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

[Northalives]

Fancy calling Brandis, Abbott, Bernardi, Andrews et al, liberal.

 

[Slax]

I see that the whole Section 18C of the racial discrimination act has surfaced again.

I heard two very good alternative proposals on how to allow this:

1. The journalist will be personally libel for any compensation award by the court, the media outlet who published it will be liable for 10 times what the journalist is, these monies shall be paid to a charity of the choice of the defamed. A retraction after the fact will not lessen the penalty to be applied by the court. Any retraction by a newspaper must appear on eithe Page 1 or Page 3 (the two most read pages of any newspaper), for television & radio, they must be made at the beginning of the next scheduled episode of the program that made the statement. So if it was the nightly news, the apology is the lead out story. These penalties will make editors careful about what goes out because the loss of image will hurt far more than any monetary fine. Currently programs like ACA put apoligies at the very end after they tell you what is on the next night because people have turned over to another channel already.
2. In a case of defamation, where a judge determines on the evidence submitted that there is reasonable grounds to progress, the journalist must disclose there source or be jailed for contempt of court for 30 days. Jail would be mandatory and the journalist would automatically be found guilty of defamation as they would not be allowed to submit a defense because they have no source for the story.

So fine allow it, but accept that if you've published something like to cause offence without any substance behind it, be prepared to be hit by a big stick.

 

[Xsess]

One things for certain, Charlie Hebdo has exposed the lie of Australian right to freedom of expression. Had they existed here in Australia where we value “Free Speech” they'd have been instantly set upon by Marxist harpies shrieking “racist”, “bigot”, “Islamophobe”, “xenophobe” and probably dragged off to court and charged under 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.

 

[Gough]

One things for certain, Charlie Hebdo has exposed the lie of Australian right to freedom of expression. Had they existed here in Australia where we value “Free Speech” they'd have been instantly set upon by Marxist harpies shrieking “racist”, “bigot”, “Islamophobe”, “xenophobe” and probably dragged off to court and charged under 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.

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.
No they wouldn't, at least try to understand what you're talking about.

 

[benchwarmer5]

Fancy calling Brandis, Abbott, Bernardi, Andrews et al, liberal.

They are not even conservatives in the true sense.
Predominately I see them as establishment corporatists, where the free market ideology is only relative if it fits the agenda of their donors.
They are not even Small government. They love big government when it comes to authority and national security. Big isn't big enough

 

[illavitar]

They are not even conservatives in the true sense.
Predominately I see them as establishment corporatists, where the free market ideology is only relative if it fits the agenda of their donors.
They are not even Small government. They love big government when it comes to authority and national security. Big isn't big enough

They proven that pretty clearly to everyone with the way they've constructed their budget

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Had they existed here in Australia where we value “Free Speech” they'd have been instantly set upon by Marxist harpies shrieking “racist”, “bigot”, “Islamophobe”, “xenophobe” and probably dragged off to court and charged under 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Do you ever think your healthy ego might be better challenged by arguing against non-imaginary people?

 

[Power Raid]

The issue with the act is it is not consistent with other thresholds in the act for other forms of discrimination.

I don't like racism but I do believe 18c needs a rewrite in regards to the thresholds.

Anyone who has bothered to read the whole act would probably agree once they see other thresholds in the act.

 

[Power Raid]

Out of interest, who here has read the whole act?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Stop taking up so much screen space, Power Raid. You repeatedly post multiple times in a row, with no time gap between. Use the edit button if there's something else you wanted to add. The amount of people who will have read your comment between first post and edit will be minimal, and you won't look like you're desperately trying to get attention.

 

[Power Raid]

Stop taking up so much screen space, Power Raid. You repeatedly post multiple times in a row, with no time gap between. Use the edit button if there's something else you wanted to add. The amount of people who will have read your comment between first post and edit will be minimal, and you won't look like you're desperately trying to get attention.

welcome back ratts

is there an election going on somewhere? good to see you got a slice of the election promotion budget again.

 

[Power Raid]

Stop taking up so much screen space, Power Raid. You repeatedly post multiple times in a row, with no time gap between. Use the edit button if there's something else you wanted to add. The amount of people who will have read your comment between first post and edit will be minimal, and you won't look like you're desperately trying to get attention.

oh an I post twice in a row so you use less paper when you print

 

[medusala]

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

So Rove and Catherine Deveny get a free pass that the rest of us don't.

How bloody marvellous.

So fine allow it, but accept that if you've published something like to cause offence without any substance behind it, be prepared to be hit by a big stick.

You are conflating defamation with giving offence. Completely different things.

I can make many statements ALL with factual substance that would cause great offence to many muslims.

To think that I could be punished for that is utterly pathetic. Just as to think that a huge number of posts on the God thread would no doubt be in breach of religious vilification laws as well

We got rid of blasphemy laws only to reintroduce them.

 

[swingdog]

So Rove and Catherine Deveny get a free pass that the rest of us don't.

When were you last in Australia? The 90s?

 

[telsor]

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.
No they wouldn't, at least try to understand what you're talking about.

Artistic work?

Sure, it's a comic, but the purpose behind it is social commentary, designed to shock and offend.

If someone makes a racist, offensive statement, and then hides behind "it rhymed, therefore it's poetry, so it's art" would you accept that?

 

[Malifice]

I can make many statements ALL with factual substance that would cause great offence to many muslims.

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.

As long as what you say is in good faith and for a genuine artistic, academic or scientific reason or in the public interest youre good.

What could you possibly say that wouldnt fit into the above categories?

 

[Malifice]

If someone makes a racist, offensive statement, and then hides behind "it rhymed, therefore it's poetry, so it's art" would you accept that?

I think you missed the 'any act done reasonanably and in good faith' bit

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

oh an I post twice in a row so you use less paper when you print

I don't get it. And Lebbo73 liked it, so maybe there is actually something in this line which I should've got? Is there a typo in there?

I'm also unsure why you're saying 'welcome back', but thanks nonetheless. So much has changed.

 

[telsor]

I think you missed the 'any act done reasonanably and in good faith' bit

defined as???

The judge thinks it's OK?

Better get the right judge then.

 

[Malifice]

defined as???

The judge thinks it's OK?

Better get the right judge then.

You can make that assertion with every single law ever mate. Its ultimately up to a judge to determine what the 'objective reasonable person' thinks is 'reasonable and in good faith'.

I would argue that a lot of what is posted on Stormfront is not 'reasonable and in good faith'.

I mean, how many people have been prosecuted under s18C anyways? I would posit that the exceptions are incredibly broad.

 

[medusala]

As long as what you say is in good faith and for a genuine artistic, academic or scientific reason or in the public interest youre good.

What could you possibly say that wouldnt fit into the above categories?

Mal you are damn slow on the uptake. Why should I have good faith towards religion? ZERO reason.

Why should I not be allowed to INTEND to insult religion?

Who judges? It is arbitrary nonsense.

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them"

ie I believe in freedom of speech and 18c

I would argue that a lot of what is posted on Stormfront is not 'reasonable and in good faith'.

When Wayne Swan urinated $200bn up against the wall was that in good faith?

When politicians lie over and over is that in good faith?

Do you really want to have someone in trouble with the law for saying "whingeing Pom"?

Really?

 

[Footy Smarts]

Mal you are damn slow on the uptake. Why should I have good faith towards religion? ZERO reason.

Why should I not be allowed to INTEND to insult religion?

Who judges? It is arbitrary nonsense.

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them"

ie I believe in freedom of speech and 18c

Do you think I should legally have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?

 

[medusala]

Do you think I should legally have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?

No. Property rights. Completely different. Giving offence is in no way comparable to putting people in danger, inciting violence etc.

Should one be face legal sanction for muttering "whingeing pom"? Should thousands at the Gabba face sanctions for getting stuck in to Stuart Broad because he was a Pom?

Look, I realise you have to defend any ALP legislation but surely even you can see this is a turd that simply cant be polished

 

[Pessimistic]

doesnt seem very smart if you are trying to isolate extremists, to also attack moderates you percieve to be the same race or religion

Not even abbott wants that

 

[Maggie5]

Mal you are damn slow on the uptake. Why should I have good faith towards religion? ZERO reason.
Why should I not be allowed to INTEND to insult religion?
Who judges? It is arbitrary nonsense.
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them"
ie I believe in freedom of speech and 18c
When Wayne Swan urinated $200bn up against the wall was that in good faith?
When politicians lie over and over is that in good faith?
Do you really want to have someone in trouble with the law for saying "whingeing Pom"?
Really?

Normally, I don't mind reading your posts but really can't understand why this act is causing you problems.
How many people have been convicted under this act? I think that there are enough protections there to protect your rights.

However the one thing that really puzzles me is why anyone would want to intentionally insult another person, religion, race, country or group.
To me that is not freedom, that is childish spite.