Australian Politics Forum - uniform slander/vilification legislation

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49042
At my desk.

uniform slander/vilification legislation
Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 1:08pm

This was prompted by Malik's legal threats in another thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498

Laws governing libel and slander in Australia are state based. Unfortunately they are not uniform. Apparently neither are the laws governing racial vilification. Given that this sort of thing is rarely confined to one state, this allows plaintiffs to 'forum shop' for the state with the most favourable legislation. Not only does it create confusion, it significantly increases the cost involved in defending yourself. Both the confusion and the cost put legal recourse out of the pockets of most ordinary Australians. It means that the mere threat of legal action is often sufficient to stifle freedom of speech. People can be 'trigger happy' with lawsuits to silence their critics, but then back down or settle out of court if anyone calls their bluff, so cases never go to court and the legal issues are not resolved for the public. There is very little case law covering what is said on internet forums for example, and the international nature of it has not been adequately addressed.

We need to make the laws uniform across states or get the federal government to take over. We need to make it more affordable for ordinary people, either by reducing trial costs or providing support for those who are dragged into court.

In the meantime, call people's bluff if they make legal threats against you. If they send you a 'legal sounding' letter that 'doesn't add up', inform yourself of where you stand legally, then publish the letter to embarass the person. You don't (usually) have to hire a lawyer to figure out whether a threat has any merit. If you call their bluff, empty threats will backfire and help you draw more attention to whatever the original issue was. You will be helping to discourage the abuse of power by the wealthy and the arrogant.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 1:14pm by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: uniform slander/vilification legislation
Reply #1 - Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 1:38pm

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 1:08pm:

This was prompted by Malik's legal threats in another thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216683498

Laws governing libel and slander in Australia are state based. ......You will be helping to discourage the abuse of power by the wealthy and the arrogant.

The State always takes precedent where legislation exists. For example, the following Acts govern EEO in Queensland:

Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 (Cth)
Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth)
Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth)
Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld)

Read my point in the other threads. If you seriously wanted to take action, religions would be banned. There is always allowance made for religion.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Acid Monkey Gold Member Offline Goth Father Posts: 1064 EU Gender:	Re: uniform slander/vilification legislation Reply #2 - Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 2:02pm muso wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 1:38pm: If you seriously wanted to take action, religions would be banned. There is always allowance made for religion. Religions would be banned but there are always allowances? What do you mean?
Back to top	IP Logged

Ray_A

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 334
Gender: male

Re: uniform slander/vilification legislation
Reply #3 - Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 6:47am

I'm familiar with legal threats against forums and forum posters. Several people I know wanted to bring lawsuits against posters, but were advised by their lawyers that the case would most likely fail, precisely because Internet laws have not been universally or adequately addressed.

Quote:

Can my opinion be defamatory?

No — but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").

What is a statement of verifiable fact?

A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb Asses' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb Asses":

A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb Ass," even first among "Dumb Asses," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb ass." When applied to a whole human being, the term "ass" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.

http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php

Back to top

"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." &&&&--- Eric Hoffer. &&

IP Logged

Malik Shakur

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 799
Auckland, New Zealand
Gender: male

Re: uniform slander/vilification legislation
Reply #4 - Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 8:52am

Ray_A wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 6:47am:

I'm familiar with legal threats against forums and forum posters. Several people I know wanted to bring lawsuits against posters, but were advised by their lawyers that the case would most likely fail, precisely because Internet laws have not been universally or adequately addressed.

Quote:

Can my opinion be defamatory?

No — but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").

What is a statement of verifiable fact?

A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse. To illustrate this point, consider the following excerpt from a court (Vogel v. Felice) considering the alleged defamatory statement that plaintiffs were the top-ranking 'Dumb Asses' on defendant's list of "Top Ten Dumb Asses":

A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb Ass," even first among "Dumb Asses," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb ass." When applied to a whole human being, the term "ass" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. ... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.

http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php

I didn't accuse anyone of defamation at all actually.

I accused them of religious vilification. That law is clearly defined as the following.

Quote:

8 Religious vilification unlawful
(1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
Note
Engage in conduct includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), conduct—
(a) may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and
(b) may occur in or outside Victoria.

Defamation and vilification are two entirely different crimes, it is clear Sprint has broken the vilification laws, and perhaps in some ways the defamation law with accusing me of supporting terrorism. But I'm not wasting my time with the defamation part.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49042
At my desk.

Re: uniform slander/vilification legislation
Reply #5 - Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 9:55am

If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.

I think this is one of the issues that varies between areas. I think that in America truth is always a defence, but not in Australia. In Australia it also has to be 'in the public interest'. Also I suspect that in Australia libel may also cover statements of opinion. But it's been a while since I looked into it.

That law is clearly defined as the following.

You've got to be kidding Malik. That's about as ambiguous as a law can get.

it is clear Sprint has broken the vilification laws

No it is not clear at all.

But I'm not wasting my time with the defamation part.

Grin

Good to see that common sense has prevailed.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Malik Shakur

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 799
Auckland, New Zealand
Gender: male

Re: uniform slander/vilification legislation
Reply #6 - Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 6:51pm

freediver wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 9:55am:

If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.

I think this is one of the issues that varies between areas. I think that in America truth is always a defence, but not in Australia. In Australia it also has to be 'in the public interest'. Also I suspect that in Australia libel may also cover statements of opinion. But it's been a while since I looked into it.

That law is clearly defined as the following.

You've got to be kidding Malik. That's about as ambiguous as a law can get.

it is clear Sprint has broken the vilification laws

No it is not clear at all.

But I'm not wasting my time with the defamation part.

Grin

Good to see that common sense has prevailed.

It's very clear and not ambiguous either.

I said I'm not worrying about defamation. I will take this to the Human Rights commission regarding the vilification.

I can guarantee you that it wouldn't be considered to be in 'public interest' due to the way Sprint puts it all, it will be seen as a deliberate attempt to incite hate and you will be held accountable for allowing it to happen when you've been asked to stop it.

Back to top

IP Logged

easel Gold Member Offline Posts: 3120	Re: uniform slander/vilification legislation Reply #7 - Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 8:26pm FD, make a new rule. If you declare Jihad on the internet you will get banned.
Back to top	I am from a foreign government. This is not a joke. I am authorised to investigate state and federal bodies including ASIO. IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38719 Gender:	Re: uniform slander/vilification legislation Reply #8 - Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 8:34pm What 'vilification?' Can someone tell me where this has occurred?
Back to top	IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38719
Gender: male

Re: uniform slander/vilification legislation
Reply #9 - Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 8:44pm

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 6:51pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 9:55am:

If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.

I think this is one of the issues that varies between areas. I think that in America truth is always a defence, but not in Australia. In Australia it also has to be 'in the public interest'. Also I suspect that in Australia libel may also cover statements of opinion. But it's been a while since I looked into it.

That law is clearly defined as the following.

You've got to be kidding Malik. That's about as ambiguous as a law can get.

it is clear Sprint has broken the vilification laws

No it is not clear at all.

But I'm not wasting my time with the defamation part.

Grin

Good to see that common sense has prevailed.

It's very clear and not ambiguous either.

I said I'm not worrying about defamation. I will take this to the Human Rights commission regarding the vilification.

I can guarantee you that it wouldn't be considered to be in 'public interest' due to the way Sprint puts it all, it will be seen as a deliberate attempt to incite hate and you will be held accountable for allowing it to happen when you've been asked to stop it.

Well, Malik, I'll be the first, and probably most powerfull witness for the defence, and I reckon this entire forum will line up to defeat any litigation you might commence. I can assure you that nothing posted here by sprint has made me feel any less of you or your religion.

Vilification???? What utter crap.

Religious debate, yes, and you gave as good as you got. You may even have been ahead on points, but, you can now get stuffed with this crap.

TKO against you.

With your threat of litigation which threatens the welfare of this community, one which includes Muslims, I now hold you in very low esteem.

Back to top

IP Logged

easel Gold Member Offline Posts: 3120	Re: uniform slander/vilification legislation Reply #10 - Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 8:57pm Be careful Aussie, Malik might dob on you.
Back to top	I am from a foreign government. This is not a joke. I am authorised to investigate state and federal bodies including ASIO. IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: uniform slander/vilification legislation
Reply #11 - Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 10:47pm

If Malik was fair dinkum about not wishing to incite hatred against others, he would stop saying that Israeli soldiers shoot palestinian schoolkids for sport.
That is possibly the silliest and most offensive post that I have seen recently.
Personally, I deride and ridicule all religions as a matter of course, I just find their whole setup of following ancient, contradictory gobbledy gook too silly to take seriously.
I deride Islam a lot, because as well as being particularly silly, it is also particularly hypocritical.
We see these muslims with their dual nationality, claiming all the rights they can from australia, but calling any Islamic state as their land.
I think Malik would be better served by concentrating on the sins of his own religions followers, rather than threatening people here because he wilfully chooses to interpret criticism of Islam as hateful.

I think the thread about mohammed having sex with his child bride was what really upset him, and he has been sweating on it ever since.

On the legal side, while not a lawyer myself, I do have some prominent ones in my family, and I can assure Malik that his chances of winning would be slim to none.
His chance of being held liable for costs, and damages, would be a different matter.

So, while sprint may be like a dog with a bone, he is basically a decent person, whose rational fear of Islamic imperialism is more exaggerated than it should be, but he is not likely to hold a grudge, so if Malik will stop his bullying threats, we can get back to normal.

Long live free speech.

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49042
At my desk.

Re: uniform slander/vilification legislation
Reply #12 - Jul 24^th, 2008 at 10:29am

It's very clear and not ambiguous either.

Then how come you managed to convince yourself we are breaking the law?

I will take this to the Human Rights commission regarding the vilification.

Do let us know what they say.

You are an embarrassment to the Australian muslim community Malik. You may not give a stuff about free speach, this forum, open interfaith dialogue, or sprint's stress levels, but you could at least consider how much derision you are going to bring upon them. Perhaps it's time you sought some Naseeha. You were doing so well, but with one stupid action you are doing far more to further sprint's cause than he could have possibly achieved on his own. I can just see his next line of attack - only 1.5% and already the attacks on free speech start.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

GSS

New Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 41

Re: uniform slander/vilification legislation
Reply #13 - Jul 24^th, 2008 at 10:46am

Malik, ur really wasting ur time with this "i'm going to take this to court" nonsense.

sprintcyclist's posts may have been annoying, but u clearly showed that he wasn't making sense on alot of topics.......everybody on this forum could see through his rants.

i've noticed this, because there's alot more balance on this forum when discussing Islam and muslims.....not just from abu & urself, but from comments by Acid_monkey and even a few comments from freediver as well.

u should just ignore sprintcyclist........taking this to court would only reverse all the good work u previously did.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49042 At my desk.	Re: uniform slander/vilification legislation Reply #14 - Aug 11^th, 2008 at 11:49am I started a thread about this on that Aussie Muslim site. Last I checked it was still there and had a lot of responses. I can't seem to find it now. Does anyone know where it went?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged