Free Speech, comments and the recent High Court decision

"I didn't read anywhere they are trying to ban or restrict Friendly Jordie's"
What planet Indo Dreaming... What planet do you live on? You do realise the Friendly Jordie's producer was arrested by the NSW Police fixated persons unit. That shit is for terrorists, not comedians / journalists. That's an absolutely bloody shameful use of police resources to silence a government critic. That case is going nowhere.
Yes there's a problem with social media pile ons, but there are existing laws (albeit requiring updating) to deal with those situations. Here's the important question for you ID, can you really see Scumo's laws being used to stop social media pile ons like the one on Yassmin Abdel-Magied? or will they just be used on people who say mean things about the government?
You really don't understand how power is used in Australia. Here's a clue. Look at the recent defamation actions by Dutton and Porter. They aren't about punishing the naughty person who said mean things. They are all about warning others to keep their mouths shut.

Um hello we all know free speech doesn't mean you can saying anything about anyone without any consequences, this is not restricted to social media but yeah people seem to think they are free from the law when online, it's fine for us nobodies our reach is small and close to irrelevant, but once you start getting a large number of followers and a profile, it's probably time to start being a bit smarter otherwise karma is going to come kick your arse.

This government is hell bent on quashing critics, and Scumo's anti-social media agenda isn't aimed at stopping social media pile ons like the ones scum like Ari the wife basher regularly coordinate.
It's just like Dutton's defamation lawsuit against an absolute nobody. It's aimed at silencing or discrediting their political opponents.
Anyone who calls these corrupt dogs in the LNP, "corrupt dogs" could get punished if Scumo gets his laws through. I'd even suggest his laws would be flexible enough so the "truth defence" used in defamation cases doesn't apply.
Scumo's anti-social media agenda is straight out of Trump's "fake news" playbook.

ha ha whatever dude.

OK champ, you just sleep well in your fantasy land where powerful people don't try and silence or belittle their critics.

The fantasy land, is the land where people like Jordie's think they can say anything about somebody especially high profile people like politicians and that they are exempt from any consequences, it's all people like Jordie's do to get clicks, same deal with Tom Tanku only reason people don't sue him is because he doesn't have much followers.

Personally i think more politicians etc should take a stance and hammer a dude like Jordies with half a dozen seperate defamation cases and send him broke and crazy as looking at his videos im sure there is plenty they could get him on.

It's the same deal with Ben Pennings and Adani, people like him think they can do and say anything and there will be no consequences, so it's good to see Adani finally fighting back a little a handing him a big court cost bill.

They also need to ban fundraising to pay any related court cost if you are being sued for defamation etc.

indo-dreaming wrote:

Personally i think more politicians etc should take a stance and hammer a dude like Jordies with half a dozen seperate defamation cases and send him broke and crazy as looking at his videos im sure there is plenty they could get him on.

You'll recall the LNP came in swinging through the early years of their tenure about the threat that Section 18C posed to society.

Interesting comparing all that early posturing and fear-mongering to where we are now, including comments such as this from conservatives encouraging legal means to shut down free speech. So whatever happened to George Brandis' 'right to be a bigot'?

What stu said + the moves against NGO’s critical of gov’t policy by defunding, ending tax deductibility status for donations and ending legal protections against law suits from vested 3rd parties.

"Personally i think more politicians etc should take a stance and hammer a dude like Jordies with half a dozen seperate defamation cases".
I'm actually amazed Barilaro is going through with the law suit. The standard practice is to say something like "His video is a disgrace and I'm keeping my legal options open", only for the defamation action never to happen, and the media moves on.
Porter's defamation case was an unmitigated disaster and the bloke's reputation has been trashed by his own hand.
I'm actually glad some sections of the media are holding our fucked up politicians to account. You on the other hand are cheering on the crooks.
The funny thing is, the conservative media and conservative politicians have had a truly shit run in the defamation courts in the last decade. That's what happens when conservative politicians are crooked and are held to account, and conservative media publishes absolute shit and get their comeuppance.

stunet wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

Personally i think more politicians etc should take a stance and hammer a dude like Jordies with half a dozen seperate defamation cases and send him broke and crazy as looking at his videos im sure there is plenty they could get him on.

You'll recall the LNP came in swinging through the early years of their tenure about the threat that Section 18C posed to society.

Interesting comparing all that early posturing and fear-mongering to where we are now, including comments such as this from conservatives encouraging legal means to shut down free speech. So whatever happened to George Brandis' 'right to be a bigot'?

Hey Stu, It's probably got something to do with the conservative cultural warriors' truly fucked up definition of free speech. Free speech to these dogs starts and stops at saying racist, homophobic, and bigoted statements with zero consequence.
They don't think free speech is the right to call a corrupt powerful person a crook without a backlash.

Paraphrasing someone else’s comments

This is a Prime Minister who's failed to investigate alleged rape claims in Parliament House or rape claims against his former Attorney General or his use of $1M in mysterious legal fees, or why millions were spent on promised car parks or swimming pools that don't exist or why many millions have been seemingly overpaid as land compensation to various party supporters, but he’s pearl clutching over what Bazza123 from Blacktown reckons.

"but he’s pearl clutching over what Bazza123 from Blacktown reckons."
gold Wally.
It's like the Herald Sun folk who went ballistic at Dan Andrews not wearing a mask from his car to his press conference, while being oblivious too, or not giving a rat's arse about Porter's million dollar gift. Some LNP donor gets $30 million for a $3 million block of land and these people say meh, but a photo appears on a forum of cyclists riding three abreast or an inclusive toilet sign and they lose their collective shit.
They just have the weirdest most self-centred set of priorities.

"but he’s pearl clutching over what Bazza123 from Blacktown reckons."
gold Wally.
That line was stolen mostly intact from RonnieSalt

I get it now.

No way a meticulous micro manager such as Dan Andrews just forgets to wear a mask. Ever.

But he knows Neil and Rita et al will incite the populous into indignant outrage with claims of rank hypocrisy. This will in turn provide distraction as he struggles to recall (yeah right) details of incendiary and important (dodgy?) dealings with the UFU and CFA and prepares to spin the resignation of another minister amidst an investigation into industrial scale branch stacking.

Sucked in! He’s a clever politician,

It will be interesting, if Morrison and Barnabubby get there way and ban anonymous posts, to see which SN posters will be willing to own up to their previous identity.

spot on wally, more monty python and gra please

thermalben wrote:

"Sydney magistrate unimpressed by NSW Police's application to suppress FriendlyJordies videos"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-13/magistrate-adjourns-police-applic...

thermalben wrote:

"Sydney magistrate unimpressed by NSW Police's application to suppress FriendlyJordies videos"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-13/magistrate-adjourns-police-applic...

""That's a charge? God, it's not even a walk through the park. It's inane," the magistrate replied."

Hahaha!

That makes three of us posting the same link.

I'd love to be sitting in the public gallery and hear a magistrate say that.

It'd warm your heart.

Absolutely incredible, such a disgrace the relevant NSW authorities in this instance. How's the spelling mistakes wow!

Jordies is achieving great things on his crusade.

He single handedly dethroned Bruz and now he’s shining the spotlight on the bovver boy cnts dirtying up our police force.

Legend.

The Murray-Darling videos are a good effort as well, no wonder they are gunning for him

stunet wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

Personally i think more politicians etc should take a stance and hammer a dude like Jordies with half a dozen seperate defamation cases and send him broke and crazy as looking at his videos im sure there is plenty they could get him on.

You'll recall the LNP came in swinging through the early years of their tenure about the threat that Section 18C posed to society.

Interesting comparing all that early posturing and fear-mongering to where we are now, including comments such as this from conservatives encouraging legal means to shut down free speech. So whatever happened to George Brandis' 'right to be a bigot'?

In all honesty i didn't follow that section 18 issue or take much interest in it, just odd listen on ABC radio..

But i think there is a big difference between dragging an individuals persons name or even a business name through the mud especially if it damages their reputation and the negative things said aren't based on anything more than personal opinion.

In this case the attack was said to even be "vile and racist"
https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/politics/nsw-deputy-premier-joh...

Compared to say having a negative view's about a group of people, and having the right to dislike and express that dislike to some extent.

BTW. Most people are bigots in some way even if they admit it or not, go have look in the religion thread and have a look at openly bigoted views of Christianity and Christians, most find that acceptable but if you had a bigoted view about Islam or muslims etc, the same people with bigoted views about Christianity/Christians would cry foul

It is hard to know where to draw the line though and get the balance of having the right to not like someone or some group and express the view to some extent but also not cross a line where you are being outright hateful to the point your opinions can case damage to them etc

Some of the lines are obvious, but some shades in between harder to make a call on.

Swellnet: Cool by association.

1:00 min.

stunet wrote:

Swellnet: Cool by association.

1:00 min.

That was pretty fucken funny

haha 100% accurate!

Haha so good!

Gold!!!!!! An instant classic.

awesome ....and a couple of cameos by swelltonians

Better be careful. They are watching! It was actually a bit dated so I reckon the next episode will have middle aged men in their bedrooms bent over their phones.

Hey Indo Dreaming,
Just a little tip. Probably best not to sink the boot into Friendly Jordies on a free speech thread. It makes you look very silly. The lawsuit and police actions against Shanks and his producer are going so spectacularly wrong for Porkie Bruz and the fixated persons unit.
I suspect the defamation action and criminal charges will get dropped and Shanks and Kristo will walk away with a big cash settlement and an even bigger smiles.
And Bernard Colleary had a big win too recently. Porter's defamation case against the ABC was a spectacular own goal and then he slammed the ball into the back of his own net again by taking $1 mil in anonymous cash.
One thing that is very reassuring in Australia is our judiciary. They simply aren't tolerating the LNPs anti-democratic shitfuckery anymore. The courts still hold the good old-fashioned definition of free speech of speaking truth to power. The conservative's idea of free speech, that starts and ends with consequence-free minority bashing isn't cutting it in court.

blindboy wrote:

Better be careful. They are watching! It was actually a bit dated so I reckon the next episode will have middle aged men in their bedrooms bent over their phones.

Middle-aged? You’re probably being generous there blindy.

Middle aged? I heard that Blindboy is writing his posts on the just released Commodore 64 he got for his 80th birthday.

etarip I was working on the average age. I am older than that....but am still in good working order with all original parts.

Ah, wasn’t a directed comment blindy. I’d guess the kids would see the majority of the commentators on here as ‘old’. Myself included.

etarip wrote:

Ah, wasn’t a directed comment blindy. I’d guess the kids would see the majority of the commentators on here as ‘old’. Myself included.

There would be plenty of young surfers on here who just are not interested in a 50 page argument over the current definition of Left Wing interspersed with 25 pages of bickering . Or was that 50 pages of bickering and 25 pages or arguing?

When I was sub 35 I hardly gave a rat’s about that stuff and life was better for it.

Still an option.

Blowin wrote:

etarip wrote:

Ah, wasn’t a directed comment blindy. I’d guess the kids would see the majority of the commentators on here as ‘old’. Myself included.

There would be plenty of young surfers on here who just are not interested in a 50 page argument over the current definition of Left Wing interspersed with 25 pages of bickering . Or was that 50 pages of bickering and 25 pages or arguing?

When I was sub 35 I hardly gave a rat’s about that stuff and life was better for it.

ah yes ignorance is bliss....

Vic Local wrote:

And Bernard Colleary had a big win too recently.

That's great news, I've met Bernard a few times, a fellow mountain lover and backcountry explorer.

Vic Local wrote:

Hey Indo Dreaming,
Just a little tip. Probably best not to sink the boot into Friendly Jordies on a free speech thread. It makes you look very silly. The lawsuit and police actions against Shanks and his producer are going so spectacularly wrong for Porkie Bruz and the fixated persons unit.
I suspect the defamation action and criminal charges will get dropped and Shanks and Kristo will walk away with a big cash settlement and an even bigger smiles.
And Bernard Colleary had a big win too recently. Porter's defamation case against the ABC was a spectacular own goal and then he slammed the ball into the back of his own net again by taking $1 mil in anonymous cash.
One thing that is very reassuring in Australia is our judiciary. They simply aren't tolerating the LNPs anti-democratic shitfuckery anymore. The courts still hold the good old-fashioned definition of free speech of speaking truth to power. The conservative's idea of free speech, that starts and ends with consequence-free minority bashing isn't cutting it in court.

There's a huge difference between sinking the boot into someone on a forum than actually creating videos to attack peoples character that half a million people will possibly see and then actually make money from it.

Democracy or free speech isn't about having the right to intentionally defame somebody in this case apparently even racially, i dont care if you are a conservative or a Greens leader or whatever, you should be able to live without constant personal attacks or false claim or racial slurs or videos that might incite direct hate towards you any your family etc

If it goes in Jordie's favour id expect the courts decided he didnt cross the line, but it's a dangerous game to play, next time the courts might see things differently.

In regard to your last sentence, it's not just a conservative thing you yourself are also constantly attacking minority groups, they are just minority groups that you feel are fair game.

Indo Dreaming, I'm not overly concerned about the defamation action against Shanks. I believe he will win it on a fair comment / truth defence. People say things about politicians all the time. If they get it wrong, there's consequences. That's how the system works. While I like Friendly Jordies' work, I was not impressed with him focussing on Barilaro's Italian heritage, which is largely irrelevant and he provides so much other material to work with.
The much bigger issue is the violent arrest of his producer on what certainly looks like trumped up charges. The request to have Friendly Jordies remove YouTube videos by the same police department is just straight out of a dictator's playbook. I also believe this course of action will result in a massive humiliation for the police involved.
We will find out in a few months.

Wonder if he means it.

or is just putting out a bit of performative woke signalling to keep the dogs at bay.

No judgement either way.

WTF is that about? that was totally pathetic and total cringe.

Constance B Gibson wrote:

If you've been attuned for all these years, there wouldn't be any wondering involved.

Speaking of wondering, I wonder what Albini would make of the term "performative woke signalling"?

No, don't answer.

You're probably right.

Blowin wrote:

etarip wrote:

Ah, wasn’t a directed comment blindy. I’d guess the kids would see the majority of the commentators on here as ‘old’. Myself included.

There would be plenty of young surfers on here who just are not interested in a 50 page argument over the current definition of Left Wing interspersed with 25 pages of bickering . Or was that 50 pages of bickering and 25 pages or arguing?

When I was sub 35 I hardly gave a rat’s about that stuff and life was better for it.

I always wondered about where younger surfers are on forums likes these and others. I thought there were plenty on here. Steve wrote an article about why we quit a couple weeks back. It hurt a nerve with a lot of people, myself included, and inspired them to the share their age and some anecdotes on why they're surfing, trying to surf, or not surfing.

To be honest, the age demographics blew me away. Alot of my mates & peers are v political and opinionated across the spectrum. Yet I saw probably 3 commenters out of hundreds under 40.
At the time I felt alot of the crew on here were my age (nearly mid 30s) or younger or a tad older, with 50s topping it out.

It put things in perspective for me, age doesn't really change the younger person within you at all, no matter how much life beats you down or your body breaks down around you. You are the same person, more or less, and thats refreshing to see. Youth is very must wasted on the young is something I reflect on alot these days. If I could have my time again I'd buy that 335k 3 bedda on the waters in palmy on the Canal back in 06' striaght after highschool. I digress.

These days I come on here for dribs and drabs; it's all in the headline. It's exhausting work trawling thru key takeaways deep in the comment section, the stamina of some is impressive.

blindboy wrote:

It will be interesting, if Morrison and Barnabubby get there way and ban anonymous posts, to see which SN posters will be willing to own up to their previous identity.

Have thought about that BB. Would be happy to now as I’m unemployed. Being in a job makes you vulnerable even if you don’t say anything nasty. Used to spend far too much time on (at the time, realsurf) forums. Would have been clear that I was doing a lot of it on work time, although that was 10 or more years ago now.

But now if I changed to my name I’d have to let everyone know I used to be Batfink, if I wanted to have some background. Not that that’s a real problem.

Which is why I tend towards rebutting poor arguments rather than abusing other posters. Sometimes though, when on the drink, I may not have lived as close to that ethic as I’d liked.

brutus wrote:

Blowin wrote:

etarip wrote:

Ah, wasn’t a directed comment blindy. I’d guess the kids would see the majority of the commentators on here as ‘old’. Myself included.

There would be plenty of young surfers on here who just are not interested in a 50 page argument over the current definition of Left Wing interspersed with 25 pages of bickering . Or was that 50 pages of bickering and 25 pages or arguing?

When I was sub 35 I hardly gave a rat’s about that stuff and life was better for it.

ah yes ignorance is bliss....

There is a line to be drawn there, somewhere. I’ve been heavily engaged in keeping up with media stories for about 35 years now, politics, economics, sport, social movements etc. Have come to a point now where I’m not sure that extra bit of news is adding much value to my life. Also now there is just so much, and such variance in quality.

I’ve subscribed to Crikey for around 20 years now, got onto it very early in the piece (and as usual, thought I was a latecomer). Unlikely to re-subscribe, not to save money but just to avoid having more opinions landing in my inbox. I think I reached saturation point a fair while ago, and now that my life is my own every moment is a moment I could be doing something else.

So curating the in-feed is essential, and maybe getting out of some to devote more time elsewhere.

I’ve known of friendlyjordies for a while now without bothering to watch too much. The guys a smartarse, undoubtedly, but sometimes you need one, and he does it well. That a 20 something can totally school a batch of middle aged politicians says more about the pollies than Jordy, and frankly he goes after politicians in a way that old media used to but don’t have the guts to do anymore.

In a perfect media world there would be no place for friendlyjordies, or Michael West, or Renew Economy, and lots of other sites, but old media has vacated the ground. Democracy needs these sites. ( and if you’re buying a car, don’t do anything until you’ve trawled through John Cadogan’s YouTube channel)

Blowin wrote:

There would be plenty of young surfers on here who just are not interested in a 50 page argument …

Plenty of older surfers too. Totally agree.