Incorrect.
There are laws relating to hate speech.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate...s_in_Australia
OK
No anyone who believes in freedom of speech has no support for the concept of hate speech
They feel you are free to say whatever the **** you like whether they agree with you or not
Those who believe in Hate Speech support censorship and are happy to erode their own freedoms just so as to get their woke points up
We all know which camp you are in
to be fair, RA sided with the money.
and thats how sport is run, so doing that shouldn't be seen as any sort of radical approach.
again, having data to point to in defence of their point is vital, as is public sentiment.
but RA only really cared when the money was in trouble.
nope. wrong again boss.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/sarah-ha...eyonhjelm-case
read this and tell me where the lies are.
little buddy still had to pay out 120 large.
he repeated and expanded the comments he made in Parliament on TV.
“It was in a Motion to consider self-defence. There was a Motion calling on the Government to make it possible for women to protect themselves, thinking in terms of the Eurydice Dixon case or even the Jill Meagher case, and there was the Green’s Senator Janet Rice was making a one minute statement which suggested that it was all men and that men need to change their behaviour and so forth. Sarah called out, I don’t know the exact words because there was a lot of chatter going on, but it was to the effect of, ‘men should stop raping women’, the implication being all men are rapists. Now Sarah’s, this is not a criticism, but Sarah is known for liking men. The rumours about her in Parliament House are well known, so I just said ‘well stop shagging men then Sarah’. I mean it just doesn’t make any sense if you think they’re all rapists why would you shag them? So she took great offence at that which is her problem not my problem. In retrospect I, you know, um she um, she has a right to shag as many men as she likes I don’t care you know … but she took great offence, she came and called me a creep, I told her to … am I allowed to say the F word on TV?”“She is known for lots of relationships with men, she had a quite famous one with a, with a Liberal member of parliament a few years ago, Barry Haase, now there’s, I am not criticising her for that, she is perfectly entitled to do that, but the double standard”
heres the whole judgement if you want a read.
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.a...19/2019fca1981
also, you can absolutely be fined and jailed for saying shit under Parliamentary privilege.
It aint the free for all you assume it to be.
To be charged with defamation there needs to be an element of truth in what you say about someone. If someone says something that's 100% fabricated / untrue it's almost impossible to prove because once puffery comes into play the wheels of any defamation case tend to fall off.
*puts postgraduate law hat on*
Truth is not an absolute defence to defamation in New South Wales.
It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that—
(a) the matter carried, in addition to the defamatory imputations of which the plaintiff complains, one or more other imputations (contextual imputations) that are substantially true, and
(b) the defamatory imputations do not further harm the reputation of the plaintiff because of the substantial truth of the contextual imputations.
Basically in layman's terms. To use truth as a defence the facts must be well known and not causing further harm to the plaintiff because everyone knows about it.
Secondly. If the publication was delivered with malicious intent. Just about forget about trying to use "truth" as a defence.
Last edited by Skirt Boy; 07-12-2019 at 12:41 AM.