Tony Abbott vs. Sluts

[Readman]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/tony-abbott-warns-women-against-sex-before-marriage/story-e6frgczf-1225823300045

Tony Abbott has come out and said that women shouldn't have sex before marriage.

What say you, Hyper (or at least the 1% of the Hyper population who are ever going to be able to convince a woman to have sex with them)?

[Araenel]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,26625267-5007190,00.html

Damn, he has some hot daughters.

[Readman]

Hey, sluts isn't in the swear filter.

Slutty slut slut slut slut.

The slutty slut walked sluttily down the street.

[Readman]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,26625267-5007190,00.html

Damn, he has some hot daughters.

There are some really ****ing hot religious girls out there. It makes me wish I believed in god, or could convincingly fake it.

[Vindik8or]

I'll bet at least one of those daughters is the biggest slut at school.

[Xanafalgue]

I'd like to come out and say that all religious loons should STFU and stay far, far away from politics.

He's alright for an old guy though :D

[AranchineD]

Women shouldn't have sex before marriage

But guys can if they want

[JimmyKane]

One of his daughters looks like Scherbatsky.

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

I vote sluts every time.

[Big Kev]

What we need to do is all band together in an 80's teen movie style of group wager to see who can pull off the craziest shenanigans to deflower these poor helpless souls.

[IRS]

Well done for trying to win votes for your BFFs so sneakily. (like they even need it this election)


I'd **** his daughters in the ass if they wanna be virgins.

[AranchineD]

to see who can pull off the craziest shenanigans to deflower these poor helpless souls.

Aran: I propose...that I have sex with them

Everyone: You dirty little puppy f***er

[JimmyKane]

The race is on

[Mr.Mew]

Abbott has brought this on himself.

[Fenrir]

I'll bet at least one of those daughters is the biggest slut at school.
And yet possibly still a virgin.


(1)

[Serenity]

And yet possibly still a virgin.


(1)

Enlighten me to how this is possible?

[TAT]

He walks like a penguin.





Possibly from the pole up his arse

[Araenel]

Enlighten me to how this is possible?

Some people have the hilarious notion that on vaginal sex counts, so they just stick with anal and oral.

[Readman]

Well done for trying to win votes for your BFFs so sneakily. (like they even need it this election)

I have no idea what you mean...

<_<

>_>

[AranchineD]

Some people have the hilarious notion that on vaginal sex counts, so they just stick with anal and oral.

Or: hymen reconstruction

:cool:

[Serenity]

Some people have the hilarious notion that on vaginal sex counts, so they just stick with anal and oral.

Thank you. I am now enlightened. I wonder what the consensus is on axillary and mammary intercourse and their variants.

[drzaius]

wow. they are hot.

[Spudzilla]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v346/SpeedFighter/Stuff/hmm.jpg

[NiB]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,26625267-5007190,00.html

Damn, he has some hot daughters.

Middle one wins my election !

[Lazlow]

Wonder if they have his wingnut ears.

Either way i'd cross the floor to amend the bill

[AranchineD]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v346/SpeedFighter/Stuff/hmm.jpg

Post of the week, every week

[Mr.Mew]

Just noticing a correlation between Spudz avatar and the image. Would be more effective if Gene Wilder were facing inwards.

[Fenrir]

Thank you. I am now enlightened. I wonder what the consensus is on axillary and mammary intercourse and their variants.
Consensus among whom? According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_virgin#Perceived_value_and_.22technical_ virginity.22), plenty of the younger generation say that virginity can only be lost via intercourse.

I don't know who or what could be considered authoritative on the subject, or whether it even matters. Virginity is retarded.

[Serenity]

Consensus among whom? According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_virgin#Perceived_value_and_.22technical_ virginity.22), plenty of the younger generation say that virginity can only be lost via intercourse.

I don't know who or what could be considered authoritative on the subject, or whether it even matters. Virginity is retarded.

I'm being a dickhead. Of course it's only lost through the act of vaginal intercourse but I wondered if Christians object to acts like mammary intercourse as much as penetration.

Also I didn't mean axillary intercourse, thinking back. I believe I meant intercrural.

[Lazlow]

And I thought you were a Kevin Smith fan?!?! DID CHASING AMY TEACH YOU NOTHING!?!?

[Spudzilla]

Just noticing a correlation between Spudz avatar and the image. Would be more effective if Gene Wilder were facing inwards.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v346/SpeedFighter/Stuff/ohgene.jpg

[Lazlow]

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/6559/picsh.jpg

[Vindik8or]

Guys, I meant to imply that they were pulling the wool over daddy's eyes.

[AranchineD]

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/609/nimoy1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v346/SpeedFighter/Stuff/hmm.jpg

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/9387/nimoy2.jpg

[igotnewsuper8systemWRONG!]

Abbots daughters would be getting there vag pounded everyday

[TAT]

So do we know the age of each of the three yet?

[Mr.Mew]

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g165/Leo_and_Pals/noalpa.png

[Fenrir]

I'm being a dickhead. Of course it's only lost through the act of vaginal intercourse
Bleh, that doesn't necessarily apply either - that we stake so much ideological purity on a flimsy and insignificant obstructive ring of mucous membrane. I guess the whole ideology dilutes when you dismiss the only physical marker, though, hence the whole idea of virginity is retarded.

but I wondered if Christians object to acts like mammary intercourse as much as penetration.
Depends on the Christian, as with all of these "moral" things. Most cafeteria Christians wouldn't mind, most fundies would crusade over it.

[SOX]

that we stake so much ideological purity on a flimsy and insignificant obstructive ring of mucous membrane. I guess the whole ideology dilutes


.....

[Silverwolf]

I think Fenrir just crushed SOX's soul.


Sweet~

[Big Kev]

Or: hymen reconstruction

:cool:

No. The medical certificates would be leaked to the press.

However they could mimic the sensation by tying their pubes together.

[sausage]

What say you, Hyper...



http://www.ageofthering.com/atthemovies/cast/aragorn.jpg

WHAT SAY YOU!

[texta]

No. The medical certificates would be leaked to the press.Leaking medical information is a guaranteed way to lose your practising certificate so I doubt it.

EDIT: Not to mention that publishing that information would be illegal and would destroy the career of anyone who touched it.

[sausage]

Journalists do not divulge sources texta.

[IRS]

Journalists do not divulge sources texta.

Because the surgery would be performed by 1000 surgeons and it'd be impossible to know which one leaked the information.

[texta]

Journalists do not divulge sources texta.Possibly, but there is no media organisation in Australia that would consider publishing private medical records about the child of a politician that had been leaked to them because the consequences for them would be catastrophic.

[sausage]

I can think of several scenarios.

[Fenrir]

I'm going to place my bet somewhere in the middle on this one: it probably won't leak, and if it does then medical careers will be gracelessly flushed, and there'll be stern admonishment all round for the media outlet(s) responsible; but this is still politics, where plenty of stupid shit happens.

[texta]

I'm going to place my bet somewhere in the middle on this one: it probably won't leak, and if it does then medical careers will be gracelessly flushed, and there'll be stern admonishment all round for the media outlet(s) responsible; but this is still politics, where plenty of stupid shit happens.It'd be a criminal act to publish that kind of information and all politicians would be beyond livid at the invasion of privacy.

Furthermore no editor would allow something like that to be published because they would never receive another press release or comment from any political party.

Perhaps casual paper readers don't notice this but while politicians are fair game and even their wives can get a mention: children are off limits and confidential medical information about people not themselves in the public eye is definitely off limits.


There are plenty of explosive stories that journalists know about that don't get a run because it'll put the journalist in jail. I know of a shock jock who is accused of molesting kids and a politician whose daughter had a restraining order out against him because of domestic violence but I can guarantee that you won't read about those in the paper. Even Malcolm Turnbull literally strangling a cat in his youth has been kept pretty quiet.

[Araenel]

Is everyone taking crazy pills or what? This isn't something like leaking an embarrassing phone call, you're talking about medical information that's surrounded by strict confidential laws.

and there'll be stern admonishment all round for the media outlet(s) responsible

By stern admonishments you mean criminal charges? Because that's what would happen.

It's like you're an invisible person in my head texta, only I can see your posts.

[sausage]

It'd be a criminal act to publish that kind of information and all politicians would be beyond livid at the invasion of privacy.

Furthermore no editor would allow something like that to be published because they would never receive another press release or comment from any political party.

Perhaps casual paper readers don't notice this but while politicians are fair game and even their wives can get a mention: children are off limits and confidential medical information about people not themselves in the public eye is definitely off limits.


There are plenty of explosive stories that journalists know about that don't get a run because it'll put the journalist in jail. I know of a shock jock who is accused of molesting kids and a politician whose daughter had a restraining order out against him because of domestic violence but I can guarantee that you won't read about those in the paper. Even Malcolm Turnbull literally strangling a cat in his youth has been kept pretty quiet.

All I have to say is if it is the truth, proveable and in the public interest then any journalist worth their salt would be all over it.

Political parties boycotting a media outlet? Never happen, they need the media more than the media needs them. For a start all press releases are available to media organisations for a subscribed fee; no party can pick and choose what goes where and to whom.

And as for not commenting to a particular media outlet? Fine, they will go and talk to people who have no problem talking to the media: the opposition parties. Then we'll see who crawls back to who.

There is a mistaken belief that all editors are bound by some sort of journo's code or political/corporate pressure to conform. They are not.

[Lazlow]

Well this thread took a turn for the bizarre.

[sausage]

texta turned up talking shit again.

[AranchineD]

Well this thread took a turn for the bizarre.

And all thanks to me. Once again. :D

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

I don't get it, when did they get their hymen(s) reconstructed?

And if we know soon the press will!

[Serenity]

Forgive me if this sounds stupid, but maybe it's also entirely possible they are virgins too?

[FrozenSoul80]

Forgive me if this sounds stupid, but maybe it's also entirely possible they are virgins too?

In that picture the only virgin is Tony Abbott.

[AranchineD]

In that picture the only virgin is Tony Abbott.

And that's only because he hasn't taken it through his vag yet.

[Serenity]

His ears look nearly big enough to fit a cock in, though. :cool:

[AranchineD]

Bony Abbott

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

Tony Takesalott.

[[m]averick]

It'd be a criminal act to publish that kind of information and all politicians would be beyond livid at the invasion of privacy.

Furthermore no editor would allow something like that to be published because they would never receive another press release or comment from any political party.


Dylan Howard says... 'injunction'.

[TAT]

For the Record

From left to right, the ages are 21, 18 and 16.

[AranchineD]

Shotgun 16 y/o

)h(

[drzaius]

the brunette does it for me.
wow.

[Araenel]

For the Record

From left to right, the ages are 21, 18 and 16.

Wow really? The far right looks the oldest.

[Stevorooni]

Too bad you'll start noticing how they kind of look like Tony Abbott and be immediately turned off

[texta]

All I have to say is if it is the truth, proveable and in the public interest then any journalist worth their salt would be all over it.Yup. But how is leaking a medical procedure on one of Tony Abbott's kids without any consent ever going to be considered in the public interest by a judge?

[sausage]

Yup. But how is leaking a medical procedure on one of Tony Abbott's kids without any consent ever going to be considered in the public interest by a judge?


You are assuming that it's going to get to the stage where a judge is going to have to make a decision on that.

Do you think all potentially explosive stories have to be screened by some sort of arbitrary judge before they get published? Or that this same judge looks through all media just after its been published to circle dodgy stories in red to follow up with a 'please explain' to the relevant editor?

[Ad-Rock]

Even Malcolm Turnbull literally strangling a cat in his youth has been kept pretty quiet.

Serious Henry?

[Fenrir]

It'd be a criminal act to publish that kind of information and all politicians would be beyond livid at the invasion of privacy.

Furthermore no editor would allow something like that to be published because they would never receive another press release or comment from any political party.
Point taken.

Perhaps casual paper readers don't notice this but while politicians are fair game and even their wives can get a mention: children are off limits and confidential medical information about people not themselves in the public eye is definitely off limits.
ftr, I was of the impression that they're not children; and given TAT's intel, 2/3 ain't bad.

There are plenty of explosive stories that journalists know about that don't get a run because it'll put the journalist in jail. I know of a shock jock who is accused of molesting kids and a politician whose daughter had a restraining order out against him because of domestic violence but I can guarantee that you won't read about those in the paper. Even Malcolm Turnbull literally strangling a cat in his youth has been kept pretty quiet.
This bit jars with my intuition - where are the boundaries? What sort of range of abominations could our Prime Minister have been convicted of without it being reported?

By stern admonishments you mean criminal charges? Because that's what would happen.
texta covered this; your response is redundant.

[Araenel]

texta covered this; your response is redundant.

Obviously not since people are still entertaining the idea with hilarious abandon.

[sausage]

Name one... one Australian journalist convicted and jailed/fined for a criminal offence due to publishing a story in the last 50 years.

Go on.

[Readman]

Michael Harvey

[sausage]

I'm in too deep to pull out now.

[Readman]

Oh, I edited my message into the name of a journalist, so it doesn't make sense now.

[sausage]

Actually, I found heaps; you really are a pacific backwater rougue state aren't you?

Disgusting.


Herald Sun journalists Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus were each fined $7,000 after pleading guilty to the charges earlier this year.
(http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1961451.htm)


The International Federation of Journalists ain't too happy either. (http://asiapacific.ifj.org/en/articles/australian-journalists-convicted-of-contempt-of-court-for-doing-nothing-more-than-their-jobs-)


BAD AUSTRALIA

[sausage]

Oh, I edited my message into the name of a journalist, so it doesn't make sense now.


Why be a soft-cock; edit it back in.

[Readman]

I can't be slutted, I was right anyway so the point is made.

[sausage]

That doesn't make it right, or in line with New Zealand's freedom of the press levels.


It's true what they say about indoctrination; most times you don't even notice it's happening.

[Readman]

Oh boo hoo, journalists aren't allowed to break the law. Whatever will become of the world.

[sausage]

And future government plans to clampdown on veterans' entitlements is NOT in the public interest?

Boo hoo you.

[Fenrir]

Obviously not since people are still entertaining the idea with hilarious abandon.
That's completely post hoc, you had no way of knowing this would carry on at the time.

[Readman]

And future government plans to clampdown on veterans' entitlements is NOT in the public interest?

Boo hoo you.

Lazy veterans.

[sausage]

They died for your present freedom-related sins.

[Readman]

Yeah, and they've been living off that ever since.



Edit: wait, the ones that are getting entitlements obviously didn't die for anything.

[sausage]

Pity then that in their golden years of retirement and personal reflection the government knocks the Zimmer frame from underneath them and the rest of the country blithely accepts any freedom-restricting behaviour as some part of being "civilised" or "obeying THE LAW".

[Readman]

There's nothing new about the restrictions you're complaining about.

If anything, you would say that the veterans fought for our right to have these restrictions in the first place, god bless them.

[sausage]

Maybe in your country, not in mine. Good luck with it by the way.

[Big Kev]

I thoroughly doubt that tying one's pubes together would simulate virginity for one, but I don't see texta arguing that....

It was a joke man, it wasn't meant to be REAL.

[Dunkurtin]

I don't know whats more concerning, people still argueing over the legality of leaking something like that or the fact they consider someones irrelevant personal information as newsworthy.

[Tonez]

It's newsworthy if you're a writer for New Idea.

[sausage]

It's newsworthy and in the public interest if public funds are being misdirected to pay for medical operations because of the corruption of said politician.

It's newsworthy and in the public interest if said politician runs a campaign against abortion while his three daughters all had abortions.


Jesus, do I have to draw it in MSPaint?

[AranchineD]

It's newsworthy if you're a writer for New Idea.


Or The Daily Telegraph.

[sausage]

haha aran.

[AranchineD]

kocksucking kiwi k***

[sausage]

Suckin it up in FREEDOMLAND.

[Dunkurtin]

It's newsworthy if public funds are being misdirected to pay for medical operations because of the corruption of said politician.

It's newsworthy if said politician runs a campaign against abortion while his three daughters all had abortions.


Jesus, do I have to draw it in MSPaint?

They wouldn't be able to get away with using public funds for it.
Upon reaching 18 children are considered independent and make their own choices wihtout needing permission from their parents. Abortion argument is therefore only relevant for the youngest daughter, as the others would get to make the choice themselves.

Please, continue your trolling however.

[AranchineD]

MISUSE OF THE WORD 'TROLLING' ALERT

MISUSE OF THE WORD 'TROLLING' ALERT

Public service announcement brought to you by AranchineD.

[sausage]

They wouldn't be able to get away with using public funds for it.
Upon reaching 18 children are considered independent and make their own choices wihtout needing permission from their parents. Abortion argument is therefore only relevant for the youngest daughter, as the others would get to make the choice themselves.

Please, continue your trolling however.

Your points are, shall we say, not convincing.

Arguing semantics on where funds would come from is irrelevant to my point.

Also, permission for abortion is irrelevant; the public interest in the fact they had the abortions is the point made.


EDIT: damn you aran - touche bastard.

[Dunkurtin]

Your points are, shall we say, not convincing.

Arguing semantics on where funds would come from is irrelevant to my point.

Also, permission for abortion is irrelevant; the public interest in the fact they did is the point made.


EDIT: damn you aran - touche bastard.

Maybe i'm concerned at all the tabloid type shit that a lot of the public consider newsworthy?

The point is people are not their parents. Many children have conflicting view with their parents. Once they become independent their actions should only reflect on themselves. Also i'd be more concerned if all his daughters turned out to follow his policies perfectly and mirrored all his views as I don't approve of brainwashing.

[Tonez]

Or The Daily Telegraph.

haha Only if Middle Eastern terrorists were the ones who forced Abbott's daughters to have a hymen reconstruction and moving forward forced them to wear a burqa.

[sausage]

The point is people are not their parents. Many children have conflicting view with their parents. Once they become independent their actions should only reflect on themselves. Also i'd be more concerned if all his daughters turned out to follow his policies perfectly and mirrored all his views as I don't approve of brainwashing.


Politics is a cruel world and anyone who enters into it knows that anything they do is in the public interest and by default that responsibility falls on their family also.

It's not pretty but imo the freedom of the press to investigate and reveal criminal behaviour or otherwise of people with power is one of the cornerstones of my personal belief in a just society.

[Nintendork]

Maybe i'm concerned at all the tabloid type shit that a lot of the public consider newsworthy?

The point is people are not their parents. Many children have conflicting view with their parents. Once they become independent their actions should only reflect on themselves. Also i'd be more concerned if all his daughters turned out to follow his policies perfectly and mirrored all his views as I don't approve of brainwashing.

But how are the public supposed to share someones ideals, if they couldn't even convince their own children it was the right way after 18+ years?

[Dunkurtin]

But how are the public supposed to share someones ideals, if they couldn't even convince their own children it was the right way after 18+ years?

Because majority of children rebel against their parents at some point between mid teens to late twenties?
Because they simply agree with them on their own values?
Because the person peddling those ideals lives up to them themselves?

[sausage]

Call me old fashioned but I'd like my man (or woman) holding his/her finger on the button to have some semblance of control at home.

[Spazzola]

His ears look nearly big enough to fit a cock in, though. :cool:

It's a shame no-one ever stuck their dick in his ear and ****ed some sense into him.

[Azzaman]

Call me old fashioned but I'd like my man (or woman) holding his/her finger on the button to have some semblance of control at home.

What's this button of which you speak?

[Nintendork]

Because majority of children rebel against their parents at some point between mid teens to late twenties?


So, getting an abortion is just a big '**** you' to mummy and daddy?

[Readman]

If we really went with the idea that you should look at a politician's family to determine their effectiveness, we would have missed out on some really great leaders. Gandhi, Bob Hawke, Winston Churchill spring to mind. Equally, there's many completely shit politicians and leaders who have had great family lives.

There's no link between how good a family man or woman someone is, and how great a public figure there are.

[sausage]

So you speak for all voters then? I see.

[Nintendork]

If we really went with the idea that you should look at a politician's family to determine their effectiveness, we would have missed out on some really great leaders. Gandhi, Bob Hawke, Winston Churchill spring to mind. Equally, there's many completely shit politicians and leaders who have had great family lives.

There's no link between how good a family man or woman someone is, and how great a public figure there are.

"Can't handle a couple of teens? Here, have a state!"

[FrozenSoul80]

What's this button of which you speak?

Speed dial for a local Chinese restaurant.

[sausage]

What's this button of which you speak?

Sorry, missed this; for me it's the mythical power button, a metaphor I suppose for political power over other people. In the more literal sense I guess if we were in the USA it would mean the button.

[Azzaman]

Sorry, missed this; for me it's the mythical power button, a metaphor I suppose for political power over other people. In the more literal sense I guess if we were in the USA it would mean the button.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I agree with Frozen though, it's more likely to be a fast food joint then nukes.

Ring ring
Hello this is Cheng's chinese resturant please place your order.
Launch them, launch them all.
What? We don't have this on the menu, would you like some fried rice?

[AranchineD]

sorry, missed this; for me it's the mythical power button, a metaphor i suppose for political power over other people. In the more literal sense i guess if we were in the usa it would mean the button.

what are you talking about

what button?!

[Almighty Beanchild]

If we really went with the idea that you should look at a politician's family to determine their effectiveness, we would have missed out on some really great leaders. Gandhi, Bob Hawke, Winston Churchill spring to mind. Equally, there's many completely shit politicians and leaders who have had great family lives.

There's no link between how good a family man or woman someone is, and how great a public figure there are.

I think you are talking to the wrong audience.

[Big Kev]

haha Only if Middle Eastern terrorists were the ones who forced Abbott's daughters to have a hymen reconstruction and moving forward forced them to wear a burqa.

Reckon we could convince them to chuck one on abbott too?

Christ that'd be a relief.

[sausage]

what are you talking about

what button?!



Your MUMs button.

[texta]

You are assuming that it's going to get to the stage where a judge is going to have to make a decision on that.Never heard of an injunction? Judges make decisions to prevent the publishing of information regularly.

Do you think all potentially explosive stories have to be screened by some sort of arbitrary judge before they get published? Or that this same judge looks through all media just after its been published to circle dodgy stories in red to follow up with a 'please explain' to the relevant editor?Potentially illegal stories get screened by editors and media legal departments. They also get leaked prior to publication and the people involved would have ample opportunity to go to the courts (as they often do: see eg O'Neill v The ABC).

Name one... one Australian journalist convicted and jailed/fined for a criminal offence due to publishing a story in the last 50 years.Wrong question. Name one instance where confidental medical information regarding the child of an Austrailan politican has been published without consent.

[Stevorooni]

I can't believe this argument has continued for over 100 posts.

[sausage]

Never heard of an injunction? Judges make decisions to prevent the publishing of information regularly.

Court imposed suppression orders during criminal court cases is fine with me to maintain the fairness of proceedings. With rare injunction cases the facts come out anyway so the court may as well be a pseudo media organisation in itself.

The fact a widely reported injunction has been made by a judge is tantamount to being a news item in its own right.

Potentially illegal stories get screened by editors and media legal departments. They also get leaked prior to publication and the people involved would have ample opportunity to go to the courts (as they often do: see eg O'Neill v The ABC).

I'd imagine so if your government sees fit to place media organisations in a climate of fear; as seems to be the case.

Wrong question. Name one instance where confidental medical information regarding the child of an Austrailan politican has been published without consent.


Nuh-uh, the question should be why Australia prosecutes journalists and raises the ire of a International free press organisation; the 4th estate's equivalent of Greenpeace and Amnesty International.

That's more frightening than the semantics of my argument.

[texta]

Court imposed suppression orders during criminal court cases is fine with me to maintain the fairness of proceedings. With rare injunction cases the facts come out anyway so the court may as well be a pseudo media organisation in itself.

The fact a widely reported injunction has been made by a judge is tantamount to being a news item in its own right.I don't know what it's like in NZ, but in Aus a closed court is heavily respected and a court ordered injunction will and has prevented the public knowing details that they shouldn't.

I'd imagine so if your government sees fit to place media organisations in a climate of fear; as seems to be the case.
It's worth noting that:
1. The case you're talking about is from 2005 and was the Howard Government. Labor were actually talking about protecting whistleblowers but with the reshuffle that took Faulkner away from Special Minister for State all the Admin Law reforms have been delayed.

2. The way the law operates was that the decision to charge and prosecute those journalists was made independently of any politician. In fact the then Attorney General Phillip Ruddock called on the court to be lenient in dealing with them.

Nuh-uh, the question should be why Australia prosecutes journalists and raises the ire of a International free press organisation; the 4th estate's equivalent of Greenpeace and Amnesty International.

That's more frightening than the semantics of my argument. I think it merely highlights a difference of philosophy between mainstream governments and those far left interest groups. Journalists "right" to protect their sources has no legal effect and I think you can make a fairly reasonable argument that they have the same duty as all other citizens to respect the rule of law.

[sausage]

What if the law is an ass?

At what point do you roll over and let a democracy become a dictatorship/police state/military junta?

[AranchineD]

God damn, it's amazing how texta can turn any argument at all into a LABOR IS GOOD VOTE FOR LABOR thread.

[Lex]

I think it's amazing how calm texta is being, what with sargeant dumbdumb missing every single point he's brought up.

[Spudzilla]

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/6559/picsh.jpg

[sausage]

I think it's amazing how calm texta is being, what with sargeant dumbdumb missing every single point he's brought up.


*sergeant.

Plus, I addressed his post.




EDIT: I'm turning off the computer just in case so no more arguing tonight from me (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10622846)


I'll leave you with this; I'm making some valid points about the impact of your beliefs about universal freedom of the press as a cornerstone of what, essentially, are human rights in our respective countries. Do you believe in freedom of the press?

[texta]

What if the law is an ass?

At what point do you roll over and let a democracy become a dictatorship/police state/military junta?I think where you draw the line regarding journalistic conduct is a complex question that can't easily be answered. What I would say is that I don't think journalists are above the law and I don't think they have an unlimited non disclosure right.

Furthermore I don't think this case goes at all towards the hyperbole of Australia heading towards a dictatorship.

God damn, it's amazing how texta can turn any argument at all into a LABOR IS GOOD VOTE FOR LABOR thread.Perhaps. But if I really was trying to turn this into saying how great Labor was I wouldn't have pointed out that while this happened under the Howard Government, it wasn't really something they were directly responsible for. Nor would I have pointed out that Labor have stalled in their reforms either.

I'll leave you with this; I'm making some valid points about the impact of your beliefs about universal freedom of the press as a cornerstone of what, essentially, are human rights in our respective countries. Do you believe in freedom of the press?

This is the thing though. The journalists in this case weren't in trouble for publishing too much information, they were in trouble for not revealing enough information.

Freedom to publish is one thing, but I think there's a pretty good argument that if we want true transparency then we deserve the right to know where the information is coming from as well.

[Lex]

I'm making some valid points

Is that what you think you're doing?

[fishfishmonkeyhat]

It is what he said.

[sausage]

Is that what you think you're doing?


Why yes, I believe so.

[sausage]

I think where you draw the line regarding journalistic conduct is a complex question that can't easily be answered. What I would say is that I don't think journalists are above the law and I don't think they have an unlimited non disclosure right.

But again I refer back to my earlier point about a story being proveable and in the public interest. Look, sure, I agree with you about it being a complex question but that's exactly WHY journalistic boundaries are being bent, broken, twisted and tested every day of the year around the world.

To you it's a potential criminal offence; to me it's a necessary function of the free press.


This is the thing though. The journalists in this case weren't in trouble for publishing too much information, they were in trouble for not revealing enough information.

haha that's one way of looking at it; not my way, but a way nonetheless.


Freedom to publish is one thing, but I think there's a pretty good argument that if we want true transparency then we deserve the right to know where the information is coming from as well.

Then you wouldn't get anyone revealing information if every source can and will be identified. The transparency you seem to crave can easily be gotten from defamation court cases where the onus is on the journalist to prove what he/she published is true.

[banjoeskimo]

Can't be arsed wading through the argument, but if it hasn't already been put out there, Tony Abbott doesn't look like a father in that photo, so much as a pimp who's totally stoked to have 3 hotties on his arm. Hilarious.

[sausage]

Just read my posts while nodding sagely.

[Watchers]

Thread needs more sluts.

[Northy179]

What say you, Hyper (or at least the 1% of the Hyper population who are ever going to be able to convince a woman to have sex with them)?

'choice' is something politcians think they have the right to take from society, its the girls choice... not the government...

regardless of my own views on the subject **** him for telling us how to live, like his way is better, idiot.

[Dunkurtin]

Thread needs more sluts.

I keep coming in here hoping for more pics. >_>