Dear Shadow Minister,

I disagree with your claim that you could be
punished under section 18C simply because you
caused offense. You would have to have made
factual errors and false statements for that
to occur.

Foxy: I disagree with your claim that you could be punished under section 18C simply because you caused offense. You would have to have made factual errors and false statements for that to occur.

Whoooo--ah. You're game Foxy.

Foxy,

You are confusing the issues from the Bolt case. The inaccuracies were an aggravating issue, but not why he was prosecuted:

There is no need for factual inaccuracy for a prosecution under 18c, and would make it illegal to print Charlie Hebdo in this country.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) 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.

Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

(b) is done in a public place; or

(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

(3) In this section:

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

Yeah Jayd,

I think anyone with an ounce of independent thought knows that Andrew Bolt was prosecuted because he dared to challenge the PC establishment.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The reason why Andrew Bolt was prosecuted was because
Justice Mordecai Brombrg found Bolt had breached the
Act because the articles were not written in good
faith and contained factual errors. The case was
clearly not about freedom of speech. It was about
freedom to spread untruths as the following link
confirms:

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/one-year-on-how-to-twist-and-shout-down-a-legal-judgement/402/

Dear Shadow Minister,

Lol. A little circular my friend but I will let it slide.

This is the section of the Criminal Code Act in question;

471.12  Using a postal or similar service to menace, harass or cause offence
A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a)  the person uses a postal or similar service; and
(b)  the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 2 years.

My question to you is do you consider this law is detrimental or negatively impacts free speech, particularly of the political variety, in this country?