Posting clamp down, page-7

First 7 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
nickyjames

22,698 Posts.

7

17/03/15

13:27

Post #: 14927603
Share

Originally posted by kingpins ↑

I feel sorry for the mods but it is a case of don't shoot the messenger, the legislation is at fault and the politicians are the target if you want the legislation repealed or changed

Because we are a too tolerant society this has been used against us to deny us our natural free speech
Of course the term insult or offend is at the discretion of the one insulted, so if someone says they are insulted then that apparently is enough to prove a legal definition

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 forbids hate speech on several grounds. The Act makes it “unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group.[1]” An aggrieved person can lodge a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission. If the complaint is validated, the Commission will attempt to conciliate the matter. If the Commission cannot negotiate an agreement which is acceptable to the complainant, the complainant's only redress is through the Federal Court or through the Federal Magistrates Service.
In 2002, the Federal Court applied the Act in the case of Jones v. Toben. The case involved a complaint about a website which contained material that denied the Holocaust. The Federal Court ruled that the material was a violation of the Act.[2]
Section 85ZE of the Crimes Act 1914 makes it an offence to use the Internet to disseminate material intentionally that results in a person being menaced or harassed. This offence includes material communicated by email. Federal criminal law, therefore, is available to address racial vilification where the element of threat or harassment is also present, although it does not apply to material that is merely offensive.[3]

Expand

It is the "right to be offended " act
1 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

LDX

Lumos Diagnostics surges 140% on major US contract deal

LIS

Li-S Energy the latest microcap to pivot to US defence market

Listen: HotCopper Wire Podcast 018 – Potatoes, TACOs, and the $120M helicopter heist

LU7

Lithium Universe targets silver boom with breakthrough solar recycling tech

ASX Market Close: Why are we red today? Because US CPI's at 3%