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.