I am a firm believer in free speech, but I must confess enjoying the left whingers twisting and dangling on the scaffold they constructed for others. Defending the right to offend for Scott Macintyre after so steadfastly applauding the prosecution of Bolt, oblivious to the irony.

However, there are a few salient differences:
1 SM has not been prosecuted, but sacked,
2 SM tweeted not just as an individual but as an SBS employee,
3 SM's tweets were deliberately offensive, claiming those remembering the fallen were sub human, alcoholic, bogans, on top of that were largely inaccurate.
4 Those that he insulted in his employer's name were the demographic that listened to his sports commentary.

I believe that Scott should have the legal right to offend, but that the SBS has the right to fire idiots that deliberate break the rules and wreck their business.

Really SM?
Are the 'left' defending the right of Scott to offend, like you have?
I agree with you that he should be able to say what he did on his own Twitter account, but that SBS have every right to sack him for what he said.

I haven't seen many people, left or right of the centre, other than other SBS journalists saying otherwise.

The thing is, some of what Scott said may very well be true, as I am sure we have all read about atrocities committed during wars.
To believe that every ANZAC was perfectly behaved in every way during WW1 would be very naive indeed.

Comparing Scott with Andrew Bolt's infamous utterances that caused him to be sued successfully in court, is not even in the same league.

DUMBASS, plain and simple.

SOL,

If you have not seen the campaign from the left in the age, SMH, guardian, and every left whinge publication or blog in support of Scott McIntyre then you must have been asleep.

I have always believed that people should have the right to state their opinions without interference from the state. I also believe in the right of people and organisations to associate with whom they choose.

A salesman that offends his customers cannot expect legal protection to keep his job.

And yes the Bolt case was different. Bolt was prosecuted by the state for questioning the aboriginal status (and claims to welfare) of some individuals with distant blood relationships to aboriginals.

The judge found Bolt guilty on what he "meant" not on what he said.
Wow the judge can read minds? Why bother with any evidence, just everyone front the judge and he will tell them what they thought and adminster justice accordingly.

Was it not true that SBS did not sack him for what he wrote, but for
refusing to delete the comment from the SBS site ?

Very significant difference there.

SM many do not understand the nuts and bolts, HA! pun unintended, of
the Bolt verdict. No legal eagle myself but it does seem to be a very
dodgy law to have on the books.
Many of the comments on here must offend others and could make the writer liable.
I think his argument was that just how far back can you claim
aboriginality.
After all if I could demonstrate some DNA that is common with aborigines could I not claim to be one ?
As we all came from Africa it appears then perhaps, we can all claim
the benefits !
In a thousand years we will all have aboriginal DNA.

BAZZ I read that in twenty years, under current law, we will all be able to claim aboriginality lol!

"Scott McIntyre, freedom of Speech martyr or dumbass?"

He exemplifies the intellectual elitism and snobbery of the extreme leftists: crass, patronising, emotional, error-ridden, hypocritical and cringe-worthy.

It is in the tradition of tiresome leftist bores like Phillip Adams. Many of whom manage to swing from the taxpayer's teat through being cosseted by the taxpayer-funded* ABC (*to the tune of $1.3 billion annually).

They know how to live the good life though. Where they are concerned it is different.

Shadow Minister, "If you have not seen the campaign from the left in the age, SMH, guardian, and every left whinge publication or blog in support of Scott McIntyre then you must have been asleep?

It was rather obvious.

If I understand the SBS press release there's a code of conduct attached to their employee's contracts which makes certain stipulations about social media use and public statements outside work hours. McIntyre defied the code of conduct which is a term of his contract and was sacked as a result, it happens every day in the corporate world.

"McIntyre defied the code of conduct which is a term of his contract and was sacked as a result, it happens every day in the corporate world"

Agreed.

Beach, I suppose you agree with the SBS 'Code of Conduct' without actually having laid eyes on it.

Strange that it was Turnbull who alerted The SBS chief to McIntyre's indiscretion. Who alerted Turnbull, and why wasn't it 'Right to be a Bigot' Brandis.

I found the following article on the subject, by Karl Quinn from the Herald, interesting.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/scott-mcintyre-being-sacked-by-sbs-is-a-dreadful-move-for-freedom-of-speech-20150427-1mu6re.html

Paul,
We don't have freedom of speech in Australia and it's illegal to insult or offend based on race, religion or national origin, McIntyre used the word White to describe the soldiers so his comments are covered by 18c.
If for example he or another journalist had made the same comments about Aboriginal or Jewish ANZACS the result would have been the same.

In any case he refused an instruction to remove the offending comments.
You just cannot defy the boss and get away with it.

Paul1405,

Public agencies have codes of conduct, as do private companies. That is in response to identified risks, one of which is embarrassment, resulting for instance in lowering of the credibility, standing and good name of the organisation - that have been hard fought through exemplary public contact and service provision.

It would typical of the demographic of the NSW Trotskyist Greens 'Protest Party' that rule-breaking and public offence are encouraged where it affects others, hopefully bring them and their 'traditional' societal institutions into disrepute. However it is different where the Greens themselves are affected isn't it, where you immediately lapse into compulsion, the lock-step of the left and heaven help anyone who questions or transgresses against Greens' ideology, because they will be showered with abuse and demands made for their resignation and public humiliation.

The Greens are just a protest party, opportunists, nothing more.

Paul,

Your post is typical in that your first line accuses OTB of agreeing with the SBS code of conduct without reading it, which is firstly irrelevant in that is a contractual agreement (and in that a standard clause in most companies employment contracts) between SM and the SBS, and secondly it is false in that OTB has not offered any opinion on it.

Your second line is wishful conjecture as to who notified the communications Minister, especially since it falls into MT's ambit the probability is that he was informed by his department long before anyone else knew.

Then finally you link to an opinion piece by a far left writer that attacks the decision to sack SM by ignoring the reasons that he actually got fired, primarily:

1 Much of what he tweeted was deliberately offensive, ie implying that supporters of Anzacs were alcoholic morons,
2 Much of it was factually incorrect, ie Turkey had unilaterally declared war on Britain and its allies before the Gallipoli invasion,
3 After being contacted by SBS management and asked to take down the offensive material that breached SBS code of conduct he refused.

I am sure that if he had expressed his opinions in not such a deliberately offensive manner or not defied his management he would still be employed today.

Useful reading:
http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/site_20_rand_628860615_sbs_social_media_protocol_2011.pdf
https://twitter.com/mcintinhos

Shadow I have only made one post on this thread, and I did not offer an opinion on the sacking of McIntyre, one way or the other.

Beach posted "McIntyre defied the (SBS) code of conduct" "Agreed"

I simply asked Beach, was his agreement based on a knowledge of the SBS 'Code of Conduct' or was he simply agreeing from a point of ignorance. I supposed he had not laid eyes on the code. From his response my assumption looks to be correct. he agrees with something he has never seen or read.

Jay, would an historian be in breach of 18c If he was to say the Spanish treated the Aztecs badly etc etc. Like the historian, McIntyre insults people who are all now not here. McIntyre's reference to the 'largely whites' in itself did not seem offensive more an observation on McIntyre's part, with drinking and gambling being an intricate part of ANZAC Day.

Interesting that the 'Usual Suspects' on the forum, who normally can be relied upon to kick the stuffing out of SBS, seeing it as a foreign version of the ABC, are now their bosom buddies. This will only last until SBS says something nice about Muslims, Aboriginals or Gays, then this mob will be calling for SBS blood, and wanting Abbott to shut the joint down.

With hindsight, maybe McIntyre might have been better off sticking to the round ball game and leaving 'Twetter' alone. Turnbull might not be PM, but he can still pull rank.

Paul,

While in your post you did not directly state your opinion, you left no doubt as your disagreement with SM's sacking.

No one incl OTB or myself had commented on the validity or fairness of the code of conduct as frankly it was irrelevant. The COC is a contractual agreement between the SBS and all its employees, and attracts a penalty if broken.

SM not only broke the code, but refused to remove his comments, and most likely left his employers little option. Hence the reason I think he is a dumbass.

Well I don't think that he is a dumb ass, asses are fairly intelligent animals as are their relatives, mules.

Of course Scott McIntyre may be a dumb arse for making offensive remarks , but if he breached his terms of employment and got sacked then he has no one to blame but himself; if his employer offered him a way out and he didn't take it then he is a dumb arse indeed.

It would seem that he had his own program and stuck to it.

I do dislike Americanisms creeping into our speech and writing.

Wrong again Shadow, when I made my comment, which was sometime into the discussion, I felt I was not sufficiently equated with all the facts regarding McIntyre's sacking to formulate an opinion one way or the other. I question the Turnbull involvement and what political influence was applied to have McIntyre dismissed.

"you left no doubt as (to) your disagreement with SM's sacking." Not so, your are wrong. What do you charge for legal advice, nil to nothing? I would hate to think you were overcharging!

Paul,

Your ignorance of the facts has seldom deterred you from stating an opinion, if fact the more extreme the ignorance the more vocal and fixed your opinions.

However, your ad hominem attack on OTB for pointing out that SM violated his conditions of employment, your fantasy conspiracy theory, and you link to "Scott McIntyre being sacked by SBS is a dreadful move for freedom of speech" stretches your claim of unbiased observer beyond your already flimsy credibility.