ABC apologises

Chris Kenny was won a legal victory against their ABC:

NINE months after broadcasting an offensive skit featuring The Australian’s columnist Chris Kenny by The Chaser team, the ABC will tonight issue a comprehensive on-air apology as part of a formal defamation settlement that includes paying all legal costs and some damages. Despite the ABC and The Chaser team vowing to contest the matter in court, backed by an internal review that found the skit met editorial standards for satire, the apology will tonight be broadcast on ABC1 at about 9pm, before the Jonah From Tonga show.

Kenny said he decided to sue the ABC, production company Giant Dwarf and its presenter ­Andrew Hansen for defamation because of the offensive nature of the skit, and its subsequent damage to his reputation, but also ­because he considered it an ­attempt to silence him.

“I was singled out because I’ve been a critic of the ABC and it was an attempt to silence me,’’ he said.

“People have suggested to me it’s anti-free speech to launch a defamation action, well I think it’s quite the opposite in this case. I was singled out because I dared to criticise the ABC and it (the skit) was an attempt to intimidate people out of criticising the ABC.”

Responding to criticism that journalists should not pursue law suits and commentary that satire should be exempt from defamation, Kenny said he did not “take legal action lightly but in the end you have to draw a line”.

“They can mock me, they can tease me, they can find examples to ridicule me with all they like but somewhere there has to be a line,’’ he said.

“I accept that the line is grey, but I think this case was so ­obviously beyond the pale that nobody would disagree.”

This whole incident reflects very poorly on the ABC – from the initial decision to broadcast the material, to the decision to brazen out any criticism, then the attempt to monster Chris Kenny into dropping the action in the last fortnight.

This entry was posted in Hypocrisy of progressives. Bookmark the permalink.

322 Responses to ABC apologises

  1. Max

    This case goes to the Heart of the problem of having a Public Broadcaster.

    In a free market no business would advertise their product and company images along side images of beastiality.

    The power and influence that content producers have inside of the ABC should be unacceptable in a free society.

  2. MemoryVault

    the attempt to monster Chris Kenny into dropping the action in the last fortnight.

    This is Standard Operating Procedure when anybody, anybody at all, is involved in legal action against any tentacle of the Bureaucracy.

  3. Gab

    A court ordered forced apology is what it takes to get their ABC to “admit” their disgusting attacks on conservatives who have the temerity to criticise their ABC.

    Still, it is a major win for Kenny.

  4. Infidel Tiger

    In the finest of ABC traditions, the apology is being made by the BBC and the ABC are paying $2 million for the broadcast rights.

  5. Gab

    This is Standard Operating Procedure when anybody, anybody at all, is involved in legal action against any tentacle of the Bureaucracy.

    Not many have this type of bullying played out in the media before they even receive the letter in private, however.

  6. JMH

    Scott must resign. His incompetence led to this disgusting state of affairs. Well done, Chris Kenny but it’s too late for the ABC.

    We pay for their inanity and that must cease. Turnbull has to be removed from his portfolio. His continued support for the status quo at the ABC says all we need to know about Lord Turnbull.

    The meme is more important than ever. Shut the bloody thing down; fire them all and salt the earth upon which the behemoth sat.

  7. gabrianga

    Took a while but the “Friends of Turnbull” finally penned a begrudging apology.

  8. Notafan

    Now some Tongans should lodge a complaint under 18c in relation to the appalling Jonah show.
    Well done Chris Kenny in your battle against the ABC that is befriended by the likes of Turnbull Palmer but not conservative Australians.

  9. .

    Can they apologise for the fake audience of empty seats they had Combet (newsreader’s boyfriend) talking to?

  10. Alfonso

    “Mr Scott’s failure to act decisively in the Kenny matter has cast doubt on his tenure as the ABC’s boss and editor-in-chief.”

    Bolt’s in la-la land……Abbott has already told Their ABC they are untouchable .
    Please listen.

  11. James of the Glen

    ” backed by an internal review that found the skit met editorial standards for satire”

    I’m sure there is no doubt about that.

  12. Max

    Now some Tongans should lodge a complaint under 18c in relation to the appalling Jonah show.

    yep its a shocker — again no business would have their products along side of it

  13. Angus Black

    Always nice to see the Voice of Ultimo get it’s just deserts, just a shame they will simply thrust their grasping hands deeper into my pocket to pay for it. CID,STA

  14. Senile Old Guy

    Your search – kenny apology site:abc.net.au – did not match any documents. [For the last 24 hours]

    Surprise.

  15. Angus Black

    Deserts–> desserts

  16. Habib

    Only problem is that it’s merely a loss of face to the ABC, they don’t give a shit anyway as it’s all part of a grand right wing conspiracy that’s stacked the judiciary against them (despite the fact that the bench is creaking with marxist fossils). None of these cretins will lose a single razoo, there’s no cost to them at all, and the drooling cretins of the Chaser etc wil probably see it as a bit of extra cred; taxpayers wil be hosed again. I trust it’ll come out of their bloated budget.

  17. Lysander

    Now Kenny should cite pyschological trauma and sue for damages along with bullying.

  18. .

    Compare this “some say” crap with the Bolt trial.

    I’m actually sickened to live in this country on that comparison.

  19. manalive

    ‘… the ABC will tonight issue a comprehensive on-air apology as part of a formal defamation settlement that includes [the taxpayers] paying all legal costs and some damages …’

  20. MemoryVault

    Not many have this type of bullying played out in the media before they even receive the letter in private, however.

    Trouble is, Gab, this kind of bullying goes on all the time and never even gets to the media under any circumstances. I do volunteer advocacy work for people being monstered by bureaucracies, and the situation is appalling.

    Even a simple FOI request can very quickly escalate into a veiled threat of bankruptcy, if the information sought is likely to embarrass the PS Mandarins in any way.

  21. jupes

    I trust it’ll come out of their bloated budget.

    Oh no. Peppa’s in trouble again.

  22. Rabz

    How on earth has the ALPBC and its so called management been allowed to get away with this?

    Because that is what has effectively occurred. No one has been sacked, no one will be out of pocket (barring of course, taxpayers) and no doubt those smug, stupid, utterly unfunny chaser cretins will continue to have their narcissistic, onanistic drivel broadcast on their ALPBC to its massive audience of about two thousand inner urban wankers.

    FFS, this is simply not good enough.

  23. jupes

    Do Giant Dwarf and Andrew Hansen have to pay as well or are all costs covered by the ABC taxpayer?

  24. tomix

    Anyone know the origins of the photo before Chris Kenny’s head was superimposed on it?

    Has anybody been sacked or prosecuted over that?

  25. Rabz

    Anyone know the origins of the photo before Chris Kenny’s head was superimposed on it?

    An NRL player?

  26. john constantine

    the ability of the abc to dig in and go to trench warfare over this is undeniable.

    when the abc can simply use tax dollars to draw everything out forever and run kenny out of cash, the rules of disproportionate warfare come into play.

    the abc have nothing to lose, but if kenny gets done on one point of law, through one loophole, then he is bankrupted.

    who would send their family out into the minefields risking everything, to inflict not even a fleshwound on the enemy?.

  27. harrys on the boat

    My thoughts too jupes. Whose paying? The Chasers production company? Scott should pay with his fucking job.

  28. duncanm

    ‘… the ABC will tonight issue a comprehensive on-air apology as part of a formal defamation settlement that includes [the taxpayers] paying all legal costs and some damages …’

    I say take it directly out of Mr Scott’s pay packet (the taxpayer still pays, but Scott feels the pain).

    He could have nipped this in the bud at time zero, but didn’t.

  29. Joe Goodacre

    I don’t agree with Chris Kenny that his defammation action is pro-free speech.

    That’s a nice spin but doesn’t accord with the reality.

    Everyone of us every day are subject to criticism both unfair and fair which may discourage us against saying things.

    If other people disagreeing with you and ridiculing you is anti free speech, then we need Racial Discrimination laws to protect the free speech of minorities.

    The logic is backward – both defammation law and S18C restrict free speech.

    Not speaking to avoid criticism or ridicule is a self imposed restraint on speech, not state imposed.

  30. Oh come on

    Great stuff. Of course it’s a badge of honour for the “Chaser boys” – they’re probably being backslapped by the ABC collective as we speak for sticking it to ‘The Man’ (who happens to be a man, while they are part of a powerful monolith that protects its own zealously. Oblivious motherfuckers). I hear they have subsequently tweeted doctored photos of Kenny copulating with other animals. I don’t see why we should ever hear their names on broadcast TV or radio again.

    I’ll be sure to watch their apology tonight. Not only for the gloat factor; it will be more entertaining than Jonah from Tonga, which is about as funny as late stage terminal cancer. Seriously, how does that guy keep getting work? Jamie the Private Schoolgirl was so bad it made me want to stab myself in the eye with a compass.

  31. Joe Goodacre

    ABC is a joke though – how Mark Scott can keep his job is beyond me.

    I think he could be fired without too much of a rustle in the community for incompetence.

    Unable to find any savings without cutting popular programmes and took 6 months to recognise that it’s not the place of the national broadcaster to ridicule either left or right wing commentators.

  32. johanna

    Hope someone records the “apology” and puts it on youtube. The chances of it being available on the ABC website afterwards are zero.

    They are being very coy about when exactly it will be shown – there are reports in other media outlets but nothing has been confirmed by the ABC, AFAIK. Presumably they don’t want any more people than absolutely necessary to actually see it.

  33. Andreas

    Deserts–> desserts

    Actually you were right the first time, Angus. It is actually “just deserts”, not “just desserts”.

    desert noun (usu. deserts)
    a person’s worthiness or entitlement to reward or punishment

  34. manalive

    This whole incident reflects very poorly on the ABC …

    So what?

  35. Andreas

    It’s before Jonah from Tonga to ensure absolutely no one will be watching.

  36. Alfonso

    Sure Joe.
    How about a doctored photo cartoon depicting him in the same stance with a 5 year old child……a bit more free speech from the left? Pity you aren’t as “progressive” with S18C matey.

  37. Aristogeiton

    Alfonso
    #1332844, posted on June 4, 2014 at 11:34 am
    Sure Joe.
    How about a doctored photo cartoon depicting him in the same stance with a 5 year old child……a bit more free speech from the left? Pity you aren’t as “progressive” with S18C matey.

    He’s a bloody numpty.

  38. egg_

    Bullies are cowards – capitulation in the end, as expected.

  39. TonyOrlando

    I have to say I originally thought it quite unlikely that Chris Kenny would have sex with a dog, but I beginning to change my mind.
    After all, everyone told Oscar Wilde he should just ignore the Marquise of Queensberry.

  40. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1332830, posted on June 4, 2014 at 11:22 am
    I don’t agree with Chris Kenny that his defammation action is pro-free speech.

    That’s a nice spin but doesn’t accord with the reality.

    Everyone of us every day are subject to criticism both unfair and fair which may discourage us against saying things.

    If other people disagreeing with you and ridiculing you is anti free speech, then we need Racial Discrimination laws to protect the free speech of minorities.

    The logic is backward – both defammation law and S18C restrict free speech.

    Not speaking to avoid criticism or ridicule is a self imposed restraint on speech, not state imposed.

    So the guy who says that Andrew Bolt’s tone in the articles Pat Eatock sued him over was objectionable, thinks everyone should harden the fuck up when defamed?

    The last sentence is a classic bloviation from you. First of all, what has it to do with anything that a restriction is ‘state imposed’? Nothing. Secondly, the ABC are not ‘the State’. Finally, by the same logic cowering in fear of blows is a self-imposed restraint on liberty and not one imposed by a police state.

  41. egg_

    ” backed by an internal review that found the skit met editorial standards for satire”

    Oh, so it was ‘peer reviewed’ – that’s yer problem, right there.

  42. What ever it takes

    Yes they tried to drive the ABC tank over Kenny, only to veer at the last moment.

  43. dan

    I can’t wait to see the apology just before I watch my favourite black-and-white minstrel show (not)

  44. Joe Goodacre

    Alfonso,

    No idea what you’re talking about.

    It’s possible to be in principle for the removal of S18C but recongise that the Liberals have made a mess of it and that it’s not worth the political capital they are expending. Particularly when there are less confrontational ways of negating its consequences (i.e stacking the HRC or defunding it).

    It’s called utopianism vs reality.

  45. A difference between being funny and just plain nasty and vindictive.

    A good comedian can make you laugh at the people you like.

    Political satire are supposed to make a much bigger point than I just dislike you personally because you happen to disagree with me – you dare to disagree with me.

  46. TonyOrlando

    It’s possible to be in principle for the removal of S18C

    Wasn’t the beef with S18C is that prevents people from insulting, offending and ridiculing others? Now assuming Kenny didn’t really believe that anyone would take seriously the idea that he enjoys canine sex, presumably he objected to being insulted, offended and ridiculed. I guess there is an issue of the national broadcaster insulting, offending and ridiculing people, but comedy programs generally do that to public figures.

    On the other hand maybe Kenny really did think people would believe he engaged in canine sex – that would certainly explain the incredibly simplistic and patronizing nature of his journalism – he thinks the ordinary person is a complete moron.

  47. MartinG

    Joe Goodacre
    #1332830, posted on June 4, 2014 at 11:22 am

    I don’t agree with Chris Kenny that his defammation action is pro-free speech.

    That’s a nice spin but doesn’t accord with the reality.

    Everyone of us every day are subject to criticism both unfair and fair which may discourage us against saying things.

    The skit said he was a “Dog Fucker”. It was an explicit accusation and therefore libelous.

  48. Joe Goodacre

    Aristogeiton – you appear incapable of separating issues or have you hit the scotch early.

    So the guy who says that Andrew Bolt’s tone in the articles Pat Eatock sued him over was objectionable, thinks everyone should harden up when defamed?

    In principle should Bolt have been sued – no.
    In practice, was it necessary for him to be as agressive and personal as he was to make his point? No.

    It’s no different than saying in principle laws against rape are good, but a girl that goes walking nude past a gang of convicted rapists is an idiot and her plight was preventable.

    Should every harden up – yes, that’s what free speech is about.

    Should Chris Kenny not have sued the ABC – that’s complicated. The end outcome is good (ABC is back in it’s corner), but the means used to get it there are inconsistent with arguments being made elsewhere to remove restrictions on free speech. These issues are often more nuanced than drunks at 11:55 in the morning can comprehend.

    First of all, what has it to do with anything that a restriction is ‘state imposed’?

    Defammation law is backed by the state enforcing judgments of the court. Obvious.

    Secondly, the ABC are not ‘the State’

    100% state owned corporations are normally viewed as the state. Enlighten me why that’s wrong.

    Finally, by the same logic cowering in fear of blows is a self-imposed restraint on liberty and not one imposed by a police state.

    You’ll have to spell out your point to me.

    regardless, you can’t have it both ways. Either criticism and ridicule prevent free speech, and therefore defammation law or racial discrimination law are necessary to open up free speech or they are not. Choose.

  49. TonyOrlando

    The skit said he was a “Dog Fucker”. It was an explicit accusation and therefore libelous.

    And Michael Mann is suing Delingpole for references to paedophilia. However in both cases the reasonable person would not come away with the impression that Kenny is into bestiality or Mann is a paedophile, so both ought to fail the libel test.
    Neither pass the good taste test either, but that is a different matter.

    If you think ABC was grossly libelous of Kenny, then you have to say Delingpole was grossly libelous of Mann.

    [Can you provide a link to the claim that Mann is suing Delingpole please. I can't seem to find it. Sinc]

  50. Joe Goodacre

    I’m actually sickened to live in this country on that comparison.

    Yes we know. Living in Australia for you causes gut wrenching spasms. Oh the slavery, the sickening exploitation. How do you get out of bed each morning.

    Drama queen thy name is Dot.

  51. Joe Goodacre

    MartinG,

    Firstly no sane person thinks that they were asserting it as a fact.

    Secondly so what. They’re words/pictures and those who know them to be false or thought the skit stupid backed Kenny and pressured ABC for an apology. Clearly the skit had no impact on his reputation in their eyes.

    Those who are unpleasant applauded it and probably thought it anyway. Chris Kenny never had a valuable reputation with those people anyway and they probably enjoyed Kenny’s reaction giving the skit more prominence than what it otherwise would have had.

  52. egg_

    100% state owned corporations are normally viewed as the state. Enlighten me why that’s wrong.

    Wrong.

    Aunty lost – sore loser?

  53. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1332880, posted on June 4, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    I’m only going to answer a couple of these, because you’re an idiot.

    100% state owned corporations are normally viewed as the state. Enlighten me why that’s wrong.

    Publicly floated companies are normally viewed as the shareholders? Enlighten me why that’s wrong, dumbass.

    regardless, you can’t have it both ways. Either criticism and ridicule prevent free speech, and therefore defammation law or racial discrimination law are necessary to open up free speech or they are not. Choose.

    You might not understand this because you’re an internet nobody, but many people have a real and pecuniary interest in their good reputation. This is what defamation law protects, not hurt feelings.

  54. .

    Joe Goodacre
    #1332887, posted on June 4, 2014 at 12:04 pm
    I’m actually sickened to live in this country on that comparison.

    Yes we know. Living in Australia for you causes gut wrenching spasms. Oh the slavery, the sickening exploitation. How do you get out of bed each morning.

    Drama queen thy name is Dot.

    Morning, slave.

    I’m sure you’d be happy to be sent to gaol under a 10-1 verdict by a jury only after one day’s deliberation in a week long trial.

    That is what our grandfathers died for, after all.

    They also died so ALP appointed judges can tell us what ‘correct’ speech is.

    We live in the best of all possible worlds.

    Some light reading for you, you imbecile:

    http://www.literature.org/authors/voltaire/candide/

  55. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1332890, posted on June 4, 2014 at 12:08 pm
    MartinG,

    Firstly no sane person thinks that they were asserting it as a fact.

    Secondly so what. They’re words/pictures and those who know them to be false or thought the skit stupid backed Kenny and pressured ABC for an apology. Clearly the skit had no impact on his reputation in their eyes.

    Those who are unpleasant applauded it and probably thought it anyway. Chris Kenny never had a valuable reputation with those people anyway and they probably enjoyed Kenny’s reaction giving the skit more prominence than what it otherwise would have had.

    So you’re a defamation lawyer now? Great stuff.

  56. H B Bear

    Any comment from the relevant Minister?

    Of course not.

  57. H B Bear

    Any comment from the ALPBC Board?

    Of course not.

  58. Gab

    Any comment from the relevant Minister?

    Kenny is the wrong political stripe for the Minister of Communications. He’s probably weeping and commiserating with Mark Scott.

  59. Joe Goodacre

    People don’t need to be defamation lawyers to have an opinion on whether the law is a legitimate extension of government or not.

  60. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1332943, posted on June 4, 2014 at 12:44 pm
    People don’t need to be defamation lawyers to have an opinion on whether the law is a legitimate extension of government or not.

    Common law rights are an ‘extension of government’ now?

  61. LABCR-TV

    Nine months of gestation for the ABC to give birth to a semblance of decency. Although the filth emanating from the ABC is not congenital, this Hansen inspired filth must surely be one of it’s lowest points ever. Well done Chris Kenny for hanging there.

  62. Tracey

    Has Chris Kenny’s putrid son been on Twitter yet to obscenely bemoan his father’s victory?

  63. Baldrick

    ABC apologises … I’m calling bullshit on this one.

    Only last week the ABC’s lawyers gave Kenny until next Monday (2/6) to withdraw his defamation case, saying he will not be pursued for any costs if he does so.

    The ABC says in the letter it is confident Kenny will not win the appeal. The ABC offers to pay Mr Kenny’s legal costs until this point and to read out an apology in court.

    If the ABC were serious about an apology it would have done so 9 months ago, instead of waiting and in a last ditch effort, issue Kenny with an ultimatum to drop the case. Fu@k the ABC!

  64. Token

    ABC apologises … I’m calling bullshit on this one.

    Remember to learn from the way the left used Judge Mordy’s judgement to make statements of guilt about Bolt which the good justice did not make?

    There is much one can say about the cowardly ABC’s use of its unique ability to broadcast in all forms of media in all markets to slander, smear and bully people with statements it knows are defamitory

  65. incoherent rambler

    Can someone in parliament ask -

    “Can the minister confirm that he fully supports Mark Scott and their treatment of Chris Kenny?”

    “Is the minister in favour of dog f***ing?”"

    “Can the minister explain why the ABC, that he supports, is apologizing?

  66. Leo G

    Either criticism and ridicule prevent free speech, and therefore defammation (sic) law or racial discrimination law are necessary to open up free speech or they are not. Choose

    That’s makes little sense, JG.
    You are saying that:
    (1) Either criticism and ridicule prevent free speech, or they are not (they do not exist or they do not prevent free speech?); and
    (2) Criticism and ridicule prevent free speech, therefor defamation law or racial discrimination law are necessary to open up free speech.
    As it stands, Statement (2) implies that defamation and racial discrimination law are necessary to prevent criticism. I doubt that is what you intended.
    I understand that you believe Chris Kenny’s defamation action is inconsistent with a pro-free speech position.
    But surely, the action is neither pro- nor anti-free speech. Kenny acted to mitigate the consequences of the dissemination of demeaning propaganda which was aimed at influencing the way others viewed him as a commentator.
    Free speech has consequences and responding to those consequences is not necessarily the same as acting against free speech.

  67. Senile Old Guy

    You might not understand this because you’re an internet nobody, but many people have a real and pecuniary interest in their good reputation. This is what defamation law protects, not hurt feelings.

    Exactly. And that is why the ABC folded. They tried the big bluff but Kenny persisted so they gave in. And paid costs and some damages.

    If The Chaser boys had wanted to criticise Kenny, they could have done so in many, many ways that would not have created this situation. They chose to defame him; then upped the ante when Scott “apologised*”.

    *Not a real apology.

  68. Senile Old Guy

    Your search – kenny apology site:abc.net.au – did not match any documents.

    Yes, the apology is now featured on all major news sites, but is still absent a mention at the ABC.

  69. gabrianga

    Maybe not the “ordinary person” but he certainly got you in one Mr Orlando .

  70. MemoryVault

    Joe Goodacre
    #1332880, posted on June 4, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    In principle should Bolt have been sued – no.

    Right there is the problem with your whole line of reasoning, Joe.
    Bolt was not sued, he was charged.

    There’s a vast difference between people choosing themselves to use existing laws to seek remedy over what they consider to be an insult, and the Nanny State deciding what constitutes an insult, and making laws about it.

    You are trying to equate a civil action of choice (defamation), with a criminal charge by the authorities, and pretend they are one and the same thing.

  71. TonyOrlando

    So I guess the question now becomes how much compensation should James Delingpole pay Michael Mann?

  72. Sinclair Davidson

    Tony – can you link to Mann suing Delingpole please? I can’t seem to find any references to that. Many about him suing Steyn.

  73. 'S

    All well and good to say free speech and all and harden up but it comes down to standards – i.e different ones for conservatives. One side is big on outrage, victimhood and hysteria. Norms should be applied across the board.

    Hope Scott is given the shove, it’ll have an impact words won’t. Gerald Henderson to replace him please.

  74. TonyOrlando

    Tony – can you link to Mann suing Delingpole please? I can’t seem to find any references to that. Many about him suing Steyn.

    Right you. How ever did I get those two confused!

  75. harrys on the boat

    I’ll assume as no consent can be given, bestiality is therefore illegal. Thereby by having Kenny photoshopped fucking a canine with the words Dog Fucker emblazoned over the picture the ABC were assassinating Kennys character with an illegal act.

    What the fuck has that got to do with Bolts case.

  76. harrys on the boat

    Shouldn’t text at the gym! Apologies.

  77. Aristogeiton

    MemoryVault
    #1333006, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:23 pm
    [...]
    You are trying to equate a civil action of choice (defamation), with a criminal charge by the authorities, and pretend they are one and the same thing.

    s. 18C does not invite a criminal charge and is not, or is not backed by, a criminal offence; it is a legislative proscription, which can be backed by an injunction of the court.

    http://sydney.edu.au/law/slr/slr_35/slr35_2/317_Carroll.pdf

  78. Sinclair Davidson

    Right you. How ever did I get those two confused!

    I suspect you’re still confused. Mann is suing Steyn for calling him a fraud. The pedo comparison was made by someone else – who, as best I can determine, isn’t being sued.

  79. harrys on the boat

    There was no pedo comparison. It was Manns university footy coach raped a young boy in the change rooms.

  80. TonyOrlando

    I believe the phrase objected to was calling Mann the “Jerry Sandusky of climate science”

    http://grist.org/news/judge-rules-climatologist-can-sue-skeptics-who-compared-him-to-jerry-sandusky/

  81. harrys on the boat

    Exactly there was no pedo comparison. He was highlighting the fucked up behaviour at the University.

  82. Senile Old Guy

    The Steyn article referred to is here.

    Steyn did not mark the Sandusky comparison: Of it, he wrote this:

    Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.

  83. .

    Is Tony Orlando lying again? Got the “facts” in a spreadsheet you can’t show anyone Tone? Do you know Homer Paxton, (MBA)?

  84. TonyOrlando

    Exactly there was no pedo comparison.

    Only on Planet Weird.

  85. JakartaJaap

    Kenny pulled on The Establishment, speaking truth to power, and The Establishment does not tolerate dissent. Well done CK, although I would have settled for a balancing image, say Waheed Aly servicing a billy goat, while the goat services La Trioli. Sauce, goose, gander.

  86. MemoryVault

    Aristogeiton
    #1333040, posted on June 4, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    s. 18C does not invite a criminal charge and is not, or is not backed by, a criminal offence; it is a legislative proscription, which can be backed by an injunction of the court.

    You are technically correct, Ari. But I wasn’t addressing a court full of lawyers.
    The generally accepted layman’s definition of a crime (criminal act), is an unlawful act – as defined by the State, punishable by the State.

    In Bolt’s case, 18C defined the unlawful act, and the court punished him with a guilty conviction.

  87. the sting

    Scott, if he is honorable ,should resign immediately.

  88. .

    You are technically correct, Ari. But I wasn’t addressing a court full of lawyers.
    The generally accepted layman’s definition of a crime (criminal act), is an unlawful act – as defined by the State, punishable by the State.

    In Bolt’s case, 18C defined the unlawful act, and the court punished him with a guilty conviction.

    This is also why the law is particularly odious.

  89. .

    the sting
    #1333072, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:02 pm
    Scott, if he is honorable ,should resign immediately.

    Lawl…

  90. TonyOrlando

    The Steyn article referred to is here.

    OK, but the National Review is being sued for printing the quote – whoever wrote it.

    In the same way Kenny didn’t sue the Chaser individuals but sued the ABC. I thought it was Steyn who made the comment (which I think as offensive but not defamatory). It makes no difference since the remark is still a key part of the legal action. Rand Simberg made the remark and then Steyn quoted it – praising it with faint damns.

  91. Aristogeiton

    MemoryVault
    #1333071, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:01 pm
    [...]
    In Bolt’s case, 18C defined the unlawful act, and the court punished him with a guilty conviction.

    Again this is wrong. A crime is a wrong punishable by the State, and here it is the Court that is granting a remedy in the form of an injunction. Bolt was not convicted of anything and the Court passed no sentence.

    I support the repeal of the Racial Discrimination Act in its entirety, FWIW.

  92. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1333076, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:03 pm
    [...]
    This is also why the law is particularly odious.

    Agreed.

  93. Leo G

    The pedo comparison was made by someone else – who, as best I can determine, isn’t being sued.

    The pedo comparison was made by Rand Stimberg. He called Mann a ‘dataphile’ and “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.”
    And yes, Mann is suing Stimberg (indirectly, the CEI has deeper pockets).

  94. .

    You shouldn’t get sued because some less informed people won’t get a detailed and clever joke and misinterpret it.

  95. whyisitso

    The first line in Chris Kenny’s item in Wikipedia:

    Chris Kenny (born 1962) is a commentator, author, canine enthusiast[1] and former political adviser from South Australia.

    The whole article is totally biased – typical of Wikipedia.

  96. Dr Faustus

    Spot on the money, Leo G @1.13pm.

    Unless it has voluntarily undertaken not to do so again in the case of Chris Kenny, the ABC is still at perfect liberty to portray any of its many enemies fucking any mammal it chooses.
    But it now knows the tariff for doing so.

  97. Frederic

    Bolts prosecution was not under criminal law, he was prosecuted via a statutory tort. Essentially similar to a common law tort but invented by the legislature not by common law.

  98. incoherent rambler

    Re: Offense. It seems to me that there is a mixing of racial and cultural offence.

    The left take cultural jibes and make them into racial jibes.

    Some cultures are demonstrably superior. This is what the left find so offensive.

  99. Andore Jr.

    You shouldn’t get sued because some less informed people won’t get a detailed and clever joke and misinterpret it.

    You can bet that would have been the Chaser’s defence. Smarmy pricks.

  100. Aristogeiton

    Frederic
    #1333106, posted on June 4, 2014 at 2:21 pm
    Bolts prosecution was not under criminal law, he was prosecuted via a statutory tort. Essentially similar to a common law tort but invented by the legislature not by common law.

    What he said.

  101. .

    The whole article is totally biased – typical of Wikipedia.

    Aha.

    This is why the left hates him:

    Published works[edit]
    (1993) State of Denial – about the 1992 collapse of South Australia’s State Bank
    (1996) Women’s Business: The story behind the Hindmarsh Island affair – about the Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy

  102. TonyOrlando

    It is interesting that Judge Frederick H. Weisberg who allowed the Mann case to go forward probably wouldn’t have allowed the Kenny case.
    Since according to Weisberg the defamatory part was not the comparison to a paedophile but that he distorted data. The Jerry Sandusky reference was seen as “opinions and rhetorical hyperbole” protected under the First Amendment.

  103. Senile Old Guy

    The apology to be read on air reads: “Having reviewed the issue, Mr Scott, as the Editor in Chief of the ABC, has come to the view with the ABC’s Director of Television that the ABC should not have put the skit to air.
    “The ABC apologises to Mr Kenny for having put the skit to air, his depiction in the skit and because it was triggered by his criticism of the ABC. The ABC is sorry for the distress this incident has caused Mr Kenny and his family.”

    Link.

  104. S.O.G. you’re kidding? That is as close to a Clayton’s apology as you’ll see.

  105. Gab

    The ABC board met yesterday, but it is understood the issue was not discussed at the meeting.

    No of course not. Their ABC think this “apology” is a joke, is wrong, is unfair, and nothing more needs to be done – like sacking Scott or no longer employing the Chaser Turds.

  106. Gab

    When will it be read on air? Anyone know?

  107. Wonder how big the settlement is?
    Wonder how much Kenny’s legal costs are?

  108. When will it be read on air? Anyone know?

    Apparently just before tonight’s episode of “Jonah from Tonga”.

  109. MemoryVault

    Aristogeiton, Frederic

    As I said earlier, I was using a layman’s definition of “crime”, not the Perry Mason one.
    But have it your way.
    Bolt wasn’t prosecuted by the State at all, his actions were merely “judged”.
    He wasn’t “ordered” to remove and not republish the offending articles, he was merely asked.
    And if he does republish, the worst he can expect is Tim Wilson will have to cross him off the HRC Christmas card mailing list.

    I’m glad we cleared that up.
    I’m overdue for a haircut, so I’ve got plenty of spare hairs if you guys want to go on splitting them.

  110. Gab

    Apparently just before tonight’s episode of “Jonah from Tonga”.

    Really? Does the ABC actually know it’s happening becuase there’s not one mention of it on the ABC site online. Nothing.

  111. Chris

    The ABC is sorry for the distress this incident has caused Mr Kenny and his family.

    Well there was one member of his family that didn’t appear to be too distressed about it all:

    http://junkee.com/in-defence-of-the-chasers-picture-of-my-dad-having-sex-with-dog/19967

  112. Rabz

    there’s not one mention of it on the ABC site online. Nothing

    Relax, Gab, it’s no doubt just some more of those legendary “technical difficulties” (which will no doubt mysteriously strike during this “apology”, should it ever actually occur).

  113. Andreas

    (1996) Women’s Business: The story behind the Hindmarsh Island affair – about the Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy

    It’s a great read, dot. Highly recommended to all Cats. It’s so astonishingly familiar – the left (and the ABC) haven’t changed a bit. The genesis of the ‘secret women’s business’ bullshit has deep parallels with the development of the global warming bogeyman in particular.

  114. incoherent rambler

    Nobody said the apology had to be advertised (or admit ABC liability). They are just sorry form CK.

  115. Des Deskperson

    ‘I would have settled for a balancing image, say Waheed Aly servicing a billy goat, while the goat services La Trioli. Sauce, goose, gander.’

    Or one of Morrow fellating Sheik Hilaly while being buggered by Keysar Trad, which is which is not all that removed from what actually happened in 2007 after the Sheik called Morrow a racist.

  116. Aristogeiton

    Chris
    #1333179, posted on June 4, 2014 at 3:14 pm
    The ABC is sorry for the distress this incident has caused Mr Kenny and his family.

    Well there was one member of his family that didn’t appear to be too distressed about it all:

    http://junkee.com/in-defence-of-the-chasers-picture-of-my-dad-having-sex-with-dog/19967

    Ungrateful little shit.

  117. Gab

    Well if it does go ahead without those infamous and opportune ABC “technical difficulties” then today ought to be declared ABC Sorry Day.

  118. Senile Old Guy

    S.O.G. you’re kidding?

    It’s from the Canberra Times. It must be true! From the article:

    The apology for the sketch, shown eight months ago, will air about 9pm before Chris Lilley’s Jonah from Tonga. Fairfax Media understands Mr Kenny was seeking about $40,000 in damages.

  119. Joe Goodacre

    Leo G,

    Apologies for the typos.

    The context of the comment was referencing the statement by Chris Kenny that his defammation action was increasing free speech because the nature of the ridicule and the ABC’s failure to apologise would have a chilling effect on people criticising it.

    I have disagreed with that statement.

    The ABC ridiculed Chris Kenny. That is of no doubt. Is that the role of a government broadcaster – no. Were the actually saying that he was a canine enthusiast? No – clearly the skit was ridiculing Kenny without making a factual assertion.

    The reason why Kenny’s comments are wrong, is that free speech falls into a category of rights which are exercisable by all. A right to food, must mean that food is taken from someone else. A right to free speech can be exercised by all. Kenny can be portrayed as a canine enthusiast but that doesn’t stop him saying what he wants. He can portray them all as canine enthusiasts as well, or criticise them harder. Both can exercise their free speech.

    Defammation law results in judgments which are enforced by police. It is an intrusion of government into public conversations. Using this tool to combat the ridicule he received is effectively relying on the government to say that certain speech someone else says is not permissible. I don’t think it is an appropriate role of government to decide what can or can’t be said.

    In contrast, if Kenny imposes silence on himself to avoid their speech and their ridicule (as he has suggested that people would because of the ABC’s actions), that is a voluntary act. How is that any different from a corner store closing up because it doesn’t want to compete with Woolworths, or a person walking out of a room because they don’t like being shouted at. To say that people voluntarily restricting their speech because of the speech of others requires government intervention is contrary to free speech. Sure it’s free speech for Kenny, but it’s not free speech for The Chaser. It’s precisely logic like this that is partly used to justify the racial discrimination act – that minorities by being publically vilified are not able to participate in society, therefore government must step in.
    I think it’s inconsistent to agree with Kenny’s reasoning that his defamation action is pro free speech while arguing for the removal of s18C on the grounds of it being against free speech.

  120. Alfonso

    Oh my….apparently Scotty’s defamation apology tonight will, in addition to other ratbaggery, apologise “because it was triggered by his criticism of the ABC.”

    That’s some admission. How far does that cookie crumb trail go I wonder?

  121. Rabz

    The apology for the sketch, … will air about 9pm before Chris Lilley’s Jonah from Tonga

    Or just after about 90% of the ALPBC’s viewers* switch off or change channels.

    *Around 18,000 people.

  122. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1333198, posted on June 4, 2014 at 3:24 pm

    TL;DR

  123. Aristogeiton

    Defammation law results in judgments which are enforced by police.

    Lawl.

  124. Joe Goodacre

    Aristogeiton,
    but many people have a real and pecuniary interest in their good reputation. This is what defamation law protects, not hurt feelings.

    You missed the point of the comment. A person’s reputation is how they are perceived in the mind of another person. To say that you or I own how someone else perceives us is nonsense. I think you’re an arrogant prick and you think I’m the same. Should we launch actions against each other as compensation for how you’re perceived by me and I’m perceived by you? Of course not.

    So to restate the obvious – people who aren’t airheads look at the Chaser skit and draw no conclusions about Kenny. If they remain unaffected by the skit, what is the defammation action compensating? People who look at the skit and draw any inferences against Kenny are airheads. Why should Kenny be compensated for that deficiency in their reasoning. Why should The Chaser be liable for their defective reasoning as well?

  125. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1333217, posted on June 4, 2014 at 3:36 pm
    Aristogeiton,
    but many people have a real and pecuniary interest in their good reputation. This is what defamation law protects, not hurt feelings.

    You missed the point of the comment. A person’s reputation is how they are perceived in the mind of another person. To say that you or I own how someone else perceives us is nonsense. I think you’re an arrogant prick and you think I’m the same. Should we launch actions against each other as compensation for how you’re perceived by me and I’m perceived by you? Of course not.

  126. Aristogeiton

    Lawl. Not how defamation works and misses the justification for the law entirely. You would have no case. F-

  127. Joe Goodacre

    Sinc,

    I suspect you’re still confused. Mann is suing Steyn for calling him a fraud. The pedo comparison was made by someone else – who, as best I can determine, isn’t being sued.

    Rand Simberg of the Competitive Enterprise Institute was the author of the quote used by Steyn who made the pedo comparison. They are also being sued by Mann.

  128. Chris

    So to restate the obvious – people who aren’t airheads look at the Chaser skit and draw no conclusions about Kenny. If they remain unaffected by the skit, what is the defammation action compensating? People who look at the skit and draw any inferences against Kenny are airheads. Why should Kenny be compensated for that deficiency in their reasoning. Why should The Chaser be liable for their defective reasoning as well?

    Indeed the costs of running a defamation suit make it very much a rich person’s game (or someone who has the backing of someone or an organisation that has money). But there is a lot in common between 18C type restrictions and defamation. I think you’d find it impossible to find anyone in Australia who actually believed that what the Chaser’s protrayed was true.

    Everyone knew it was a joke, though I can certainly understand why Kenny might find it offensive and humiliating. But if he has protection against being offended or humiliated then shouldn’t others who don’t have the financial means to bring defamation actions?

  129. Joe Goodacre

    Aristogeiton,

    Common law rights are an ‘extension of government’ now?

    Yes because government appoints judges and enforces judgements. Common law may provide a set of principles upon which those decisions are made, however they operate within a state provided framework and the state can change the common law through statute.

  130. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1333230, posted on June 4, 2014 at 3:48 pm
    Aristogeiton,

    Common law rights are an ‘extension of government’ now?

    Yes because government appoints judges and enforces judgements. Common law may provide a set of principles upon which those decisions are made, however they operate within a state provided framework and the state can change the common law through statute.

    Well I suppose to the extent that the Judiciary is an branch of government; but that is not the sense you were using government in. This is drivel. I give this an F.

  131. .

    No, governments have been held at the sword, gunpoint or only offered the crown ON CONDITION that they ACCEPT most historical aspects of the common law.

    Extension of government? What a nebulous phrasing.

  132. Joe Goodacre

    MemoryVault,

    Right there is the problem with your whole line of reasoning, Joe.
    Bolt was not sued, he was charged.

    There’s a vast difference between people choosing themselves to use existing laws to seek remedy over what they consider to be an insult, and the Nanny State deciding what constitutes an insult, and making laws about it.

    The nanny state is still deciding what constitutes an insult because it appoints the judges, provides the courts and the enforcement.

    You are trying to equate a civil action of choice (defamation), with a criminal charge by the authorities, and pretend they are one and the same thing.

    They are not necessarily one and the same thing, however they are both derived from government intervention into the affairs of individuals. The question becomes whether that is an appropriate intervention (whether it’s called civil or criminal). I don’t think either are justified and have detailed those reasons at greater length elsewhere in comments and on previous topics.

  133. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1333235, posted on June 4, 2014 at 3:53 pm
    No, governments have been held at the sword, gunpoint or only offered the crown ON CONDITION that they ACCEPT most historical aspects of the common law.

    Extension of government? What a nebulous phrasing.

    Also, I love how the law, public or private, common or statutory, is the court and is the executive and is the legislature. As I’ve said in past threads, this guy needs some basic civics.

  134. I think you’d find it impossible to find anyone in Australia who actually believed that what the Chaser’s portrayed was true.

    The point, whether or not folk thought the depiction accurate, was that the national broadcaster was saying, in effect, “This evil person is so horribly contemptible that he deserves our filthiest contumely and yours too”. Using the overbearing power of the State to vilify honest critics of its overpaid lackeys is wrong at all times.

  135. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1333238, posted on June 4, 2014 at 3:54 pm
    [...]
    The nanny state is still deciding what constitutes an insult because it appoints the judges, provides the courts and the enforcement.

    So stupid. This is the private law; the common law. The court decides. And defamation is not made out because an insult is established; it involves the publication of an imputation injurious to the reputation of the plaintiff.

    The ‘State’ provides the courts? What the fuck does this mean. The State and Federal constitutions establish the superior courts as entities separate from the government of the day. This is called variously, a separation of powers or a system of checks and balances (on the power of the State).

  136. Dr.Sir Fred Lenin

    If I were Kenny I would continue to sue the pants off the alpbc and comrades scott,morrow and the middle aged boys of the chasers,without money these Lefturds are nothing,Abbott get rid of that Lefturd turnballs,put Morrison in charge of the communistications portfoolio.

  137. Token

    Well there was one member of his family that didn’t appear to be too distressed about it all

    So that makes the defamatory and vicious image all right then Chris?

  138. Joe Goodacre

    No, governments have been held at the sword, gunpoint or only offered the crown ON CONDITION that they ACCEPT most historical aspects of the common law.

    Irrelevant.

    They’ve legislated parts of the common law that they want to change. The process of modification and removal means that what is left is a product of government.

  139. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1333252, posted on June 4, 2014 at 4:07 pm
    [...]
    They’ve legislated parts of the common law that they want to change. The process of modification and removal means that what is left is a product of government.

    My mechanic changed the oil filter in my new car. What’s left is a product of the mechanic.

  140. .

    Joe Goodacre
    #1333252, posted on June 4, 2014 at 4:07 pm
    No, governments have been held at the sword, gunpoint or only offered the crown ON CONDITION that they ACCEPT most historical aspects of the common law.

    Irrelevant.

    Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are irrelevant.

    Now I’ve heard it all.

  141. Joe Goodacre

    Aristogeiton,

    I’ll restate more carefully.

    The common law may not have been produced by government, however the system under which the common law was created is vastly different to the social contract that operates today. Most people don’t know what the common law is, the difference between it and equity or who Blackstone was.

    People look to the government for resolution of their issues. Today the government modifies the common law as a majority votes. In that sense the common law is only able to operate to the extent the government lets it operate. So yes the common law may have developed independently of our system of government as we know it, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is part of the framework of government now, being eroded continuously via statute or regulation to match the desires of the majority.

  142. Aristogeiton

    F-. I can’t be bothered comparing this bloviation with whatever you started out saying. Go away. You’re an idiot.

  143. Leo G

    “Were the actually saying that he was a canine enthusiast? No – clearly the skit was ridiculing Kenny without making a factual assertion.

    Indeed the ABC did publish images portraying him a “canine enthusiast”. Yes the “skit” was ridiculing him. The skit literally portrayed Kenny as a person copulating with a dog. Was the portrayal factual? No. Was the portrayal harmful to Kenny’s public persona? Of course it was.
    I don’t know the full context of Chris Kenny’s statement (that his defamation action was increasing free speech because the nature of the ridicule and the ABC’s failure to apologise would have a chilling effect on people criticising it), but as you present it, it appears to me quite reasonable.
    If public broadcasting officials believe that they can cause harm or conceal harm and defend the position by invoking a free speech right, then disabusing them of the false belief could indeed be increasing free speech.

  144. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1333238, posted on June 4, 2014 at 3:54 pm
    [...]
    The nanny state is still deciding what constitutes an insult because it appoints the judges, provides the courts and the enforcement.

    Now it’s because the legislature are free to modify the common law. F- for high school debating tactics, empty sophistry and misdirection.

  145. Oh come on

    The ABC is sorry for the distress this incident has caused Mr Kenny and his family.

    Well there was one member of his family that didn’t appear to be too distressed about it all:

    http://junkee.com/in-defence-of-the-chasers-picture-of-my-dad-having-sex-with-dog/19967

    Bloody hell. Family dinners at the Kenny household must be fun affairs. I hope Kenny the elder has it all over his jumped up kid.

    I wouldn’t mind my children having their own perspectives and publically disagreeing with my own. But what Kenny’s son wrote is a betrayal that he will regret when he grows up – assuming he actually does grow up at some point.

  146. .

    No, we have a written constitution as well, not amendable by an Act of Parliament.

    Some common law provisions are protected by the constitution and judiciary. This creates new common law.

    Kirk v WorkCover meant the end to the reversal of the burden of proof and presumption of guilt, which was a short lived, perverse law.

    The constitution is not the government.

  147. phantomrider

    Smells like a dog , sounds like a dog it is a dog get over it you WHINGERS! HA HA Turnball loves the ABC soon to be the new LIB leader.

  148. Joe Goodacre

    Dot,

    They’re only relevant to the extent that a society gives them credence.

    Theoretically there is a separation of powers in the US constitution. They’ve also got a well developed body of common law.

    That hasn’t stoppped Obama regulating carbon emissions. The consitution is only words – if people don’t think it’s important then it serves no purpose other than the purpose the government allows. The common law is no different – hence nowdays despite its history, it is a tool of government intrusion.

  149. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1333302, posted on June 4, 2014 at 4:51 pm
    Dot,

    They’re only relevant to the extent that a society gives them credence.

    F-. Run that argument in the High Court. Many have tried. God you’re stupid.

  150. Joe Goodacre

    Yes you’re a prick – what a surprise. Must be time to hit the scotch, strap on a pink jubajitsu belt and put your blow up Abbott doll in an arm bar.

  151. Aristogeiton

    Defamation, part of the private law, or that which involves relations between individuals, is a tool of government intrusion? F-.

  152. Joe Goodacre

    Well there was one member of his family that didn’t appear to be too distressed about it all:

    http://junkee.com/in-defence-of-the-chasers-picture-of-my-dad-having-sex-with-dog/19967

    Agreed – he’ll probably regret that later.

  153. .

    They’re only relevant to the extent that a society gives them credence.

    Oh wait so the constitution and HCA is “society”?

  154. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1333305, posted on June 4, 2014 at 4:54 pm
    Yes you’re a prick – what a surprise. Must be time to hit the scotch, strap on a pink jubajitsu belt and put your blow up Abbott doll in an arm bar.

    You’ve cut me to the quick! Jesus, mix it up little at least. You’ve tried the ‘pink belt’ and misspelling of Jiu jitsu before. Fucking infantile. I don’t know how it’s possible, but your insults are even more flaccid than your bloviations upon government and the law. Quite an achievement.

  155. Must be time to hit the scotch, strap on a pink jubajitsu belt and put your blow up Abbott doll in an arm bar.

    I don’t actually understand any of this.

  156. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1333309, posted on June 4, 2014 at 4:59 pm
    They’re only relevant to the extent that a society gives them credence.

    Oh wait so the constitution and HCA is “society”?

    And society is a ‘tool of government intrusion’ because it can be changed in a referendum. Try to keep up Dot; you’re making us look stupid.

  157. Senile Old Guy

    They are not necessarily one and the same thing, however they are both derived from government intervention into the affairs of individuals.

    Joe, you are stating an interpretation of the situation which differs from both history and practice. It is also your own unique interpretation, which most here disagree with.

    The defamation suit is an action brought by Kenny against the ABC and Chaser. The court, established by the Government but separate from it, adjudicates and reaches a decision.

    This is not a government action against free speech. Any interpretation, or suggestion, that it is, is wrong. The right to free speech is not absolute, nor should it be.

    A person’s reputation, especially for someone in public life, is a valuable commodity, like a brand or trademark and they are entitled to protect it.

  158. Chris

    The point, whether or not folk thought the depiction accurate, was that the national broadcaster was saying, in effect, “This evil person is so horribly contemptible that he deserves our filthiest contumely and yours too”. Using the overbearing power of the State to vilify honest critics of its overpaid lackeys is wrong at all times.

    Defamation law does not distinguish between whether it is the state or a private person or organisation though. If someone else had made the same video and uploaded it to youtube using no government resources do you think that Kenny should not have been able to bring a defamation suit against them? That he would then have just had to accept it was just the price of having free speech in society?

  159. johanna

    Yep, Joe Goodacre is wiser than the entire common law protections afforded to ordinary citizens. Why, he is even wiser than Shakespeare:

    Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
    Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
    Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
    ‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
    But he that filches from me my good name
    Robs me of that which not enriches him,
    And makes me poor indeed.
    Othello Act 3, scene 3, 155–161

    BTW, want to forward us a picture of you (and your real name) so that we can do a bit of creative photoshopping and broadcast it on national television? After all, why would you object?

  160. Aristogeiton

    Philippa Martyr
    #1333315, posted on June 4, 2014 at 5:01 pm
    Must be time to hit the scotch, strap on a pink jubajitsu belt and put your blow up Abbott doll in an arm bar.

    I don’t actually understand any of this.

    Phillipa, I’ve mentioned that I train in Brazilian jiu-jitsu before, and Joe Bloviacre thinks this must be something I am ashamed of. Or perhaps the physical contact with other men involved in the sport stirs up emotions in him which require an outlet.

  161. .

    I udnerstand the argument now:

    ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.

    But…don’t complain about government intrusion. That means you’re a whinging drama Queen.

  162. Senile Old Guy

    BTW, want to forward us a picture of you (and your real name) so that we can do a bit of creative photoshopping and broadcast it on national television? After all, why would you object?

    Good idea, johanna! Clearly, a good reputation is not worth anything, so Joe will be sending an image, and his name, through any time now…any time now…

  163. Aristogeiton

    YOU SAY THAT THE CONSTITUTION ESTABLESHED THE COURTS BUT THE GOVENMENT IS ILLEGETIMATE OF BRITAIN AND NOT SOCIIETY WHICH IS A GOVERNMENT INTRUSION. WHERE’S THE EVIDENCE!?

  164. tgs

    Joe, are you the kook I’m remembering who claims that classical liberalism and small government is impossible with jeezuz?

    Or is that someone else?

  165. Aristogeiton

    He claims that almost all liberties can only be granted after the welfare state is dismantled in its entirety and not before. He admits to being a racist and thinks Bolt is one too, and that his tone was too nasty. He claims to have been severely beaten by his parents, though who could blame them?

  166. Phillipa, I’ve mentioned that I train in Brazilian jiu-jitsu before, and Joe Bloviacre thinks this must be something I am ashamed of. Or perhaps the physical contact with other men involved in the sport stirs up emotions in him which require an outlet.

    Oh I seeeeee. I thought it was some kind of weird haiku, or stream of consciousness thing.

  167. Aristogeiton

    Philippa Martyr
    #1333337, posted on June 4, 2014 at 5:13 pm
    [...]
    Oh I seeeeee. I thought it was some kind of weird haiku, or stream of consciousness thing.

    More of a fetish, I think.

  168. BTW, want to forward us a picture of you (and your real name) so that we can do a bit of creative photoshopping and broadcast it on national television? After all, why would you object?

    Awww, that takes me back to the gay old days when SfB used to photoshop me on his little blog. I never saw the results, but I was told about them by kindly-minded third parties. Such a hoot. I almost miss him … but not really …

  169. Gab

    Awww, that takes me back to the gay old days when SfB used to photoshop me on his little blog. I never saw the results, but I was told about them by kindly-minded third parties. Such a hoot. I almost miss him … but not really …

    Consider yourself lucky! He kept threatening to send me photos of himself in the nude!

  170. tgs

    Haha, Aristogeiton.

    I knew I wasn’t crazy, Joe is who I thought he was. He thinks that the rise in big government over the last two centuries has been cause by the decline in Christianity among the population.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/05/09/day-11-of-a-broken-promise-2/

    I don’t think I’d even bother arguing with someone who doesn’t understand correlation vs. causation.

  171. Just think what an interesting header that would have made for the Cat one day … but perhaps Sinc wouldn’t have been so mean …

    It’s remarkable what some people think a carriage service is for.

  172. Token

    He claims that almost all liberties can only be granted after the welfare state is dismantled in its entirety and not before

    Sounds like the strategy Howard used to divide and conquer Lord Wentworth’s republican movement.

  173. Aristogeiton

    Philippa Martyr
    #1333342, posted on June 4, 2014 at 5:14 pm
    [...]
    Awww, that takes me back to the gay old days when SfB used to photoshop me on his little blog. I never saw the results, but I was told about them by kindly-minded third parties. Such a hoot. I almost miss him … but not really …

    He really was obsessed with you Phillipa, as I recall.

  174. I daresay it was love. I sensed that the poor soul was not terribly valued at home.

  175. TonyOrlando

    People are confusing insult with defamation, which includes a reasonable person test. A reasonable person would not have come away with the view that Kenny likely has had carnal knowledge of dogs.

    Kenny’s action wouldn’t have succeed under US law and it wouldn’t succeed even in the UK now
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25551640

  176. Leo G

    Joanna, do you realise that your quote from Shakespeare’s Othello actually supports Joe Goldacre’s position? They are words spoken by Othello’s deceitful ensign Iago, who intends to stoke his master’s jealousy while pretending to soothe it.

  177. Aristogeiton

    tgs
    #1333347, posted on June 4, 2014 at 5:18 pm
    Haha, Aristogeiton.

    I knew I wasn’t crazy, Joe is who I thought he was. He thinks that the rise in big government over the last two centuries has been cause by the decline in Christianity among the population.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/05/09/day-11-of-a-broken-promise-2/

    I don’t think I’d even bother arguing with someone who doesn’t understand correlation vs. causation.

    Lol. Not only that, he doesn’t understand the difference between a law, the method by which it came into being, the courts which enforce it, the constitutions and statutes which create the courts and ‘society’. It’s like having a conversation with somebody who learned english from a dictionary and a grammar, except somebody gave them a dictionary where all the words are defined alike.

  178. .

    No Tony, you don’t understand what defamation is at law. Aristo has explained this you hopeless prick.

  179. Token

    Kenny’s action wouldn’t have succeed…

    LOL, the ABC folded like a cheap campstool under Professor Palmer, so I suspect you are not often paid for your legal advice.

  180. Gab

    A reasonable person would not have come away with the view that Kenny likely has had carnal knowledge of dogs.

    A reasonable person would have thought the depiction of a private citizen fucking a dog with the words “dog fucker” underneath the photoshopped picture that was broadcasted nationally, as despicable, unwarranted and an act of bastardy and deserving of some legal recourse as no apology was forthcoming from the network the following day.

    And then there’s the likes of you.

    Kenny’s action wouldn’t have succeed under US law and it wouldn’t succeed even in the UK now

    Who gives a shit? It happened in Australia.

  181. TonyOrlando

    Kenny’s action wouldn’t have succeed…

    Kenny’s action wouldn’t have succeed under US law and it wouldn’t succeed even in the UK now
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25551640

    Always happy to help, Token

  182. TonyOrlando

    A reasonable person would have thought the depiction of a private citizen fucking a dog with the words “dog fucker” underneath the photoshopped picture that was broadcasted nationally, as despicable, unwarranted and an act of bastardy and deserving of some legal recourse as no apology was forthcoming from the network the following day.

    Right, but this is the Cat – and I thought we were all in favour for the right to insult, humiliate and offend?

  183. manalive

    … internal review that found the skit met editorial standards for satire …

    Satire? More juvenile than Juvenal.

  184. Gab

    Kenny’s action wouldn’t have succeed under US law and it wouldn’t succeed even in the UK now

    What a stupid “argument”.

  185. Gab

    Right, but this is the Cat – and I thought we were all in favour for the right to insult, humiliate and offend?

    I’m so pleased that Chris Kenny’s right to free speech has prevailed.

  186. Senile Old Guy

    and it wouldn’t succeed even in the UK now
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25551640

    From the article you linked to:

    There is also more protection from libel for those running websites if they can show they are not the authors of defamatory posts and assist in identifying those who are.

    I don’t think the article says what you think it does.

  187. Joe Goodacre

    BTW, want to forward us a picture of you (and your real name) so that we can do a bit of creative photoshopping and broadcast it on national television? After all, why would you object?

    Of course any person would object.

    That doesn’t mean that there is a role for government.

  188. .

    That doesn’t mean that there is a role for government.

    LOL

    The ABC is an arm of government, FFS.

    It wasn’t just defamatory, it is oppressive.

  189. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1333381, posted on June 4, 2014 at 5:32 pm
    [...]
    That doesn’t mean that there is a role for government.

    Common law is government is court is society is ham sandwich.

    Got it!

  190. Gab

    I wonder who’s going to read the apology to Kenny? Will it be Mark Scott?

  191. Grigory M

    Brazilian ju-jitsu. That’s where two blokes have all their bodily hair removed before grappling unclothed with each other on a blue mat – but in a tantric sort of way. Isn’t it?

  192. johanna

    Leo, I realise that Iago was a bad guy, but that doesn’t make everything he said wrong.

    In fact, Shakespeare has summed up the rationale for the existence of defamation law perfectly and succinctly in that quote.

    And this phony argument about nobody believing that Chris Kenny really is keen on sex with dogs that Joe keeps repeating – come on, Joe, prove to us that it doesn’t matter. Send us that photo and your real name. I’ve already had a few thoughts on creative photoshopping featuring your face and name, to be broadcast nationally. No doubt others have contributions of their own.

  193. Aristogeiton

    Grigory M
    #1333392, posted on June 4, 2014 at 5:37 pm
    Brazilian ju-jitsu. That’s where two blokes have all their bodily hair removed before grappling unclothed with each other on a blue mat – but in a tantric sort of way. Isn’t it?

    I think you are thinking of a gay bathhouse.

  194. Joe Goodacre

    But…don’t complain about government intrusion. That means you’re a whinging drama Queen.

    One can advocate for changing things, without claiming that is sickening living in Australia.

    The hyperbole you employ to describe your dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs is so far detached from reality that it would probably take Boko Haram and an AK47 in your back for you to work out that though there are things we’d like to change, we have it pretty good in this country all things considered.

  195. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1333397, posted on June 4, 2014 at 5:39 pm
    But…don’t complain about government intrusion. That means you’re a whinging drama Queen.

    One can advocate for changing things, without claiming that is sickening living in Australia.

    The hyperbole you employ to describe your dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs is so far detached from reality that it would probably take Boko Haram and an AK47 in your back for you to work out that though there are things we’d like to change, we have it pretty good in this country all things considered.

    Slave.

  196. TonyOrlando

    I don’t think the article says what you think it does.

    I don’t think I said what you think I said.

  197. .

    The hyperbole you employ to describe your dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs is so far detached from reality

    No. No it isn’t.

    We have no general right to free speech, our right to self defence has been diminished, we cannot do as we please with our own land (even when in the middle of nowhere), we are regulated out of employment, we’ve lost unanimous juries, we almost lost the presumption of innocence and we lost the right to silence whilst detained.

    You completely ignore these issues.

    The choice isn’t to shut up and keep your head down, or move to Nigeria and join Boko Haram.

    The choice is how we are best going to reclaim our liberties or otherwise and later defend them.

    Our grandfathers died for our rights and we are pissing them away in populist election campaigns and mass hysteria.

    That isn’t hyperbole. That’s the truth.

  198. Grigory M

    I think you are thinking of a gay bathhouse.

    Aristogeiton – I’ve seen one of them on SBS. In real life, I think I’d prefer to watch the ladies playing lingerie football.

  199. Joe Goodacre

    Senile Old Guy,

    Good idea, johanna! Clearly, a good reputation is not worth anything, so Joe will be sending an image, and his name, through any time now…any time now…

    This sounds like a climate science experiment.

    What’s the hypothesis – people don’t want to be ridiculed.

    Ok – let’s say I agree with your experiment that I wouldn’t want my image treated that way.

    What does that prove – therefore government must protect me?

    I don’t want to be paid less than $1 million. Where’s the government?

    Johanna and Senile Old Guy in a lab concocting irrelevant experiments that have no relation to the point that they’re making – check.

  200. Aristogeiton

    Not government, as you’ve been continually reminded.

  201. Joe Goodacre

    johanna,

    And this phony argument about nobody believing that Chris Kenny really is keen on sex with dogs that Joe keeps repeating .

    So you believe that Chris Kenny is a canine enthusiast on the basis of the Chaser picture?

    Has Chris’ actions shaken that belief or do you think because he’s denying it too hard. Where there’s smoke there’s fire…

    Which is it – a factual assertion people are taking seriously or ridicule. Your earlier comment makes it out like they are one and the same.

  202. Aristogeiton

    Hey guys, I’ve got a great idea. Let’s replace all our hard-won common law rights with a determination of what Joe thinks about the matter.

  203. .

    Joe – you don’t understand what defamation is. Read what Aristo wrote, FFS.

  204. Senile Old Guy

    What does that prove – therefore government must protect me?

    It is not the government. It was Chris Kenny against the ABC, based on common law dating back hundreds of year. Kenny started the action not the government.

    Have you got that? It…is…not…the…government.

    Until you admit that, this is a pointless argument because you are operating from false assumptions.

  205. Joe Goodacre

    tgs,

    I knew I wasn’t crazy, Joe is who I thought he was. He thinks that the rise in big government over the last two centuries has been cause by the decline in Christianity among the population.

    I do think that has played a part.

    I don’t think I’d even bother arguing with someone who doesn’t understand correlation vs. causation.

    I wasn’t aware I strongly made that argument or claimed I had proof of it. If you bothered to look in numerous comments I have argued that we lack the knowledge (and probably always will) to undertand the complex causative relationships in a society. This was my justification for arguing that there is no guarantee that liberalising drugs in a welfare state will be a net positive. The data simply isn’t there.

  206. john constantine

    i always saw the case as an example of how the appropriated crushing power of the state could be wielded by a class of person to mock and damage their enemies, and that the abc believed that they were immune from any consequences of their actions.

    the abc chose to depict chris kenny as contemptible and powerless, and further,it was a warning of what would happen to anybody that crossed the abc hivemind.

    we are potentially only 800 days away from the abc being able to cut loose and revenge itself against any enemy that revealed themselves during the brief time of the abbottbeast.

    just think of all the little lefties scribbling offences down in their leftie notebooks, waiting for the days of revenge to come.

    “some say you are a dogfucker,on social media, mr kenny”

    “mr kenny would you care to deny claims that you bugger dogs”

    “mr kenny, would you take this chance to respond to sources that reveal that it is said that you fuck dogs”

    “sources have revealed to the abc, damaging alllegations that some say on twitter that kenny fucks dogs”

    just once i would love a tory to turn around to an abc host, when the gutless abc uses a leftie stink knuckle on twitter as an excuse to gotcha tories and go.

    “some say that the abc is a greenfilth sewer of tax-hoovering socialists, that present get-up sponsored twitter lies as the truth, when it is spoon-fed to them”. some say.

  207. .

    This was my justification for arguing that there is no guarantee that liberalising drugs in a welfare state will be a net positive. The data simply isn’t there.

    BULLSHIT

    Look at Portugal.

  208. .

    Aristogeiton
    #1333426, posted on June 4, 2014 at 5:53 pm
    Hey guys, I’ve got a great idea. Let’s replace all our hard-won common law rights with a determination of what Joe thinks about the matter.

    Look pal, buck up and accept the Press Council and internet filter, or move to Liberia.

    Now we could get those civil liberties back, but only once we’ve scrapped welfare and converted all of the infidels unfaithful.

  209. johanna

    Joe’s conception of the relationship between the State, the people and common law, if depicted in cuisine, would resemble minestrone that has gone through a blender.

  210. Joe Goodacre

    Dot,

    My prior point has been that how the law historically developed is irrelevant in assessing the what the role of government is today.

    We have a constitution that’s meant to leave health and education to the states – why do we have federal involvement there if not for an other reason that government can and do abide by what they think the majority of society will allow.

    In that light all state intrusion, regardless of the separation of powers, regardless of the historical development of that body of law, is derived from a philosophy of the appropriate role of government. If the majority think that defamation law should be gone tomorrow, there is nothing stopping that become law. Take plain packaging laws. That violates earlier principles of property in the common law – yet it still happened.

  211. Joe Goodacre

    johanna,

    Jo’s conception of the relationship between the State, the people and common law, if depicted in cuisine, would resemble minestrone that has gone through a blender.

    Ditto.

  212. Fisky

    But what Kenny’s son wrote is a betrayal that he will regret when he grows up – assuming he actually does grow up at some point.

    Hahahaha! He’s a Left-wing zombie. No chance of that.

  213. .

    Joe – your answers are crap because you haven’t considered the median voter, the rationally ignorant and the myth of the rational voter, in the context of representative democracy.

    You refused to asnwer the question before: what countries have gotten rid of free speech through a direct democracy process like a simple referendum?

    Please don’t mention North Korea again. It is an insult to what intelligence remains at this blog.

  214. Joe Goodacre

    Dot – It’s too sign to draw any strong conclusions from Portugal.

    Don’t tell me you’re one of these climate alarmists that think that this has been the hottest decade on record the sky’s falling in.

    Same principle. It’s probably too soon to say with confidence the consequences of the mass production of contraception and of Portugal’s changes to its drug laws.

  215. Joe Goodacre

    You refused to asnwer the question before: what countries have gotten rid of free speech through a direct democracy process like a simple referendum?

    None that I’m aware of.

    What’s your point?

  216. .

    Ditto.

    I know you are but what am I?

    Jesus christ man. Lift your game.

  217. Aristogeiton

    Take plain packaging laws. That violates earlier principles of property in the common law – yet it still happened.

    No. It turned upon whether it was an acquisition of proproperty such that it would enliven the Constitutional limitation upon the power of government to expropriate property. It was not.

    Rest is bullshit too. F-.

  218. .

    Dot – It’s too sign to draw any strong conclusions from Portugal.

    No.

  219. .

    Joe Goodacre
    #1333443, posted on June 4, 2014 at 6:06 pm
    You refused to asnwer the question before: what countries have gotten rid of free speech through a direct democracy process like a simple referendum?

    None that I’m aware of.

    What’s your point?

    That you are in the bubble, pal, not us.

    No democracy has ever given up this or the civil rights you trivialise with lifeboat examples, in a direct ballot.

    Ergo, once more, you are in the bubble pal, not us.

  220. TonyOrlando

    Send us that photo and your real name. I’ve already had a few thoughts on creative photoshopping featuring your face and name, to be broadcast nationally

    Johanna
    http://www.marionpalace.org/2004season/TonyOrlando480.jpg

    Knock yourself out. I look forward to your creative efforts. Suppose you did carry out your threat, how much should I expect in damages?

  221. Joe Goodacre

    Dot, you may have missed the other change I made to Jo’s comment.

    It was a simple way of showing the pointlessness of Jo’s comment. One letter removed and the same mud could be thrown right back. But to what point?

  222. Aristogeiton

    .
    #1333444, posted on June 4, 2014 at 6:06 pm
    Ditto.

    I know you are but what am I?

    Jesus christ man. Lift your game.

    His other go-to move is implying the commenter is a homosexual. Le mot juste!

  223. Joe Goodacre

    No democracy has ever given up this or the civil rights you trivialise with lifeboat examples, in a direct ballot.

    Yet plenty have legislated restrictions on hate speech, racial villification, holocaust denial etc…

    Again, what’s your point?

  224. .

    Drug liberalisation is the same as climate alarmism?

    In the words of a drunken hick, HUH?

    There is decades of evidence to suggest the net benefits of drug control are negative.

    There is eons of evidence to suggest that climate alarmism is a crackpot science.

  225. Joe Goodacre

    Aristo – I feel the heat you direct at me.

    I’m just happy it’s Tony Abbott’s blow up doll in your arm bar, not a picture of me procurred by Jo.

  226. .

    Joe Goodacre
    #1333455, posted on June 4, 2014 at 6:11 pm
    No democracy has ever given up this or the civil rights you trivialise with lifeboat examples, in a direct ballot.

    Yet plenty have legislated restrictions on hate speech, racial villification, holocaust denial etc…

    Again, what’s your point?

    Fuck me you are stupid or ignorant.

    Joe – your answers are crap because you haven’t considered the median voter, the rationally ignorant and the myth of the rational voter, in the context of representative democracy.

  227. Leo G

    The hyperbole you employ to describe your dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs is so far detached from reality that it would probably take Boko Haram and an AK47 in your back for you to work out that though there are things we’d like to change, we have it pretty good in this country all things considered.

    Joe, Let me bore you with a brief reality story.
    Eighteen years ago I took offence to actions by the ABC to conceal harm done to a large group of children. They were exposed to a range of airborne chemicals that suffused their clothing and stained their skin, head to foot, during a chemical fire adjacent to their school. One of the principal chemicals was readily absorbed through the skin and could cause internal organ damage by that route. The NSW EPA and the Health Department incompetently misidentified the chemical and refused to notify the families of those affected about the risk and what tests were needed to be properly reassured that there was no physiological indication of harm. The NSW government refused to comply with federal laws that covered the accuracy of information that should be provided, on the basis that the legislation was new and, at that stage, compliance was not mandatory.
    I went to the ABC with the story, but the was rebuffed. The ABC was maintaining solidarity with Fairfax who had put a news blackout on the story from the first.
    The ABC acted to help conceal the nature of the harm committed, denying those harmed the right to know.
    So please don’t lecture me about how good we have it with free speech in Australia.

  228. Joe Goodacre

    There is decades of evidence to suggest the net benefits of drug control are negative.

    Maybe. I’m not an expert – perhaps neither are you.

    You have a confirmation bias in relation to drug policy. I share it with the difference that I recognise that I have no inclination or time to check the studies, verify the controls, consider all the variables. No one has that time. Experts get it wrong. Hence maybe it would be a net positive, maybe it wouldn’t. I tend to think it wouldn’t be a net positive on the basis we haven’t truly had a war on drugs. We’ve had a light skirmish only where we’ve mostly retreated but no one admits it.

  229. Joe Goodacre

    your answers are crap because you haven’t considered the median voter, the rationally ignorant and the myth of the rational voter, in the context of representative democracy.

    You’re right I haven’t – or maybe I have but call it something different. As Aristo says, my definitions are flexible. You’ll need to break it down as to what you’re specifically talking about and why that changes you point.

  230. .

    “My definitons are flexible”

    I am a simple country boy.

    We call this “full of shit”.

  231. If someone else had made the same video and uploaded it to youtube using no government resources do you think that Kenny should not have been able to bring a defamation suit against them?

    Chris, my post was in response to your claim that “Everyone knew it was a joke”; as I attempted to explain, the Chaser team didn’t just accuse Mr Kenny of deplorable acts but were effectively and maliciously asserting that he deserved to be derided by all right-minded people. Obviously, if “someone else had made the same video”*, without the vast resources and support of their overbearing ABC, it would be far less damaging to Mr Kenny’s reputation but, since you ask, I support Mr Kenny’s right to bring a suit against anyone who defamed him.

    * but, really, no-one else would have “made the same video”.

  232. Joe Goodacre

    Leo G,

    That’s a sad story (I realise in the context of my prior comments this may sound sarcastic). I’m not.

    I don’t pretend that the country is perfect.

    My only point is that none are – there’s no utopia on this earth and most of the problems in this world are people doing whatever they can to change things to reach ‘prefection’. A critical element of a conservative is recognising that what may not be perfect may be the best available. Of course there will be things we want to change but our eyes should always be open to the possibility that what we desire may have other consequences we can’t fathom. For instance – there is no evidence of a classically liberal society existing today despite a number of attempts in history. Perhaps there is something in the classically liberal society that is unworkable yet we don’t see it or want to know about it. That’s why pure theory should be treated cautiously (in my view).

    As to free speech in Oz – anyone of us can call our government ratbags. There is very little we can’t say in a practical sense. There are exceptions and cover ups as your story indicates, but that is not representative of the whole. Again though – a sad story.

  233. .

    I tend to think it wouldn’t be a net positive on the basis we haven’t truly had a war on drugs. We’ve had a light skirmish only where we’ve mostly retreated but no one admits it.

    YES!

    To regain those TRIVIAL CIVIL LIBERTIES you desire, we need to get rid of the welfare state entirely, rechristinese everybody and have a full scale Mexican style paramilitary WAR on drugs.

    Repealing the statute law that got rid of the common law? Forget about it!

    ——————————————————————————————————————-

    You are talking yourself into a very stupid, dishonest and illiberal corner.

    Changing your discussion style to not have “flexible definitions” would be a good start.

  234. Joe Goodacre

    Dot, fair dinkum – I thought you were just an agressive girl (your name being Dot and all).

    Obviously I’m joking – what do you mean, what are you referring to – maybe I’ve considered those items but they are labelled something differently to what you’ve referred to them as.

  235. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1333480, posted on June 4, 2014 at 6:26 pm
    [...]
    A critical element of a conservative is recognising that what may not be perfect may be the best available.

    The ‘conservative’ wants to rid us of our common law rights. Got it.

  236. Joe Goodacre

    Aristo – what are you talking about – I don’t.

    I’m arguing that they will only exist so long as the majority deem it acceptable for them to exist. This is not a point only made by me – you read plenty of Sowell and probably Williams – they’ve both touched on it.

  237. .

    My only point is that none are – there’s no utopia on this earth and most of the problems in this world are people doing whatever they can to change things to reach ‘prefection’. A critical element of a conservative is recognising that what may not be perfect may be the best available

    You are fucking defending an abuse of state power supporting the machinations of a left wing print media firm who were defending an incompetent captured left wing bureacracy under a bumbling, narcissistic left wing premier.

    A critical element of a conservative is recognising that what may not be perfect may be the best available

    Oh you are so fucking dishonest. We live in the best of possible worlds!

    Have you read Candide yet, you dolt?

  238. Joe Goodacre

    I haven’t and I’ve got to go – is there three lines you can summarise it in and how it relates to your point?

  239. .

    Joe Goodacre
    #1333483, posted on June 4, 2014 at 6:27 pm
    Dot, fair dinkum – I thought you were just an agressive girl (your name being Dot and all).

    Obviously I’m joking – what do you mean, what are you referring to – maybe I’ve considered those items but they are labelled something differently to what you’ve referred to them as.

    I thought you were an imbecile. Oh wait I still do.

    I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, since you freely admit that you are so dishonest everything you say means whatever the fuck you want it to.

  240. .

    Joe Goodacre
    #1333489, posted on June 4, 2014 at 6:32 pm
    I haven’t and I’ve got to go – is there three lines you can summarise it in and how it relates to your point?

    Gotta zip!

  241. Aristogeiton

    Joe Goodacre
    #1333486, posted on June 4, 2014 at 6:29 pm
    Aristo – what are you talking about – I don’t.

    I’m arguing that they will only exist so long as the majority deem it acceptable for them to exist. This is not a point only made by me – you read plenty of Sowell and probably Williams – they’ve both touched on it.

    What you said was that defamation was an unwarranted intrusion into the rights of free speech as it is the nanny state deciding what people can an cannot say. You say that there is no justification for repealing s. 18C that does not justify the common law tort of defamation also being displaced. You said that “[d]efammation [sic] law results in judgments which are enforced by police; It is an intrusion of government into public conversations’ and indicated that it was not a ‘legitimate intrusion’.

    You’re lying again.

  242. manalive

    We will never know whether Chris Kenny was defamed by the “skit” because there will never be a judgement on the matter.

  243. Aristogeiton

    Joe Bloviacre always pisses off when it’s his shout.

  244. For instance – there is no evidence of a classically liberal society existing today despite a number of attempts in history.

    Wrong.
    You falsely assume that libertarians are utopians. See here for a rebuttal of this question and its false premise.

    By the way, what are these “attempts” you refer to?

  245. Leo G

    We will never know whether Chris Kenny was defamed by the “skit” because there will never be a judgement on the matter.

    Should we think less of him for the uncertainty?

  246. Formerly A Political

    john constantine
    #1332825, posted on June 4, 2014 at 11:20 am
    who would send their family out into the minefields risking everything, to inflict not even a fleshwound on the enemy?.

    A very brave man, who has the support of his family, other, as reported in the press, his son. Hopefully Chris Kenny has inflicted more than a fleshwound.

    In my opinion Chris Kenny was defamed as in the dictionary definition of defamation: “to attack the good name or reputation of, as by uttering or publishing maliciously or falsely anything injurious; slander or libel; calumniate: The Chasers on the ABC defamed Chris Kenny.

    The ABC showed a photoshopped picture of Chris Kenny, no matter its source, in the act of bestiality. They have not provided proof that he does engage in bestiality, therefore, they have defamed and libelled him.

    How could Chris Kenny not have won his case? It is time that those who perpetrate these untruths about people are brought to justice as evil can only exist if good men or women do nothing.

    Congratulations, Mr Kenny and I applaud your decision to take action against those who defamed you. I am sure it was a hard decision to take the action you did, but meek and mild doesn’t work with a ruthless enemy.

  247. blogstrop

    Wow. Joe Goodacre. Another paid to troll? Nobody does that sort of duty shift for nought.

  248. I thought we were all in favour for the right to insult, humiliate and offend?

    I speak only for myself: I am indeed in favour of our right to insult, to offend, and even, when warranted, to humiliate; I also support laws which allow a bloke to bring a suit against anyone who wilfully attempted to destroy his reputation by maliciously publishing false claims.
    I support your right to approach any person whom who choose and call him a cynerast to his face; I also support that person’s right to feel aggrieved and to express that feeling by punching you in the face.

  249. A Lurker

    Hubby is watching other programs on television tonight so I’m just wondering if the Apology has been televised, and if so, did it live up to expectations?

  250. Peewhit

    I think it was Sinclair on this site expressed a favorable opinion on dueling. If the chasers were worried about being called out and risking their lives on the basis of their swordsmanship or shooting would they have put it to air. If you defame or rob a person then you have stolen some of their life, and it only seems fair that you should have to risk some of your own too. Already in our nation if you upset the wrong person you will be challenged to pick handles at midnight, a midnight of the upset persons choosing, bring your own pick handle. If you don’t have one with you too bad. The rule of law depends very much on it being seen as being just. When what you get is law and not justice it brings the whole into disrepute. Personally come the revolution, I will volunteer to operate the guillotine when the solicitors and barristers turn up.

Comments are closed.