Blimey, you can actually sue someone on the basis of being offended?! ITSTL. Here you have to show that reputation has been harmed, or that privacy has been infringed, or there has been some economic loss and so on. I assumed it would be the same in Aus.
Not for any offence, specifically for race.
I am absolutely saying it should be allowed. That's not to say I think it would be right for somebody to write such a piece, but I have already made this abundantly clear.The entire article is pure filth, but I am just quoting one small part
"We understand you come from a different culture, any Jamaican woman love being chatted up by a big man like you or me. Is different deh.
You da man, brethren. You people have such lovely big smiles, the way your teeth and your own sparkly eyes shine out in the night-time"
Are journalists in Australia allowed to write this? Is sledger suggesting this be allowed? Seriously? Just imagine what more can be written in this line if so. Purely racist newspapers and magazines can come out full of articles like this everyday. Cricsim can publish its own newspaper
Have you seriously never come across someone who actually believes in freedom of speech before? You seem completely aghast by the suggestion that maybe the government shouldn't get to decide what journalists can say. You do realise you can think it's a terrible article without thinking it should actually be banned, right?Are journalists in Australia allowed to write this? Is sledger suggesting this be allowed? Seriously? Just imagine what more can be written in this line if so. Purely racist newspapers and magazines can come out full of articles like this everyday. Cricsim can publish its own newspaper
Sure, I made it abundantly clear that I am no law expert. You maybe the best law expert in the world, but there's no point attacking me repeatedly on this. I said from a humanitarian and ethical PoV, the writers of these kind of articles should receive serious punishment. I didn't comment about name of act, or date of act, or other technicalities as those are trivial to me.
I'm not attacking you, I'm just pointing out your foolishness in making broad proclamations about the law, then following it up with the caveat that you know nothing about it, and then in this post you appear to have suggested that the substantive elements of the law are "trivial". Odd posting tstl.
So, when Chris Gayle praises Mel McLaughlin's eyes and asks her out for drinks that's the most serious kind of offence.
This is a laughably poor post. I'm sorry, but this is just dreadful.
It's a bit rich coming from you, given that the last 1-2 pages of this thread will clearly indicate that you are as clueless about the law as I am.
Better than all your posts in cw and cricsim tbh
No.
Also, no.
