Australia

Go back and read the entire series of exchanges:

My comment drawing attention to the fact that most of the points Leo spelled out did not apply to the people that this thread is about utterly confused ian and I took a guess as to the source of his confusion. I may have been mistaken about said source but his failure to reply to the query implies to me that I hit pretty close to the mark.

BTW, what is your opinion on the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975, in particular article 18C, which is what this thread is about. I see that you've made several comments here but have yet to actually state an opinion on the crux of the issue.

 

lol The comment that I quoted and the one that you quoted were from the exact same post...

Give it a break. I wasn't trying to remove the racial aspect at all which is evidenced by the fact that...I included the racial aspect numerous times in the post that you are challenging (funny how that works, innit?). Now, just admit that you were mistaken and go troll someone else.

 

Overall, I have no problem with the Act or Section 18C

I particularly like the inclusion of Sections 18D and 26

This is also a good inclusion:

"Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence."

 

Lol. But you left the reference out when it suited you.

From my memory of Straight and Crooked Thinking, that's crooked.

 

Run along, junior.

 

<<<Mod edit: Insult removed>>>

It was an illustration of how the legislation works.

Here it is again - Section 18D of the Racial Discrinination Act:

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 does not get one of these exemptions because his comments were not fair and in good faith


<<<Mod edit: Insult removed>>>

My comments are "fair and in good faith". They are supported by the fact of your previous posts

Bolt told lies which were not supported by any fact at all.

That is why he breached the law.


<<<Mod edit: Insult removed>>>

 

Lol, you have a lot to learn. You cant start leaving bits out that dont suit your argument, the law exists in its entirety not to be altered or shotened for a particular agenda. I could just inagine you getting up in front of any court and arguing the fact you are right because you altered it or shortened it. Lol.

Predictable response, however it does not alter the fact that you are wrong and have been caught deliberately altering the facts to suit your unproven argument. Do you think we wouldnt notice? Youre a joke.

 

You lied, you got caught immediately, continuing on over and over with the same lies doesnt support your case.

 

.............

I see that you guys are easily amused. Have fun playing with yourselves.

 

Finally, the white flag is raised.






Off to play with myself now. Don't wait up.

 

Indeed, there is only so much trolling, inane nitpicking, and all-around jack-assery that I can tolerate. Some of these guys are masters in those departments...except for the trolling, very amateurish IMO. I'm somewhat disappointed in that regard; I expected a bit more pizzazz. Top marks for inane nitpicking, though. I don't think I've seen a thread with so many posts and so little actual discussion of the topic at hand.

 

After analyzing the case and the ruling of the judge, I dont see what the breach on freedom of speech was. Whilst the concept of the fourth estate remains, there will exist a standard of journalism - it was this standard that Bolt was found guilty of breaching. As a journalist, he made false and fraudulent claims. If he had not have been a journalist, this would have been simply considered defamation, which I believe should be a crime. The difference between speaking your mind and lying is intent, and here Bolt clearly had a deceptive intent since he lies was REPEATED through his writing. I support the right of anyone to be a racist, which Bolt isnt imo, and I support the right of anyone to make an opinionated judgment of another, but I cant support intentional lies directed at others to defame and fraudulently deface their identity within society.