Questioning the behaviour of people in
positions of power should be allowable in
a democracy - surely? No matter which side
of politics they may be on. We do need to
question when is the use of this unit
appropriate when it was a unit specifically
set up to deal with violence and terrorist,
and "fixated persons."

Hey SteeleRedux,
I watched one of his videos and read an article which gives a better outline of the situation.
Video Here
http://youtu.be/JHMi--hJGqc
Article Here
http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2021/06/19/friendlyjordies-fixated-persons-unit/
Here
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jun/14/friendlyjordies-jordan-shanks-producer-charged-allegedly-stalking-john-barilaro

And Here
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/28/youtube-comedian-friendlyjordies-sued-for-defamation-by-nsw-deputy-premier-john-barilaro

I've got to agree with you, I'd argue that use of the fixated persons unit was an overuse of government power.

"In announcing the new unit, NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller referred to people who are 'obsessed about issues, ideals or individuals' and are “plotting acts of violence” or “capable of acts of terrorism”.

"Lawyers for Barilaro say Shanks defamed the deputy premier in a number of 'vile and racist' videos. The NSW deputy premier is now suing Shanks (and Google) for defamation."

>>“By reason of the publication of [the videos] the applicant has been greatly injured in his personal and professional reputation and has been and will be brought into public disrepute, odium, ridicule and contempt,” the statement of claim reads.<<

Ok so he hires the best barrister money can get him because he doesn't the content of the videos; but to use the powers of his office to employ a terrorist unit upon someone who clearly uses youtube as a medium to share their opinions it starts to become questionable, more like a witchhunt.
Saying one has an obsession is one thing, but different in the context of creating stories in the public interest, for their consumption.
- Hardly any different than when Andrew Bolt or Paul Murry from Sky News have their 2 cents.

I'm not as focused about the environment as Jordon is inclined, so he's not really my cup of tea, but I think he has a right to his opinions.

I'd almost argue that John Barilaro himself is unfairly using the powers of his office “to cause fear of physical or mental harm” by employing this unit.

Doesn't being sued enable Jordon discovery on when Barilaro contacted this unit and whom he spoke to?

Jordon seems to recognise his limits in not saying anything that can't be substantiated, he doesn't seem to make untruthful claims, despite him showing Barilaro in a bad light.

- Definitely have to agree with Hasbeen though.

Dear Hasbeen,

Well you have got me there. I was the one who didn't support the right of Man Monis, the Lynd Street Cafe terrorist, to send letters to the wives of dead Australian servicemen but right wingers on this forum stood up for his right to do so. This was before the attack.

But how are you conflating my stance on this and other extremists with Friendly Jordies' producer being arrested at his families home and thrown to the ground and handcuffed by a unit attached to the antiterrorism squad?

This isn't so much about free speech anyway, it is about the unwarranted use of excessive policing to silence dissenters.

If you want to live in a world where potentially corrupt politicians are protected through their use of heavy handed policing to silence criticism then go live in another country because I don't want it here.

Dear Armchair Critic,

A decent dive into the issue so well done.

We do have to remember to separate the defamation case of Jordan Shanks which is a civil matter and the violent arrest of his producer on criminal grounds.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/jordies/13404388

Dear Foxy,

Indeed this should be something both sides of politics can agree on. It is just a little disingenuous of the hard core free speech advocates to let this go through to the keeper.

Dear Steele,

It seems that some of our resident free speech advocates
are selective in who they think should be allowed
to practice free speech. I'm actually surprised that so
few question the use of this particular police unit in
this way - when they question just about everything
else.

This is why the fixated person laws are in place:

"The Labour MP Jo Cox was repeatedly shot and stabbed in a “brutal, cowardly” and politically motivated murder, the trial of the man accused of the killing was told on Monday.

Thomas Mair uttered the words “Britain first” and “keep Britain independent” as he carried out the attack, Richard Whittam QC, prosecuting, told the Old Bailey.

The killer struck as Cox went about her business in her Yorkshire constituency during the European referendum campaign, in which she had supported the campaign to remain in the EU."

In spite of how SR wants to play it, this is not primarily a free speech issue. If this left whinger had emailed the MP instead of accosting him in the street and screaming in his face while the event was videoed he wouldn't be in the crap now.

Both SR and Foxy have form in opposing free speech, both being perfectly happy that Folau should have their career ruined from posting a biblical quote on his private Instagram page.