A defense is not a guarantee against being sued, nor of winning a case.Honest opinion is a defense in defamation cases.
A defense is not a guarantee against being sued, nor of winning a case.
And in another thread @Joe Blow has quantified his costs of successfully defending a defamation case, and I think to this day has not got anything back.
We do want to guard what rights of speech we do have, however. In other parts of the Anglosphere like the UK, and most especially Scotland, it is aggressively being legislated away.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.
I definitely said it was a "compromise".But its part of our "middle path", which you said you support.
If you think it can be improved you are free to say so.
Agreed, and it's why whenever possible I vote for independent candidates who have a track record (or platform) of fighting injustices.We don't want that here.
I definitely said it was a "compromise".
I believe there needs to be better protections for people who are clearly expressing in public opinions which can be reasonably derived.
I also believe that whistleblower and public interest legislation needs to be beefed up.
Furthermore, I believe there needs to be a circuit breaker before matters of "opinion" are deemed necessary for courts to settle.
Finally, I believe it would work better if the courts did two things;
As matters stand you need to be wealthy to continue claims and recover costs/damages. This is beyond the average wage and salary earner's capacity. Or most independent journalists.
- Levy a fine (in addition to any other penalty) on a party who knowingly brought frivolous or inappropriate matters for adjudication; and
- Place the onus on the State to recover costs and damages from the losing party.
Levy a fine (in addition to any other penalty) on a party who knowingly brought frivolous or inappropriate matters for adjudication; and
Exactly Rumpy, there is a difference between an opinion and a statement of fact, that is why I try to differentiate when I post.Honest opinion is a defense in defamation cases.
Whilst true, I'd argue that most things in society exist not because government said they shall exist but rather because government hasn't said they must not exist. Not legally perhaps but in practice that's true - this forum exists not because government said it must exist but rather, because government hasn't said it can't exist.We don't have freedom of speech in Australia and we do not have a Bill of Rights.
I cannot agree with your ideas about free speech.Freedom of speech ought to be a protected right in my view though certainly and, more to the point here, any proven instance of corruption or misuse of power by Members of Parliament ought have a mandatory minimum penalty attached.
The trouble is, silencing dissent is the way to stop progress in practice.I do not believe you or anyone can say whatever they like in public without repercussions.
The trouble is, silencing dissent is the way to stop progress in practice.
Pretty much all social change comes about because a minority, who by definition do not have mainstream support at the time, speak out against the mainstream view with an expectation that whilst others may not agree with what they have to say, they'll suffer no undue consequences from saying it.
If today's ideas of silencing dissent had been deemed acceptable over the past half century then almost certainly 2021 would look a lot more like 1970. We'd still be doing what the Church says we must do, we'd have trashed every last piece of wilderness and we'd probably still have racist jokes on mainstream TV as well.
Social progress happens because society allows minorities, who by definition are not supported by most, to express their views without undue consequence. By doing so it raises awareness of the points they raise, rational people consider the idea and, if it has merit, in due course it gains support.
An example of that from the past is the idea that the natural environment has any value other than that of the natural resources able to be extracted from it. The point was made, the media reported the news, rational people considered the idea and in due course society's attitudes slowly but surely changed. Very few would today argue that the only value of wilderness is measured in terms of the minerals, timber or water resources within it.
A more recent example is that there's some reason why the 26th of January is a day not to be celebrated. Again a radical idea being raised but people raise their concerns without undue consequence, the media reports the news, rational people consider the merits of the point being made and if deemed worthy it gains traction. My guess is we'll see that one changed in due course because of that, an idea is being raised and many are seeing it to have merit.
As I see it, you're basically arguing to entrench conservatism and stop social progress. That's the natural outcome if dissenting views at odds with mainstream conventional wisdom are able to be silenced.
You do of course in my opinion have a right to express that view.....
This is a very small element of so called free speech, and I am not aware of it being silenced per se. People are able to disagree, but there may come a time where their views are proven unsound and their voices thereafter have little traction.The trouble is, silencing dissent is the way to stop progress in practice.
I have no idea what you mean when you say "today's ideas of silencing dissent".If today's ideas of silencing dissent had been deemed acceptable over the past half century then almost certainly 2021 would look a lot more like 1970. We'd still be doing what the Church says we must do, we'd have trashed every last piece of wilderness and we'd probably still have racist jokes on mainstream TV as well.
No. You have created a straw man.As I see it, you're basically arguing to entrench conservatism and stop social progress.
I think you have missed the point of the discussion about "free speech" per se.That's the natural outcome if dissenting views at odds with mainstream conventional wisdom are able to be silenced.
I'm not sure who is lower on the scum scale. Journos or pollies. May they sue one another into oblivion.Here's the Tazzy version, found guilty today. 9 months prison.
He seems to be a sandwich short of a picnic.
'Self-styled journalist' and convicted conman jailed over videos about Liberal MP
A YouTuber and "self-employed journalist" is sentenced to nine months in prison after he published defamatory videos about a senior Tasmanian government minister.www.abc.net.au
West Australians have been spreading the truth that there are no birds for over 60 years @basilio, so please stop spouting conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories.This "Post Truth" world is a doozy isn't it ? Free speech ? Dissent ? The right to "Believe what we Want" ?
And then we reach the levels of the Sandy Hook massacre being a covert op. That the world is run by pedophile, shape changing, lizard people. That the earth is flat or hollow. hat the moon landings were faked. That millions and millions of people passionately believe these sorts of ideas or allow them to continue because they support their general political/social views.
I'm not sure where this stands in the range of conspiracy theories but the "Birds aren't Real" movement does bring another dimension to the conversation.
That's right. There are no real birds in the sky folks. What we see flying around are actually high sophisticated CIA surveillance drones.
It's on the net. There are hundreds of thousands of "believers " (Maybe ) Lot's of merchandising as well. And the back story is to die for. If you a Sandy Hook aficionado, if Q Anon seems pretty reasonable etc etc perhaps this is the theory that brings it all together.
THE HISTORY
WARNING: DISTURBING CONTENT The only way to properly explain, is with words. Chapter 1: Why? When asked to write the unabridged history of this organization, I was taken aback. I knew that I had reached many thousands in my quest to spread the truth, but I was bewildered and...birdsarentreal.com‘The Birds Aren’t Real’ movement says federal government replaced all birds with surveillance drones
There is no scientific evidence to suggest that birds aren’t real. But the truther movement “Birds Aren’t Real” isn’t quitting — in fact they’re just getting started. Springfield, Mo., wa…thehill.com
Using the Bob Brown example, Bob has throughout his political career (either as an actual MP or an activist) pursued a range of issues.I have no idea what you mean when you say "today's ideas of silencing dissent".
However, I believe you are using a generalisation that is far removed from how progress has occurred in the fields you mention. For example, Bob Brown was never silenced. Governments used used their respective powers to prevent protesters from stopping what the majority of voters wanted. Bob Brown has been repeatedly (and to this day!) faced criminal charges for what he did rather than what he said.
You have not shown this is the case in any way shape form or fashion.Modern standards would easily shut him down though and that is my point here. If we were arguing about that stuff today as new issues then the likes of Bob would very easily be silenced if someone wanted to.
Again, no demonstration that this occurs here... unless they are breaking laws we have previously covered in this thread.Today we silence those who simply offend verbally. No need to put anyone out of a job or cause them any actual harm, just say something they deem offensive and you're done. Pretty much anyone will be tripped up on that if someone wants to.
That is not keeping anyone silent!For that matter well these days keeping someone quiet is as easy as just scheduling another press conference to clash with theirs.
I think you are confusing how people with power and influence can affect anyone's opportunity to send a message or otherwise inform, rather than their ability to say what they wish.The ALP is well aware of that one because the federal government does it rather often - the ALP calls a press conference, someone starts speaking, then before they're a third of the way through there's a government one underway being shown live and that's it, done. That's one reason Labor has trouble getting their message out - the government quite literally cuts them off, a tactic that would have been considered totally unacceptable not that long ago.
That is not keeping anyone silent!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?