That's strange, I really thought that my friend Poirot would seize the opportunity to sink the boot into me, in defence of her other friend, Nicola Roxon, and also for the sheer, glorious fun of it.

I'm feeling somewhat neglected :(

"I'm feeling somewhat neglected..."

Good!

Ooh, you're so hurtful, Poirot !

Come on, sweetie, you can do better ;)

Loudmouth. Carefully now, deliberate provocation (incitement to argue) may be secreted in the 'revised' legislation, you know, in the small print.

Seriously, Prompete, I would have thought that 'incitement to argue' was a sort of corner-stone of the scientific method and of the core purpose, if there has to be one, of free speech: isn't it the sort of thing that good teachers try to instill in their best students ?

<< When Allan Jones made his comments about the death of the Prime Minister’s father it was clear that he wasn’t expressing an opinion about the cause of his death. He was deliberately trying to hurt the Prime Minister… ...He was being aggressive – his intention was clear for all to see. >>

Therefore phanto, IMHO, he should not have had the right to say it. He was being deliberately offensive in such a manner as to try to offend the PM, not pertaining to her politics but to a very personal matter. Dirty stuff indeed. The sort of stuff which should be directly outlawed. If he doesn’t like her politics or her leadership style then he should be debating that as vigorously as he can.

There seems to be a big contradiction in what you are saying:

<< Jones should have the right to say what he likes. The appropriate response is not to clamp down on free speech by passing laws that restrict such comments. >>

But then:

<< The appropriate response is to do exactly what most people did and that is to withdraw any support for Jones’ radio show which would severely limit his opportunities to hurt other people in a public way >>

continued