doog,

You seem to be saying that he intended to carry out a serious offence. Is that what you intend?

Or was it simply that his emotion and exasperation got the better of him and he made a tactless remark? -For which the editors and board have been quick and generous in apologising.

That is unlike the ABC where that awful 'woo-marn'(sic, her over-the-top pronunciation), seeking the approval of the tribal leftist 'Progressives', dumped on ANZAC Day and the ABC saw no reason at all to apologise.

Best you make up your own mind of what may have been the case.

There was nothing satirical about the quadrant “article”. It was vicious and demented. One suspects the writer may have been tired and emotional at the time of writing, which means that what was written is more likely to be an accurate exposure of his actual beliefs. What is it with these guys? They waste their time fulminating about the ABC, while people who disagree with the quadrant world view simply dismiss it as ravings, and get an occasional laugh out of it. [are you one of them]
No laughs on this occasion, though. That was madness.

doog, "One suspects the writer may have been tired and emotional at the time of writing, which means that what was written is more likely to be an accurate exposure of his actual beliefs"

So you do believe he was intending to commit an offence?

Or would you encourage others to think so, while imagining you have slyly crafted yourself an escape clause, a back door, if challenged?

I put it to you that you are just interested in making political capital out of an emotional outburst. An emotional outburst that is part of the human condition. How often do (say) mothers in speech or writing in blogs and mags say in exasperation that they could choke their husband, or both he and 'his' screaming issue? These are cries of pain and frustration and often traceable back to those big existential problems that confront all of us.

What he said was tactless and rude. He should do better of course. That is why there are usually layers of editorial eyes watching, but the economies and urgency of online publishing do not allow for that.

Now you should be aware that the very same standards you might apply to him could be applied, or is that ARE being applied (as some current examples show) to YOUR social networking and blogging too. In fact, the President of the AHRC and someone you might favour, a highly qualified and experienced legal figure too, one Gillian Triggs, said that you had better be careful what you might say around your kitchen table too.

All should be taking that warning very seriously indeed coming from where it did. And no, it doesn't just apply to the 'other side' as you see it. Honestly the real Left of years gone by would weep at the stupidity and egocentrism of today's leftist 'Progressives'. How easily are they managed by the elite!

BTW, Anony-mouse isn't necessarily any protection either when they come looking for you. It is a digital world.

Your only protection and it is a slim one, is freedom of speech.

Trying to help..

THE Quadrant literary magazine thinks the Manchester bombing should have taken place in the ABC’s Sydney headquarters.
An opinion article written by digital editor Roger Franklin says that if there had been a “shred of justice” the Manchester bomber would have blown up Monday night’s Q&A panel instead.
Franklin is asserting that the lives of people who disagree with the rabid right don’t actually matter and their elimination in a brutal fashion would be no loss.
The Quadrant digital editor should be sacked for writing such a sick, cruel piece. So should its editor for allowing it to be published.
What a brutal, thoughtless and despicable taunt to issue on a day when the Lindt Café inquiry findings were handed down and people were still raw with shock and grief over what happened in Manchester.
Yesterday, when the matter came to light, Quadrant editor Keith Windschuttle said the article should not have been published and would be withdrawn.
But the article called “The Manchester Bomber’s ABC Pals” remained prominently displayed on the Quadrant’s website last night.
It has since been removed.
No rush to remove it ,not everybody has seen it yet I suppose.
Shut the filthy rag down.

Frankly I am outraged that the taxpayer-funded ABC was outraged.

I am not so surprised that the ABC has got away with its grandstanding faux self-righteous outrage.

That is in view of the awful stranglehold of the systemic, outrageously (that word again!) censorious political correctness that, if Gillian Triggs the outgoing (but not soon enough!) President of the AHRC has her way, will have family members dobbing on one another for what is uttered around the kitchen table.

Where are the other editors? Where are the humanities Professors? Are they all asleep at the wheel?

Only the rabid right side of politics has trouble seeing an offense in that. They hate the ABC its not of their liking, they see no harm in what has been published.
I see that as a direct threat to the members of the ABC, and it should be treated as such.
They were in no hurry to take it down, That tells you that there is more than a journalist who were happy to leave it there.
No one should be faced with threats at a place of work.
The words were direct and not obscured in any way.
There was no double meaning for defense it was indefensible.