Jan Eastgate - presumed innocent

[ClamSource]

People posting from the US may be under the impression that 1st Amendment rights to free speech are recognised by the Australian courts. They're not. Any right to free speech in Australia is based on common law, and has a considerably narrower purview.

Australian courts can and will rule mistrial if either jury or witnesses can be shown to have been suborn or coerced.

And please spare the ad homs. They're not relevant to critical thinking.

Anon can say or do what they like, so long as it's outside the Australian jurisdiction. Reason for my concern is what may transpire at Australian pickets.

[ClamSource]

People posting from the US may be under the impression that 1st Amendment rights to free speech are recognised by the Australian courts. They're not. Any right to free speech in Australia is based on common law, and has a considerably narrower purview.

Australian courts can and will rule mistrial if either jury or witnesses can be shown to have been suborn or coerced.

And please spare the ad homs. They're not relevant to critical thinking.

Axiom142, Anon can say or do what they like, so long as it's outside the Australian jurisdiction. Reason for my concern is what may transpire at Australian pickets.

[TG1]

Uh, that's a big NOT!

The court and its proceedings in Australia must presume Jan Eastgate's innocence. The prosecutors (who obviously found enough evidence to merit her being charged with those awful crimes she is alleged to have committed) must then prove she is not innocent.

I don't have to presume her innocence. I'm neither the judge nor a member of the jury. I don't even live in Australia. I am opining on a Internet message board about a legal proceeding involving a public figure being reported in the newspaper and on the telly.

TG1

[freethinker]

Has the church gone after Xenophon for stating they are a criminal cult?

People posting from the US may be under the impression that 1st Amendment rights to free speech are recognised by the Australian courts. They're not. Any right to free speech in Australia is based on common law, and has a considerably narrower purview.

Australian courts can and will rule mistrial if either jury or witnesses can be shown to have been suborn or coerced.

And please spare the ad homs. They're not relevant to critical thinking.

Axiom142, Anon can say or do what they like, so long as it's outside the Australian jurisdiction. Reason for my concern is what may transpire at Australian pickets.

[TG1]

Why are there two threads on the same topic?

Mods, merge?

[ClamSource]

Has the church gone after Xenophon for stating they are a criminal cult?

He'll have said so with the benefit of parliamentary privilege. Inside parliament, you can say anything without question of libel. Outside you are. Paul Keating called it "six yards to courage".

[degraded being]

Why are there two threads on the same topic?

Mods, merge?

Why are there two threads on the same topic?
If one footbullet misses, the other might hit the target?

[freethinker]

So if you don't like the answers on one you can switch to the other.

It keeps you winning

Why are there two threads on the same topic?

Mods, merge?

[freethinker]

So, with all your knowledge and know how, why did you post this thread?

He'll have said so with the benefit of parliamentary privilege. Inside parliament, you can say anything without question of libel. Outside you are. Paul Keating called it "six yards to courage".

[Panda Termint]

Why are there two threads on the same topic?

Mods, merge?

Looks like it's been merged. Probably could've been purged!