Sam Newman/John Laws

Remove this Banner Ad

Sep 9, 2004
30,159
29
Where No Birds Fly
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide/Sturt/Wingfield
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=27838

Gay activist targets Laws, Newman slurs
17:48 AEDT Wed Jan 5 2005


Media personalities John Laws and Sam Newman may face legal action in Tasmania over comments alleged to have incited hatred against gay people.

Gay activist Michael Dempsey filed complaints with the state's anti-discrimination commission, claiming both men made comments last year which breached Tasmania's Anti-Discrimination Act.

The complaints follow similar action by Sydney activist Gary Burns, who described the Tasmanian complaint as a lovely surprise.

------------ ------------------------------------
Mr Dempsey said he was concerned about the effect the broadcasters' comments would have on gay and lesbian people in the community.

While Mr Laws had already taken out an advertisement in Sydney's gay papers apologising for his comments, Mr Dempsey said Tasmanians had not seen any similar action.

"We are looking for action here so the community is aware that (Mr Laws's and Mr Newman's comments are) unreasonable," he said.

"If we get one victory as happened in Sydney, then that is certainly a win and sends a very clear message to broadcasters and commentators that these comments are unreasonable and not appropriate in this country in the 21st century.

"This is about vilification and protecting vulnerable members of the community, not a person's right to express an opinion."

Rodney Croome of the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group said the complaint would send a strong message that slurs, abuse and hateful speech against sexual minorities were equal to discrimination against racial minorities.

________________________________________________________

So what will happen is that each state can take their turn? It was always my belief that a law could only be applied once and in the case of the media , in the place the offense took place or the business address.

I also find it ironic that for a group wishing to rid itself of the soft/limp wristed tag they allow themselves to have the label ''vulnerable' attached.
 
I tend to agree with taking Laws to court just to show him and his conservative listeners that we are in the 21st century and not the 1950's. His words were just plain inciteful homophobic rantings that could lead to uneducated macho's to start NTTAWWTta bashing as a sport.
Sam Newman has been roped into this because he went on TV being told he had to be the negative in the 'make melbourne the gay capital of OZ', his stuff was just toungue in cheek and anyone could see he wasn't really being serious.
But you are right when you say that gays want to be taken seriously and how can they when everytime they are slagged off they run to the courts screaming prejudice. Its a bit like the gay mardi-gras, for one weekend a year they run around like screaming mincing nancy boys and live up to every stereotype given to them. Then for the rest of the year they want to be taken seriously.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

demon_dave said:
But you are right when you say that gays want to be taken seriously and how can they when everytime they are slagged off they run to the courts screaming prejudice. Its a bit like the gay mardi-gras, for one weekend a year they run around like screaming mincing nancy boys and live up to every stereotype given to them. Then for the rest of the year they want to be taken seriously.

Rodney Croome is to gays what Michael Mansell is to aborigines. Regardless of what your average person thinks alot of homosexuals dont like his pathetic media whoring and grandstanding. The same thing happens in London with the idiot Tatchell trying to carry out citizens arrests on everyone. Completely counterproductive.
 
medusala said:
Rodney Croome is to gays what Michael Mansell is to aborigines. Regardless of what your average person thinks alot of homosexuals dont like his pathetic media whoring and grandstanding. The same thing happens in London with the idiot Tatchell trying to carry out citizens arrests on everyone. Completely counterproductive.
Medusala.
We tend to agree on this.I think,like you,that Tatchell is a complete Fooker.But i have,in general,little against John Laws.
 
What happened to freedom of speech? The whole "I don't agree with what he says but I will defend with my life his right to say it" thing, upon which our society was built?

By defining themselves through their sexuality primarily, homosexuals invite this sort of criticism.
 
By prancing around the street in pink g-strings and acting all ********y at that mardi-gra they invite this, then complain when people voice a view of them. Pathetic.

And seeing this Dempsey guy seems to want to sue anyone who has an opinion of them that he dosen't like he must be bored. Free Speech seems only to exist when it suits tools like him.
 
Tim56 said:
What happened to freedom of speech? The whole "I don't agree with what he says but I will defend with my life his right to say it" thing, upon which our society was built?


I wasnt aware that australia was built on "free speech" We certainly dont have anything in our laws about it afaik
 
Didn't Sam Newman prance around the Mardi Gras in a bumless pair of leather trousers. A few Gays quite liked him then.

Why Sam keeps opening his mouth when he knows he will get into trouble is beyond me, as for Laws...well he and Alan Jones have a lot in common...ignorance in particular.
 
BlueMark said:
Didn't Sam Newman prance around the Mardi Gras in a bumless pair of leather trousers. A few Gays quite liked him then.

Why Sam keeps opening his mouth when he knows he will get into trouble is beyond me, as for Laws...well he and Alan Jones have a lot in common...ignorance in particular.
I sometimes think Sam is as ignorant as most...I assume he was asked '' be controversial Sam'' and he made a few comments which were more Vicentric than anything IMO...if it was pilots asking to have a parade I am sure he would have come up with something to offend pilots..etc
 
Just shows how messed up our freedom of speech laws are. Apparently these NTTAWWTters want to turn Melbourne into a modern day Sodom or Gomorrah, but disagree with them and you get sued. I just hope they don't try and spread their filthy pornography parades anywhere else.
 
If Laws and Newman were making derogatory comments about Muslims or Aboriginals there would be a big public outcry and they'd be in deep ********.

So why is it any different to make derogatory comments about other members of the community? There is a difference between free speech and vilification.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Birdy said:
Just shows how messed up our freedom of speech laws are. Apparently these NTTAWWTters want to turn Melbourne into a modern day Sodom or Gomorrah, but disagree with them and you get sued. I just hope they don't try and spread their filthy pornography parades anywhere else.

what freedom of speech laws are you refering to?
 
Tim56 said:
What happened to freedom of speech? The whole "I don't agree with what he says but I will defend with my life his right to say it" thing, upon which our society was built?

I've been looking for that famous quote. Can you, or another poster, give us the exact quotation and the name of who it is attributed too? Thank you.


Hardly the catchcry of this board, is it! :D
 
Jabber said:
Correct - Vilification only occurs after the removal of free speech.
No. Vilification is abuse.
Freedom of Speech is the right to speak out on issues that concern you.

But when you speak or publish words which can result in hatred, intolerance or incite violence against a person, or group of persons it becomes vilification and that is unlawful and that is also the difference.
 
PA HOG said:
Tim56 said:
I've been looking for that famous quote. Can you, or another poster, give us the exact quotation and the name of who it is attributed too? Thank you.


Hardly the catchcry of this board, is it! :D


I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire
 
Bee said:
No. Vilification is abuse.
Freedom of Speech is the right to speak out on issues that concern you.

But when you speak or publish words which can result in hatred, intolerance or incite violence against a person, or group of persons it becomes vilification and that is inlawful and that is also the difference.

Freedom of Speech
The right to speak without censorship or restraint by another party

Don't vilification laws remove that right?
 
otaku said:
The right to "free speech" isnt part of Australia's constitution. I dont know why people keep bringing it up.

I'm aware of that - just proving a point to Bee
 
otaku said:
what freedom of speech laws are you refering to?
You know very well I was referring to the laws that infringe upon what we value as freedom of speech. In the case of the homo's who think their filthy lifestyles should get special treatment under the law it would be the Anti-Discrimination Act.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top