Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

ABC is Political

Jump to new
basilio said:
There are principles of redaction of documents to ensure that operational details that could arguably be used against , say, SAS soldiers not be divulged. But there is also a public interest in holding governments to account for behaviours that break laws. These are the principles of a free and open press.

If we don't have a press that is able to publish evidence of malpractice any government can simply classify every document it creates and then point blank deny any accusations of misconduct and say such accusations are lies, slander. They could then get away with anything they want.

Sound fair enough ?:cautious:
Click to expand...

It still has to be checked, there is a process and there is due diligence required. The press can do their job, but they are not above the law.
As I said, what happened to that crew that tried to "rescue" those children?
The press can print "evidence" it can't fabricate it, or pervert the course of justice.
Freedom of the press, doesn't mean they can do and say what the hell they like, with no redress.
 
Last edited:
Well going by this report, it is nothing to do with the Government, a lot will find that very sad.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...-government-interference-20190606-p51v77.html

Oh well just have to jump on something else, have you noticed Morrison is going bald, that must indicate something because Dutton is bald as well.
Possibly a conspiracy involving a rise of power, involving bald males in blue ties, hijacking Australian politics?:roflmao:
 
rederob said:
I hope you know that none of that legislation is relevant to the foregoing.
Click to expand...
Crimes Act 1914 and Criminal Code Act 1995 to replace certain existing, and introduce new, offences relating to secrecy of information.
 
rederob said:
I linked the legislation and suggest you do better next time.
Click to expand...
You didn't link anything.
You also did not read any of the amendments. It covers commonwealth officials handing over classified material. The holding of that material other then that of its place of purpose. And how many years you get trying not to drop any soap. It also covers journos.
 
rederob said:
I linked the legislation at post #3026.
It is a shame you do not understand what it covers.
No magic necessary, just a functional brain.
Click to expand...

Suggest you check the link. It said you have reached a moved or deleted page.;)
 
basilio said:
Suggest you check the link. It said you have reached a moved or deleted page.;)
Click to expand...
Thanks Bas - fixed the link.
I have read the various Acts and I could not find how the 2018 legislation was relevant to what moxjo claimed as they were specific to Espionage and Foreign Interference. That is not what the journalists were addressing.
 
rederob said:
Thanks Bas - fixed the link.
I have read the various Acts and I could not find how the 2018 legislation was relevant to what moxjo claimed as they were specific to Espionage and Foreign Interference. That is not what the journalists were addressing.
Click to expand...
You didn't read it.
 
SirRumpole said:
It should be up to judges to decide whether material is detrimental to national security, not politicians.
Click to expand...
They will judge on whether or not a crime has been committed.
The crime is most likely to relate to how the information was obtained, and not if it was a matter of national security.
 
moXJO said:
You didn't read it.
Click to expand...
I read all the amended legislation.
Did you?
Or did you rely on something a newspaper reported?
Please link to the specific legislation if you think you have a case. I took the long way of checking before saying what I have, above.
 
The whistleblower was a commonwealth official that had taken documents from their proper place of custody. He is looking at jail time for taking, holding and passing on that information. He is screwed unfortunately.

If any journalists were found to be holding or moving those files they are then up for potential jail time. Its not so much the publishing the information for journalists but the possession of the documents.
I only quickly scanned but there was a line that if the journalists showed it was in the publics interest then they could get away with publishing the story. Something along those lines anyway.

The raids were looking for files. I'm then not sure where abc journalists fall under all this as they are employed by the government. And I'm to lazy to read section 121.1 again.

Funnily enough the amendment mentions increasing govts spying powers as well. I suppose the devil is in the details.
 
rederob said:
I read all the amended legislation.
Did you?
Or did you rely on something a newspaper reported?
Please link to the specific legislation if you think you have a case. I took the long way of checking before saying what I have, above.
Click to expand...
No you didn't.
From roughly 1300 onwards of the Explanatory memorandum deals with documents and taking those documents. Its applicable to this case and is why the afp are doing raids searching for documents.
 
bigdog said:
I regularly watch the ABC news at 7:00 PM

But prior to the election, I stopped watching because the political reporting was so biased.
Click to expand...

Get one of them new TVs and use the split screen option
ABC on one and Skynews on the other and sit in the middle
Ps Fox costs more
 
Top