Australia

Careful, you're coming very close to breaking Aussie law. Luckily, I'm not easily offended. Had I been, it could have meant a free ride to state custody.

Remember, you're not allowed to offend people based on national origin.

 

I was pinning my hopes on that.

 

Say that to the people caught up in Cronulla

Say that to my indigenous colleague whose boyfriend (now husband) had to seek permission under the flora and fauna act to even date her!!

Our indigenous people have been put through an hell of a lot of (*)(*)(*)(*) and the Andrew Bolts of this world do not help matters at all.

If he had been this insulting to white people he might have face a defamation case and had to pay out of his own pocket. Instead there was a determination to make this about how people within the media talk of indigenous people. I keep cringing at the open racism in Australia

 

So, America has no defamation laws then?

 

Flora and Fauna Act?

What is she? A petunia?

 

^^That has nothing to do with defamation. A law such as the above would be illegal in and of itself in the US.

 

I'm not sure most of the people commenting on this have even read the articles. His premise was that these people are 75% or more white, and looking at them with their white skin and blond hair you would never even pick it. This is true. It's indisputible. They are only 1/4 or 1/8 aboriginal and he was commenting that they chose to identify as aboriginal. What's more, they were winning cash grants and prizes that were set aside by the government to help aboriginals who are generally disadvantaged in society. His criticism was that they are actually denying genuine aboriginals of these prizes and that they choose to focus on the minority heritage rather than their majority white heritage and that they are actually rather successful individuals in their professional careers who have not suffered disadvantage or discrimination because of their minority heritage. And he has a point.
As a result, the conservative opposition party who are poised to win government at the next election have come out and said that they will ammend the racial discrimination act to better protect freedom of speech.

 

Bolt never checks his facts before he goes on one of his right wing rants. He wouldn't know the meaning of a fact if it was dangled in his face.

Having said that, I agree with what he said. I hate the man, he is ignorant tool, but I think he had a point.

 

Nonsense, its just that civil action would be taken rather than criminal probably resulting in some absurd multi million dollar payout. Its the height of hypocrisy to criticise other countries laws when you come from country where you can sue someone for 100 million dollars for delivering your drycleaning late. The type of lawsuits which make it to civil court in the US would be laughed at even if contemplated here in Aussie.

 

Careful, if I get offended by your words that are based on my national origin then you could find yourself being criminally charged.

Come to think of it, there are quite a few Aussies on this forum who potentially break the law every single day...I hope you guys have your bail bondsmen lined up.

Just let me know if you find yourself behind bars, I know some top of the line Memphis attorneys that could probably help you out.

 

Incorrect.

Incorrect. This is the danger in commenting on something you so poorly understand, you make yourself look foolish. Well, let me qualify that, even more foolish than you looked previously.

 

Heres a brain teaser for the americans here deriding australian law. Answer this, how can OJ Simnpson be innocent and guilty simultaneously? Now lets see if you know your own law.

 

Sorry chap, it is unlawful for you to offend anyone based on their national origin. I know that is absurd and a ridiculously hard pill for you to swallow but that is your law. No use in crying to me about it.

 

Bolt's article was defamatory.

Why do you find it scary that people be made to apologise for telling lies about people?

No - allowing defamation is dangerous.

Don't comment on things you clearly don't understand.

 

Would you care to explain these comments?

Or did you just want to demonstrate how ignorant you are?


Bottom line - Bolt is free to be as racist as he likes in the press. Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act protects him for that. But he cannot defame people. That is illegal. That is what he did. It has nothing to do with free speech.

 

No - you are incorrect.

If someone were to claim that all Americans were ignorant retards, based on nothing more than your post. That is perfectly legal. It is a "fair" comment. Even if the premise on which it is based is ridiculous

Bolt did not make a "fair" comment. He made defamatory statements about individuals. Big difference.

 

Although a defamation suit would have been more appropriate - the claimants knew that even if they won - Bolt and his sugar daddies (Murdoch, Reinhart) would just pay out and Bolt would be back spewing bile about how they were just after money.

He is a racist. The courts have called him a racist.

Lets all just ignore the racist piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) now.

 

Which part were you not capable of understanding?

Justice Bromberg disagrees with you since he found that Bolt breached section 18C and then further found that Bolt WAS NOT protected by section 18D. 18D was the defense that Bolt's attorneys put forth and which was then REJECTED by the court.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/true-colours-20110928-1kxb0.html

So there you go, Bromberg found that he breached 18C and was not protected by 18D. Also, the charges were not brought under defamation law but under the Racial Discrimination Act which essentially means that your comment is totally false.

At this point, I can't help but to pose the question to you that you asked of me, did you just want to demonstrate how ignorant you are?

 

Nope, you sunk yourself when you said "even if the premise on which it is based is ridiculous". According to Bromberg the premise must be "reasonable and in good faith". His words, not mine. A comment can't be ridiculous and reasonable at the same time. Sorry.

 

This bit:


Who knew that freedom of speech was in such dire straits in Australia

Could you explain what you think you mean by that?

 

I'm relieved to hear that America isn't the only country where no one gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) about freedom.

 

It means that I find it absurd that "offending" someone by making comments in public "because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person" is an unlawful act in Australia. That isn't too hard to comprehend is it?

 

Every country has their own version of what constitutes free speech. Im glad you recognise that. In australias case we have no intention of following down Americas path where wealth is the predominate factor which determines whom you can legally defame.

 

I don't know where you think Justice Bromberg disagrees with me.

You are correct that Bolt breached section 18C and then further found that Bolt WAS NOT protected by section 18D.

Yes - Bromberg found that he breached 18C and was not protected by 18D.

Why is my comment false?

I said:
Bolt is free to be as racist as he likes in the press. Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act protects him for that. But he cannot defame people. That is illegal. That is what he did. It has nothing to do with free speech.


Bolt was not protected under Section 18D because his comment was defamatory. It was not fair comment. Hence Section 18D is not a defence for him

You are really clueless, aren't you.

 

It does show that Americans aren't unique in that regard but I'm not so sure it is relieving.