives some protection to the kind of wide scale incitement of violence we saw Alan Jones commit leading up to Cronulla.

Nobody gives a **** if its just about getting offended. Those conservative types are preaching to the converted anyway, its only when they inspire them to go and do something big and dumb and the rest of us have to deal with the fallout.

absolutely agree but that is not how the law is written. If they repeal the tests of offended and insulted then the law would be about right.

 

[The Coup]

I only think we need legal protection from people with the intent to offend, and anything more serious than that (like inciting to violence obviously).

Accidental offence is unfair to be prosecuted for. If the discussion is genuine and in good faith, then it should be fair play.

But as an example I think Christians have a right to be offended at "Piss Christ", and the artist responsible should have to defend it on its artistic merit, and if its found to be horseshit like "um, ah, it represents christ in wee" and its clear they were doing it just to offend, make them apologise for it and admit they're a fraud dealing in shock factor.

Same should apply when Bolt or Jones starts inciting people against Muslims or Unionists or Oompa Loompas or whatever threat of the week it is. And it should be more broad than just race and religion and ethnicity, it should apply to freedom of association too i.e. you can't demonise a whole group on the actions of a few just for the sake of causing hatred or offense.

Something like that would be ideal I guess, to me.

 

[John]

Its like a broken Wobble Board.

Says the bloke who has posted the same thing 25,000 plus times. And I get the reference to wobble board. You really are obsessed. I suggest you get help.

 

[Power Raid]

No I think we have a pretty excellent judiciary. I'd trust them to make the reasonable person test and apply it to the intent of the author or publisher.

Certainly at any stage, a publisher or author can correct themselves. That's the thing about 18c, it doesn't really have a penalty other than forcing prejudiced people to actively defend their idiocy, or look like gutless fools and lose all credibility anyway.

Have you had the privileged of paying lawyers? By the time you defend your position, you have already lost.

This law could be used to bankrupt people and scare people into silence.

 

[The Coup]

Have you had the privileged of paying lawyers? By the time you defend your position, you have already lost.

This law could be used to bankrupt people and scare people into silence.

I paid for a lawyer once, was a waste of time.

The judge wasn't wrong though. I have faith in our judges.

 

[Power Raid]

I only think we need legal protection from people with the intent to offend, and anything more serious than that (like inciting to violence obviously).

Accidental offence is unfair to be prosecuted for. If the discussion is genuine and in good faith, then it should be fair play.

But as an example I think Christians have a right to be offended at "Piss Christ", and the artist responsible should have to defend it on its artistic merit, and if its found to be horseshit like "um, ah, it represents christ in wee" and its clear they were doing it just to offend, make them apologise for it and admit they're a fraud dealing in shock factor.

Same should apply when Bolt or Jones starts inciting people against Muslims or Unionists or Oompa Loompas or whatever threat of the week it is. And it should be more broad than just race and religion and ethnicity, it should apply to freedom of association too i.e. you can't demonise a whole group on the actions of a few just for the sake of causing hatred or offense.

Something like that would be ideal I guess, to me.

I certainly agree with the inciting violence but I don't think offending someone even if a racial slur should be a crime. yes it is offensive but is being offensive warrant criminal or civil action (in most cases)?

There are so many unintended consequences by having such a low benchmark.

I don't want to defend racists but at the same time I don't want to live in a nanny state where people don't have an obligation to be somewhat tolerant of others (even if they are offensive).

 

[medusala]

Same should apply when Bolt or Jones starts inciting people against Muslims or Unionists or Oompa Loompas or whatever threat of the week it is.

Wow. Lets give those angels at the CFMEU even more legal protection. The poor petals.

 

[Power Raid]

I paid for a lawyer once, was a waste of time.

The judge wasn't wrong though. I have faith in our judges.

An organisation in West Perth spent $3m defending itself from the warden's court through to the high court an won each time. The process was started again through the warden's court despite estoppel and ultimately cost the business circa $60m through lost share price and dilution capital raisings.

The plaintiff was the mafia and bikies who used an unregistered company and unwashed funds to fund their legal.

I lost faith i the legal process, watching that play out. So I'm not excited by the prospect of legal disputes resolving someone's grievance of being offended.

PS I wasn't a stakeholder of either.

 

[The Coup]

haha got him, yes, * off you're out.

Couldn't let that one go through to the keeper meds, could ya? Don't ever change

 

[Power Raid]

I paid for a lawyer once, was a waste of time.

The judge wasn't wrong though. I have faith in our judges.

I pinched a female copper on the arse when I was at uni. My lawyer was sh*t and the judge got it right.

$800 fine, $2k lawyer, $415 court fees and I ended up one very poor and sorry student.

 

[Malifice]

Why is this suddently back on the agenda, smack in the middle of a series of hate crimes against Muslims? Were having people spat on in the streets, kids schools threatened with knife weilding hoons, and Mosques vandalised.

I dont get it? Why now?

Also, whats this free speech s**t. Havent seen a single conservative on this thread critique the ASIO Bills restrictions on free speach yet. 5 years in prison for speach that condones terrorism?

Such ******* hypocrites.

 

[romeoh]

Wow. Lets give those angels at the CFMEU even more legal protection. The poor petals.

I know, one of the fine things about our system, even people as undeserving as Bolt can access a legal defence.

 

[romeoh]

I pinched a female copper on the arse when I was at uni. My lawyer was sh*t and the judge got it right.

$800 fine, $2k lawyer, $415 court fees and I ended up one very poor and sorry student.

You seem rather cynical-I know plenty of good lawyers who believe in the principles of our justice system. Its not all just about money.

 

[telsor]

Why is this suddently back on the agenda, smack in the middle of a series of hate crimes against Muslims? Were having people spat on in the streets, kids schools threatened with knife weilding hoons, and Mosques vandalised.

I dont get it? Why now?

Also, whats this free speech s**t. Havent seen a single conservative on this thread critique the ASIO Bills restrictions on free speach yet. 5 years in prison for speach that condones terrorism?

Such ******* hypocrites.

I object to almost any restrictions on freedom of speech.

Incitement to violence (or other serious crimes) would be an exception however, and while that's not quite the same as 'condoning terrorism', I image you'd need to cross that line before you'd be prosecuted. That said, as laws about incitement already exist, I'm not sure I see any need for extras to cover terrorism.

Not hypocritical for not saying so beforehand, just don't tend to read this thread much.

 

[Power Raid]

You seem rather cynical-I know plenty of good lawyers who believe in the principles of our justice system. Its not all just about money.

not quite the point I was making. I was emphasising the fact that the cost of legal is extremely high.

blowing $300k on a legal issue isn't hard and blowing $m's is not uncommon. So why do we think that is fair and reasonable, just because someone was offended?

 

[telsor]

not quite the point I was making. I was emphasising the fact that the cost of legal is extremely high.

blowing $300k on a legal issue isn't hard and blowing $m's is not uncommon. So why do we think that is fair and reasonable, just because someone was offended?

My issue is more the question of why one form of offense is greater than another. If someone is offended due to comments made about their sexuality or gender orientation, is their offense less? If we ban those, what next? Keep sliding down a slippery slope and before long forgetting a 3 month anniversary will be a criminal offense.

 

[Floor Pie]

the RDA isn't a new act that is being proposed... It has existed for a long time.

I am sick of the rhetoric used to try about it. Like you above, telsor.

 

[Maggie5]

not quite the point I was making. I was emphasising the fact that the cost of legal is extremely high.

blowing $300k on a legal issue isn't hard and blowing $m's is not uncommon. So why do we think that is fair and reasonable, just because someone was offended?

Perhaps keeping mouth shut is cheaper?

 

[Floor Pie]

Perhaps keeping mouth shut is cheaper?

I think that's the wrong attitude Maggie.
And it's not what the RDA can do anyway.

 

[Power Raid]

Perhaps keeping mouth shut is cheaper?

so you don't believe in freedom of speech?

 

[Power Raid]

My issue is more the question of why one form of offense is greater than another. If someone is offended due to comments made about their sexuality or gender orientation, is their offense less? If we ban those, what next? Keep sliding down a slippery slope and before long forgetting a 3 month anniversary will be a criminal offense.

yep

In the military if property is stolen
1) the person stealing the property is charged
2) the person who had property stolen from them is charged with inciting theft

same should apply in this RDA
1) the person being offensive should be charged
2) the person offended should be charged for not be mature enough to deal with silly comments

alternatively we could repeal the words offended and insult but leave humiliate and intimidate. but the left wing crazies would think that was Tony doing Bolt a favour rather than restoring legislation to a common sense position.