3 ms·
The author seems to be pulling things out of context in bad faith. It is unlawful, though not a criminal offense, in Australia to publicly say things likely to
by bbctol 10y ago
The author seems to be pulling things out of context in bad faith. It is unlawful, though not a criminal offense, in Australia to publicly say things likely to offend people of a different race, based on their racial group, provided the statements are not meant "(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or (b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or (c) in making or publishing: (i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or (ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment." (as explained in 18D).
- wnoise 10y agoWhat does "unlawful, but not a criminal offense" mean?
- dragonwriter 10y ago> What does "unlawful, but not a criminal offense" mean? Generally, that phrasing would describe civil wrongs. Criminal law isn't the whole of the law.
- force_reboot 10y agoI disagree, the law does provide these exceptions but I (and presumably the author) don't find these exceptions to be comprehensive enough to render the unqualified statement of the author "out of context". How is a person supposed to prove that their views are "fair and accurate" or a "fair comment" and a "genuine belief"? These are highly subjective, and none of them helped Andrew Bolt, a reporter who was sued under these laws. Note that you won't even grant that the author is quoting the law in good faith. How is a person supposed to show that their "racist" views are held in good faith?