You get away with too much SM.
I need not rebut you.
In time you will be shown to be just not worth it, lie?
If you persist with that charge hope we never meet.
I leave you to your sand pit.

You might be onto something, Bonmot:

"There will be no carbon tax in any government that I lead."

"This grant to Ford will created up to three hundred new jobs."

The speaker here was not just making stuff up ?

A politician has the right, as this speaker had, to be a little bit casual with the truth, not outright lying but a certain gilding of the lily. Well, in the case of the carbon tax, yes, outright lying. And they will pay for it at the next election.

And yes, freedom of speech in our democracy means we can all do it, up to a point. We shouldn't be jailed for exaggerations, or omissions.

Of course, incitement goes beyond that acceptable point. But perhaps lying doesn't, unless it indirectly leads to violence or the incitement to violence.

So perhaps a major guideline, or boundary, for a Finkelstein Star Chamber has been set by our own Prime Minister: the right to speak freely and just distort the truth that little bit. After all, if she can do it, so can all of us, perhaps including every journalist in the country as well, on both sides.

Wait a minute, many already do ...... on both sides ......

And that's fine, within the bounds of freedom of speech.

Lexi,

Sorry, dear, who and when and where have any of us had our dissent silenced ? Under Howard ?! I hardly think so. The only experience that I have had of being silenced, or my career being destroyed, has been from the Left, and in Aboriginal politics. Do you have different experiences from similarly utter b@stards on the Right ?

Cheers,

Joe

BM,

The punitive law that Juliar has put in place to punish anyone that speaks out against the carbon tax has a loophole, for example a baker using electricity, can claim that price rises have a partial contribution from the carbon tax if he prepares a full audit trail of invoices etc to prove his point, but still risks a huge fine if his documentation is not up to scratch.

The reality is that while everyone knows that the bakers' costs have risen with the impost of the carbon tax, for him to be allowed to say so means spending a significant cost to protect himself. The result is that free speech is "free" no longer. To claim that "Bazz, it is NOT illegal to claim price rises (even partially) are due to the carbon tax." is a misrepresentation (or even a lie). It is legal only if extensive measures are taken.

With a government body that decides whether reporting is balanced and can punish the press and reporters for transgressing arbitrary rules made up by the government appointed panel, the press is "free" in name not in substance.

The epitome of spin, shadow - believing it in your own mind, LOL

.

Joe, there is much inertia (aka god particles) 'now here' :)

I don't know, Bonmot, there seems to be a great deal of 'churn' at the moment, people moving from the Labor Party, professionals towards the Greens on the comfortable Right, and tradies and working people towards the Lib-Nats on the less comfortable Right.

I've handed out election-day material for the Democrats and for the Green Party (both on the same day during one election), but I'm thinking of doing it for Labor this time, mainly because I like my local member. Perhaps when the Green Party members grow up and take more notice of the problems of the real world, I might give them the time of day once more.

Cheers,

Joe

BM,

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle as you might, you can't escape the truth. You are spinning so much you must be dizzy.

Labor is afraid of free speech.