Bazz"Would you have taken offense if your face had been put on the dog ?

No. I would have probably laughed at myself.
I did say I didn't find the skit funny, so why the question amyway?
Some people need to lighten up...

Suseonline, "Some people need to lighten up..."

Not a remark you would apply to 'your' ABC though with those nine lawyers and money to burn.

While I am also a fan of South Park and its pushing of social boundaries, there is a difference between simply causing offense and defamation. The moment you target an individual, you had better be sure that what you saying is correct.

When you get it wrong then as Malcolm Turnbull said, apologise immediately, and print or read out a correction to mitigate the damage. The ABCs refusal to admit its mistakes is costing it millions, mostly in legal fees when it loses. The other news channels admit their mistakes, print retractions and as a result very seldom have to shell out compensation. Is this because it is shareholder's money and not just from the deep pockets of the tax payer?

sick deranged minds laugh at sick deranged 'comedy'. If a normal person looks at nude kids its child porn if the left look at it they call it art. They are only 'pure 'in their own dirty minds.

>>It is about defamation law.<<

I agree. Spurious and irrelevant chatter about the value of a public broadcaster and condition of our roads are simply a diversion. Let's try to stay on topic for a change, eh OTB?

>>there is a difference between simply causing offense and defamation.<<

A difference which is well recognised under defamation law. Insults that are not intended to be taken literally or believed, or are likely to cause real damage to a person's reputation can be defended as mere vulgar abuse.

When South Park portray Barbra Streisand as a giant, cybernetic, Godzilla-like monster hell-bent on world domination that is obviously non-defamatory because although it insults her it cannot be taken literally or believed and can't cause real damage to her reputation. When South Park portray Tom Cruise as unwilling to come out of the closet, that might be taken as defamatory because it is believable and might damage his reputation - although in that case, the truth might be an adequate defense against defamation.

Hands up if the Chaser sketch actually made you think that Chris Kenney roots dogs? Wow, I see a distinct absence of hands. Now hands up if you thought they were just having a got at him and engaging in some mere vulgar abuse? I see a lot more hands.

I am amazed that the prosecution would waste their money and the courts' time over such a trifling matter instead of just growing a pair and not being such a thin-skinned cissy. Chris Kenney appears to have such an over-inflated sense of entitlement that he thinks he has a right to financial compensation for an insult most people would ignore. He might not root dogs but his actions after that being called a dog-rooter paint him as a rather pitiful and contemptible man.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony,

Having not actually seen the sketch, nor being an expert on defamation law, I cannot comment on its humour, its legal status, or on Chris Kenney's (CK) feelings. However, Kenney does not have the reputation for frivolous litigation, and has brushed off many scathing and insulting attacks from the left whingers before. This time Kenney has clearly decided that the ABC has gone too far, and being a careful man must reasonably sure legally to proceed with a case that could bankrupt him. I am also sure both that the barristers involved have gone far beyond your simplistic analysis and that the judge in the case has considered all the facets before ruling that there is a clear case for defamation and that the ABC is paying the legal costs.

The point that I was making is that the millions that the ABC is paying to contest these cases and losing is a stupid and unnecessary waste of taxpayers' money when there is a professional and far less costly method of dealing with mistakes.

Your next argument that CK is just a cissy and should take it like a man is childish and wildy hypocritical considering the extreme actions taken by the left to defend Juliar against comments by Alan Jones etc, or the ABC firing Piers Akerman for mentioning that there had been rumours in the Canberra press gallery about Tim Matheson's sexuality.