Freedom of speech and protest

[rederob]

Sacked for having an opinion.

What is this country coming to ?

Adelaide radio host sacked over 'silly little girl who got drunk' comments about Brittany Higgins

One of Adelaide's longest-serving and most controversial radio hosts no longer has a job after calling alleged rape victim Brittany Higgins "a silly little girl who got drunk".

www.abc.net.au

There is a considerable difference between expressing your opinions to acquaintances, and broadcasting them by via media.
In this case the "opinion" is actionable and leaves the broadcaster wide open to defamation, irrespective of their retraction and the sacking.
Getting drunk is not an invitation to be raped, which seems to be what Cordeaux thinks.

In the event action is taken against the radio station, their quick response to terminate Cordeaux and apologise unreservedly would serve to reduce any damages claim.

 

[sptrawler]

There is a considerable difference between expressing your opinions to acquaintances, and broadcasting them by via media.
In this case the "opinion" is actionable and leaves the broadcaster wide open to defamation, irrespective of their retraction and the sacking.
Getting drunk is not an invitation to be raped, which seems to be what Cordeaux thinks.

In the event action is taken against the radio station, their quick response to terminate Cordeaux and apologise unreservedly would serve to reduce any damages claim.

I don't think he said 'she invited rape', it just shows how things get misinterpreted, it is an alleged rape at the moment..
That is what the courts will test.
As for mitigating damage, the radio station had no option in the current climate, many decisions are being made to mitigate risk surrounding these issues ATM . IMO

 

[rederob]

I don't think he said 'she invited rape', it just shows how things get misinterpreted, it is an alleged rape at the moment..
That is what the courts will test.
As for mitigating damage, the radio station had no option in the current climate, many decisions are being made to mitigate risk surrounding these issues ATM . IMO

Cordeaux broadcast statements which are directly linked, and name Higgins. The defamatory inference is crystal clear.
How you arrive at a misinterpretation is interesting.
Furthermore, if the radio station believed Cordeaux's comments were ok, they could have chosen to take no action.

 

[sptrawler]

Cordeaux broadcast statements which are directly linked, and name Higgins. The defamatory inference is crystal clear.
How you arrive at a misinterpretation is interesting.
Furthermore, if the radio station believed Cordeaux's comments were ok, they could have chosen to take no action.

If the defamatory statement is clear, you would quote it, as usual you haven't.
You said:
"Getting drunk is not an invitation to be raped, which seems to be what Cordeaux thinks".
I didn't think he inferred that, I thought he inferred a young lady getting drunk to the point of being not in control of her faculties, is a very silly and dangerous situation to put themselves in and I agree.
A persons judgement being that far affected is dangerous in every sense of the word, be it in a car, walking down streets, accompanying other people etc, you are relying on the moral behaviour, driving ability etc of other people.
You may think that isn't silly, but i wouldn't be happy if one of my daughters got herself that drunk she, didn't know what she was doing.
I don't believe for one minute there aren't ill intentioned people out there, but obviously there are people that think nothing bad will happen, because we say it shouldn't.
It would be nice if there were no murders, no bashings, no rapes, no assaults etc, but that isn't the case, so unfortunately people do have to take responsibility and be mindful and careful not everyone is nice.
That is why we have prisons and courts and most are usually full.
Just my opinion, which always seems to differ from yours, but that's people we are all different.

 

[wayneL]

Ok I want this discussion to transgress left/right politics, because it is not about that at all, however, I would like those of us with particular political positions to examine their biases in regards to this issue.

I'm talking about the arrest last week of the friendlyjordies producer.

Some of us have been very alarmed by the frequency of this sort of thing going on in our society, others have only just become aware of it... Or rather, that eventually it cuts both ways.

I don't mind saying that Jordan is completely on the opposite side of the political divide to me and I think he is a total tw@t. However I fully support his right to free speech and to apply the torch to politician's belly.

IMO, what has happened to Jordan's producer here is emblematic of the toxic totalitarianism that is creeping into our system. It is not exclusive to one side of politics, it is happening in lockstep with each other.

I don't know what individually any of us can do, but collectively we need to try to find a way to stop this creeping, but accelerating police statism. Vis a vis, we should reject to divide and rule paradigm that has been implemented.

But how?

A penny for your thoughts...

 

[Knobby22]

Ok I want this discussion to transgress left/right politics, because it is not about that at all, however, I would like those of us with particular political positions to examine their biases in regards to this issue.

I'm talking about the arrest last week of the friendlyjordies producer.

Some of us have been very alarmed by the frequency of this sort of thing going on in our society, others have only just become aware of it... Or rather, that eventually it cuts both ways.

I don't mind saying that Jordan is completely on the opposite side of the political divide to me and I think he is a total tw@t. However I fully support his right to free speech and to apply the torch to politician's belly.

IMO, what has happened to Jordan's producer here is emblematic of the toxic totalitarianism that is creeping into our system. It is not exclusive to one side of politics, it is happening in lockstep with each other.

I don't know what individually any of us can do, but collectively we need to try to find a way to stop this creeping, but accelerating police statism. Vis a vis, we should reject to divide and rule paradigm that has been implemented.

But how?

A penny for your thoughts...

Interesting.
I saw Kevin Rudd is upset. https://www.crikey.com.au/2021/06/21/kevin-rudd-defence-fund-friendlyjordies/
Will watch video later and do some reading.
What happened to that poor Liberal woman who quit due to constant attacks even extending to trashing her offices means there has to be some protection though. This however may be an abuse of power.

 

[moXJO]

This has been pretty big the last few weeks.
Guy is a pretentious d1ck and has been pushing for an outcome and got it.

Barra took the bait and overstepped the mark. Barra is in the wrong. He should of just sent some angry Italians around and broke the guys kneecaps like the unions do.


This sht has gone on for a long time. Guys in power can bone you multiple ways. I'm surprised he went the police route. Hope he gets the sack.

 

[Smurf1976]

IMO, what has happened to Jordan's producer here is emblematic of the toxic totalitarianism that is creeping into our system. It is not exclusive to one side of politics, it is happening in lockstep with each other.

Rather a lot of people are speaking out about this now.

Like this guy who isn't someone you'd expect to comment. For those unfamiliar, he normally comments about cars not politics or arrests:

 

[SirRumpole]

So what has the arrested person been charged with ?

 

[rederob]

Ok I want this discussion to transgress left/right politics, because it is not about that at all, however, I would like those of us with particular political positions to examine their biases in regards to this issue.

This is a straight out legal matter where a politician in power has used an inappropriate Act and his apparent command over a Counter Terrorism force to silence his detractors.
As the video link points out there are also grave errors of fact in relation to the apprehension, aside from questions over when, where and how the apprehension was authorised.
First, the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence Act) 2007 is in place, unsurprisingly, to protect vulnerable people from violence by catching perpetrators who stalk or intimidate. It is an abuse of the courts to use this Act to silence speech (as the unusual bail conditions clearly set out).
Second is the use of a Counter Terrorism force, rather than police acting on complaint after examining the evidence.
Third is the apprehension itself - its method and the actions of persons involved, including the unambiguously false information they apparently relied on.
Jordan rightly invokes using ICAC to examine this affair.
ICAC is principally concerned with corrupt conduct which in part is defined as when:

• a public official improperly uses, or tries to improperly use, the knowledge, power or resources of their position for personal gain or the advantage of others

The political persuasion of the instigator is irrelevant. It is their actions that now need to be brought to account.

 

[basilio]

This is a straight out legal matter where a politician in power has used an inappropriate Act and his apparent command over a Counter Terrorism force to silence his detractors.
As the video link points out there are also grave errors of fact in relation to the apprehension, aside from questions over when, where and how the apprehension was authorised.
First, the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence Act) 2007 is in place, unsurprisingly, to protect vulnerable people from violence by catching perpetrators who stalk or intimidate. It is an abuse of the courts to use this Act to silence speech (as the unusual bail conditions clearly set out).
Second is the use of a Counter Terrorism force, rather than police acting on complaint after examining the evidence.
Third is the apprehension itself - its method and the actions of persons involved, including the unambiguously false information they apparently relied on.
Jordan rightly invokes using ICAC to examine this affair.
ICAC is principally concerned with corrupt conduct which in part is defined as when:

• a public official improperly uses, or tries to improperly use, the knowledge, power or resources of their position for personal gain or the advantage of others

The political persuasion of the instigator is irrelevant. It is their actions that now need to be brought to account.

Terrifying.. About as totalitarian as one can get. Redrobs analysis of this travesty is spot on.
The solution ?

Lets bring back Peter Dutton, Christian Porter and Barnaby Joyce as staunch supporters individual democratic rights.

 

[wayneL]

Ok I don't want this discussion to transgress left/right politics, because it is not about that at all, however, I would like those of us with particular political positions to examine their biases in regards to this issue....

...Vis a vis, we should reject to divide and rule paradigm that has been implemented.

I realised I made a mistake in my post, correction bolded.

...and I am quoting myself, what I thought was a pretty important point which may have been missed.

 

[SirRumpole]

I realised I made a mistake in my post, correction bolded.

...and I am quoting myself, what I thought was a pretty important point which may have been missed.

At least NSW has an ICAC, it will be interesting to see if they take up the case.

Use of taxpayer's resources to solve a personal problem could be considered corrupt.

 

[moXJO]

It was definitely overreach. Will be interesting to see where it goes.

One problem for the FJordies is their track record on abusing people and using their rabid followers to attack. Journalists are often in his sights.
His racism is an afterthought.

It seems this is the latest incarnation of political influencing. Very surprised the left jumped on with this racist. Yet vilified Tommy Robinson when he was jailed.

I think there is a case against jordies. Also that barilaro has a lot to answer for.

 

[Knobby22]

It was definitely overreach. Will be interesting to see where it goes.

One problem for the FJordies is their track record on abusing people and using their rabid followers to attack. Journalists are often in his sights.
His racism is an afterthought.

It seems this is the latest incarnation of political influencing. Very surprised the left jumped on with this racist. Yet vilified Tommy Robinson when he was jailed.

I think there is a case against jordies. Also that barilaro has a lot to answer for.

Tommy Robinson was in the UK though. Need an Aussie example.

 

[wayneL]

Tommy Robinson was in the UK though. Need an Aussie example.

Avi Yemeni has been arrested several times in Victoria.

 

[moXJO]

Tommy Robinson was in the UK though. Need an Aussie example.

They all seem to be click driven on outrage. They push to a point until they get a result. Fans biases are confirmed as they all circle jerk one another off in echo chamber ecstasy.

This time the guy is actually a Labor boot licker. It smells like getup or similar. This guy had his nose up Kristina Keneally arse. I mean if you want the poodle of corruption while accusing others....
seems like an astroturfing rather than grassroots. Latest political ploy in engaging the youth.

Stick your finger up to all of them youngings.

 

[Smurf1976]

It seems this is the latest incarnation of political influencing. Very surprised the left jumped on with this racist. Yet vilified Tommy Robinson when he was jailed.

Freedom of speech is your right to say things others disagree with without suffering undue consequences.

Due consequences = everyone knows what you think and judges you accordingly.

Undue consequences = you're arrested.

In practice rather a lot will say they support it but in truth what they really support is your right to agree with them which by its very nature isn't actual free speech at all.

The Left tend to get fired up about those who say things the Left strongly opposes. All of a sudden "free speech" is forgotten and out come the cries that what they're saying mustn't be said for whatever reason they can come up with.

The Right takes a different tactic and uses intimidation and legal processes. Eg get a private investigator to follow someone for months, put them through the courts over all sorts of frivolous matters and so on.

Both extremes are terrible.

 

[rederob]

Freedom of speech is your right to say things others disagree with without suffering undue consequences.

We don't have freedom of speech in Australia and we do not have a Bill of Rights.
What we can say is conditioned by our laws, even when we present honest opinion and believe we are telling the truth (as in defamation cases).
We could be more liberal and adopt somethin akin to the US system whereby lying seems to be a daily part of life, or the Chinese system where telling an everyday truth can land you in jail.
I personally believe our middle path is a better compromise.
In Australia we are largely protected in what we say privately, but when in public or using any form of media, we leave ourselves open to challenge, no matter how trivial. That includes everything each of us post in this forum.

 

[SirRumpole]

What we can say is conditioned by our laws, even when we present honest opinion and believe we are telling the truth (as in defamation cases).

Honest opinion is a defense in defamation cases.