Australian Politics Forum - be heard on 18c and freedom of speech

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #105 - Dec 7^th, 2016 at 1:59pm

freediver wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 12:15pm:

So far none of Raven's 'explanations' contradict my own view, or provide any detail at all. Saying you can get compensated for loss of reputation does not contradict saying you can get compensated for the lost income associated with loss of reputation.

Oh my. Is that how you are trying to twist "your view" now? Just so we don't fall down the endless FD obfuscation spiral - lets remind ourself exactly what "your view" is:

Quote:

I could only sue you for defamation if I could demonstrate you cost me money

For such a statement to be true, it would need to be specifically set out in the law. Thats just common sense. Thats the first point. The second point is that as it so happens, the legislation on defamation actually has a section concerned specifically with "Damages for non-economic loss". So in answer to your question - how on earth can they calculate an amount of money for damages in these non-economic cases? Well they have a formula based on average weekly total earnings of full-time adults in Australia, and it is capped. Here is the NSW legislation: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/da200599/s35.html#maximum_dama...

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Raven

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #106 - Dec 7^th, 2016 at 4:17pm

Freediver

Most complaints of defamation are dealt with under civil law. That means that cases go to a civil court and are punished by awarding money (called damages) against the person found to have committed the offence. In civil defamation, the principle is the same as for someone who has been physically injured as a result of someone else's actions, either through carelessness or a planned attack.

Under the uniform law, it is usual for juries to determine whether defamation took place and whether the publisher or broadcaster has a defence. If defamation is proved and there is no acceptable defence, the judge will decide how much harm has been done and express that in the amount of damages they award.

General or compensatory damages are damages a court may award for a person's loss of reputation, shame or hurt feelings. Under common law, once the court has found that he has been defamed, the plaintiff does not have to prove that actual harm has been done.

Back to top

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 94856 Gender:	Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech Reply #107 - Dec 8^th, 2016 at 8:28pm No more questions at this time, habibis. FD has left the building. Freeeedom, innit.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48816
At my desk.

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #108 - Dec 8^th, 2016 at 8:40pm

Raven wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 4:17pm:

Freediver

Most complaints of defamation are dealt with under civil law. That means that cases go to a civil court and are punished by awarding money (called damages) against the person found to have committed the offence. In civil defamation, the principle is the same as for someone who has been physically injured as a result of someone else's actions, either through carelessness or a planned attack.

Under the uniform law, it is usual for juries to determine whether defamation took place and whether the publisher or broadcaster has a defence. If defamation is proved and there is no acceptable defence, the judge will decide how much harm has been done and express that in the amount of damages they award.

General or compensatory damages are damages a court may award for a person's loss of reputation, shame or hurt feelings. Under common law, once the court has found that he has been defamed, the plaintiff does not have to prove that actual harm has been done.

Of course they don't. Proving it would be next to impossible. This is like Gandalf demanding evidence of the Indonesians not saying things they are not saying.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 94856 Gender:	Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech Reply #109 - Dec 8^th, 2016 at 8:54pm Sorry, FD, are you taking questions? Mother has a brilliant article on the Amerikan empire on the Amerikan board. Would you care to comment?
Back to top	IP Logged

Raven

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #110 - Dec 8^th, 2016 at 10:44pm

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2016 at 8:40pm:

Raven wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 4:17pm:

Freediver

Most complaints of defamation are dealt with under civil law. That means that cases go to a civil court and are punished by awarding money (called damages) against the person found to have committed the offence. In civil defamation, the principle is the same as for someone who has been physically injured as a result of someone else's actions, either through carelessness or a planned attack.

Under the uniform law, it is usual for juries to determine whether defamation took place and whether the publisher or broadcaster has a defence. If defamation is proved and there is no acceptable defence, the judge will decide how much harm has been done and express that in the amount of damages they award.

General or compensatory damages are damages a court may award for a person's loss of reputation, shame or hurt feelings. Under common law, once the court has found that he has been defamed, the plaintiff does not have to prove that actual harm has been done.

Of course they don't. Proving it would be next to impossible. This is like Gandalf demanding evidence of the Indonesians not saying things they are not saying.

The point is your comment that one can only sue if they lost money is false

Back to top

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #111 - Dec 9^th, 2016 at 6:33am

Raven wrote on Dec 8^th, 2016 at 10:44pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2016 at 8:40pm:

Raven wrote on Dec 7^th, 2016 at 4:17pm:

Freediver

Most complaints of defamation are dealt with under civil law. That means that cases go to a civil court and are punished by awarding money (called damages) against the person found to have committed the offence. In civil defamation, the principle is the same as for someone who has been physically injured as a result of someone else's actions, either through carelessness or a planned attack.

Under the uniform law, it is usual for juries to determine whether defamation took place and whether the publisher or broadcaster has a defence. If defamation is proved and there is no acceptable defence, the judge will decide how much harm has been done and express that in the amount of damages they award.

General or compensatory damages are damages a court may award for a person's loss of reputation, shame or hurt feelings. Under common law, once the court has found that he has been defamed, the plaintiff does not have to prove that actual harm has been done.

Of course they don't. Proving it would be next to impossible. This is like Gandalf demanding evidence of the Indonesians not saying things they are not saying.

The point is your comment that one can only sue if they lost money is false

Only if they demonstrate they lost money. We mustn't forget FD's actual words - as he always insists.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48816 At my desk.	Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech Reply #112 - Dec 9^th, 2016 at 12:36pm Would you like to try to make a point Gandalf? Have you made a submission yet?
Back to top	« Last Edit: Dec 9^th, 2016 at 12:50pm by freediver » People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 94856 Gender:	Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech Reply #113 - Dec 9^th, 2016 at 1:05pm freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 12:36pm: Would you like to try to make a point Gandalf? Have you made a submission yet? I've made a question, FD. Would you care to answer it?
Back to top	IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech Reply #114 - Dec 9^th, 2016 at 3:08pm freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 12:36pm: Would you like to try to make a point Gandalf? Yes FD I would. My point is that your claim that you can only sue someone for defamation if you could demonstrate they cost you money - is wrong.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48816 At my desk.	Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech Reply #115 - Dec 9^th, 2016 at 6:59pm And yet you cannot cite any other measure on which damages are based. The closing date for submissions is today. Are you going to send anything in?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38489
Gender: male

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #116 - Dec 9^th, 2016 at 7:07pm

freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 6:59pm:

And yet you cannot cite any other measure on which damages are based.

The closing date for submissions is today. Are you going to send anything in?

I have, and you ignored it. I even gave you a link.

Ima glad submissions close today. You can take this Thread out of Relationships, which would be appreciated.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48816 At my desk.	Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech Reply #117 - Dec 9^th, 2016 at 7:17pm Would you mind reposting it Aussie?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38489 Gender:	Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech Reply #118 - Dec 9^th, 2016 at 7:19pm freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 7:17pm: Would you mind reposting it Aussie? So you can ignore it again? It is up there ^^^^^^ in this Thread. Have a look at Posts # 73 and 77. I see the Link in # 77 is corrupted. It was to the Corby defamation case.
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 94856 Gender:	Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech Reply #119 - Dec 9^th, 2016 at 7:25pm Aussie wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 7:07pm: freediver wrote on Dec 9^th, 2016 at 6:59pm: And yet you cannot cite any other measure on which damages are based. The closing date for submissions is today. Are you going to send anything in? I have, and you ignored it. Ah.
Back to top	IP Logged