https://www.fsu.nz/is_this_the_new_normal_we_want

It does appear that the hate speech idea has not died. This incident shows
that we, New Zealand is on the wrong path.

One does wonder if money was not involved whether the outcome would have
been the same.

From the referred to Summary of Offences Act 1981

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0113/latest/DLM53500.html

"4 Offensive behaviour or language

(1)

Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who,—
(a)

in or within view of any public place, behaves in an offensive or
disorderly manner; or

(b)

in any public place, addresses any words to any person intending
to threaten, alarm, insult, or offend that person; or

(c)

in or within hearing of a public place,—

(i)

uses any threatening or insulting words and is reckless whether
any person is alarmed or insulted by those words; or

(ii)

addresses any indecent or obscene words to any person."

So it comes down to whether or not Paul intended to "to threaten, alarm,
insult, or offend that person".

On 20 Apr 2024 23:13:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

>https://www.fsu.nz/is_this_the_new_normal_we_want
>
>It does appear that the hate speech idea has not died. This incident shows
>that we, New Zealand is on the wrong path.
>
>One does wonder if money was not involved whether the outcome would have
>been the same.

Tony may well argue that the NZ Free Speech Union is hopelessly
biased, being linked to the NZ Taxpayer Union and many in the ACT and
National parties. According to Tony, that bias means that free
discussion should not take place - or if it does he will take no part
in it. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Free_Speech_Union

>
>From the referred to Summary of Offences Act 1981
>
>https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0113/latest/DLM53500.html
>
>
>"4 Offensive behaviour or language
>
>(1)
>
>Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who,—
>(a)
>
>in or within view of any public place, behaves in an offensive or
>disorderly manner; or
>
>(b)
>
>in any public place, addresses any words to any person intending
>to threaten, alarm, insult, or offend that person; or
>
>(c)
>
>in or within hearing of a public place,—
>
>(i)
>
>uses any threatening or insulting words and is reckless whether
>any person is alarmed or insulted by those words; or
>
>(ii)
>
>addresses any indecent or obscene words to any person."
>
>So it comes down to whether or not Paul intended to "to threaten, alarm,
>insult, or offend that person".

Those provisions have served New Zealand well - there is a balance to
be set , New Zealanders are entitled to be able to go about their
business free from unreasonable harassment and businesses to trade and
have customers able to enter their premises without unreasonable
obstruction or abuse. The balance to be maintained is not simple and
may change over time as society itself changes; it is also linked to
public order generally. I walk along city streets regularly, and there
do appear to be fewer footpath traders, bible bashers or single issue
preachers like this example than there used to be 20 or 30 years ago

The article referenced by Gordon gives one side of the case; from what
is said, if true, it appears that the defendant may well have a
reasonable defense, but if he is convicted I would be surprised if a
fine of exactly $1000 is the only penalty available - I would have
expected a Barrister to know of other options the court may have; a
discharge without conviction is mentioned in just the following
paragraph!

The court will also be able to assess facts through examination of the
defendant and possibly witnesses - I was not there, but it is possible
that by repeatedly asking the question - Why don't you kill yourself,
the discussion may have become divorced from the original exchange
that generated the comment - for all we know, someone who had recently
suffered from a person they knew committing suicide may have found
that repetition, without context, grossly offensive. My point is not
that he will necessarily be convicted, or that he should be acquitted,
but to emphasise that we do not know all the facts.

It did make me suspicious about this being yet another astro-turf
campaign with little to do with the actual charge and more about the
political effort that some astroturf organisations go to diminish
trust in our institutions - in this case, police, the courts and by
extension government.

I have no problems with a Barrister defending someone being a
defendant in court, but it would have been helpful to know more of the
facts before asking people to accept one side, and Donate money! Well
done on identifying yet another website linked to the NZ Taxpayer
Union - and by extension the Atlas Network. I will be interested to
see if they report what happens when the case comes to court.

For those concerned about free speech, there is another organisation
that would appear to be just as concerned about these issues, but
perhaps less sensationalist - The New Zealand Council for Civil
Liberties - see: https://nzccl.org.nz/about-nzccl/

This is a long standing and well respected organisation that has
worked with successive governments over a long time to promote a
rights based society and prevent the erosion of civil liberties - it
has been shown to put the case for various causes to successive
governments regardless of politics - perhaps something that the NZ
Free Speech Union is less concerned about . . .

Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>https://www.fsu.nz/is_this_the_new_normal_we_want
>
>It does appear that the hate speech idea has not died. This incident shows
>that we, New Zealand is on the wrong path.
>
>One does wonder if money was not involved whether the outcome would have
>been the same.
>
>From the referred to Summary of Offences Act 1981
>
>https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0113/latest/DLM53500.html
>
>
>"4 Offensive behaviour or language
>
>(1)
>
>Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who,—
>(a)
>
>in or within view of any public place, behaves in an offensive or
>disorderly manner; or
>
>(b)
>
>in any public place, addresses any words to any person intending
>to threaten, alarm, insult, or offend that person; or
>
>(c)
>
>in or within hearing of a public place,—
>
>(i)
>
>uses any threatening or insulting words and is reckless whether
>any person is alarmed or insulted by those words; or
>
>(ii)
>
>addresses any indecent or obscene words to any person."
>
>So it comes down to whether or not Paul intended to "to threaten, alarm,
>insult, or offend that person".
This case is a travesty. I hope it is thrown out with a stern lesson for
whoever decided to bring the prosecution.
Not only was what he said in no way offensive, what the young person said to
Paul would offend many anti-abortionists - but so far as I know only Paul was
arrested.
What drives this one sided nonsense is not clear.
The very idea that sonmeone can be prosecuted because they offended soneone
else is absolute nonsense and the police have better things to do.
To assist the weak minded, clearly defamation is a very different matter to
this.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 20 Apr 2024 23:13:38 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>https://www.fsu.nz/is_this_the_new_normal_we_want
>>
>>It does appear that the hate speech idea has not died. This incident shows
>>that we, New Zealand is on the wrong path.
>>
>>One does wonder if money was not involved whether the outcome would have
>>been the same.
>
>Tony may well argue that the NZ Free Speech Union is hopelessly
>biased, being linked to the NZ Taxpayer Union and many in the ACT and
>National parties. According to Tony,
Another lie - piss off cretin.
> that bias means that free
>discussion should not take place - or if it does he will take no part
>in it. See:
Were you beaten by your parents or is it a brain disorder that drives your
stupidy? I think both are true - sociopathy augmentd by parental abuse. No
wonder you have never had a real personal relationship.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Free_Speech_Union
>
>
>>
>>From the referred to Summary of Offences Act 1981
>>
>>https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0113/latest/DLM53500.html
>>
>>
>>"4 Offensive behaviour or language
>>
>>(1)
>>
>>Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who,�
>>(a)
>>
>>in or within view of any public place, behaves in an offensive or
>>disorderly manner; or
>>
>>(b)
>>
>>in any public place, addresses any words to any person intending
>>to threaten, alarm, insult, or offend that person; or
>>
>>(c)
>>
>>in or within hearing of a public place,�
>>
>>(i)
>>
>>uses any threatening or insulting words and is reckless whether
>>any person is alarmed or insulted by those words; or
>>
>>(ii)
>>
>>addresses any indecent or obscene words to any person."
>>
>>So it comes down to whether or not Paul intended to "to threaten, alarm,
>>insult, or offend that person".
>
>Those provisions have served New Zealand well - there is a balance to
>be set , New Zealanders are entitled to be able to go about their
>business free from unreasonable harassment and businesses to trade and
>have customers able to enter their premises without unreasonable
>obstruction or abuse. The balance to be maintained is not simple and
>may change over time as society itself changes; it is also linked to
>public order generally. I walk along city streets regularly, and there
>do appear to be fewer footpath traders, bible bashers or single issue
>preachers like this example than there used to be 20 or 30 years ago
>
>The article referenced by Gordon gives one side of the case; from what
>is said, if true, it appears that the defendant may well have a
>reasonable defense, but if he is convicted I would be surprised if a
>fine of exactly $1000 is the only penalty available - I would have
>expected a Barrister to know of other options the court may have; a
>discharge without conviction is mentioned in just the following
>paragraph!
>
>The court will also be able to assess facts through examination of the
>defendant and possibly witnesses - I was not there, but it is possible
>that by repeatedly asking the question - Why don't you kill yourself,
>the discussion may have become divorced from the original exchange
>that generated the comment - for all we know, someone who had recently
>suffered from a person they knew committing suicide may have found
>that repetition, without context, grossly offensive. My point is not
>that he will necessarily be convicted, or that he should be acquitted,
>but to emphasise that we do not know all the facts.
>
>It did make me suspicious about this being yet another astro-turf
>campaign with little to do with the actual charge and more about the
>political effort that some astroturf organisations go to diminish
>trust in our institutions - in this case, police, the courts and by
>extension government.
>
>I have no problems with a Barrister defending someone being a
>defendant in court, but it would have been helpful to know more of the
>facts before asking people to accept one side, and Donate money! Well
>done on identifying yet another website linked to the NZ Taxpayer
>Union - and by extension the Atlas Network. I will be interested to
>see if they report what happens when the case comes to court.
>
>For those concerned about free speech, there is another organisation
>that would appear to be just as concerned about these issues, but
>perhaps less sensationalist - The New Zealand Council for Civil
>Liberties - see: https://nzccl.org.nz/about-nzccl/
>
>This is a long standing and well respected organisation that has
>worked with successive governments over a long time to promote a
>rights based society and prevent the erosion of civil liberties - it
>has been shown to put the case for various causes to successive
>governments regardless of politics - perhaps something that the NZ
>Free Speech Union is less concerned about . . .

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 01:45:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>https://www.fsu.nz/is_this_the_new_normal_we_want
>>
>>It does appear that the hate speech idea has not died. This incident shows
>>that we, New Zealand is on the wrong path.
>>
>>One does wonder if money was not involved whether the outcome would have
>>been the same.
>>
>>From the referred to Summary of Offences Act 1981
>>
>>https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0113/latest/DLM53500.html
>>
>>
>>"4 Offensive behaviour or language
>>
>>(1)
>>
>>Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who,—
>>(a)
>>
>>in or within view of any public place, behaves in an offensive or
>>disorderly manner; or
>>
>>(b)
>>
>>in any public place, addresses any words to any person intending
>>to threaten, alarm, insult, or offend that person; or
>>
>>(c)
>>
>>in or within hearing of a public place,—
>>
>>(i)
>>
>>uses any threatening or insulting words and is reckless whether
>>any person is alarmed or insulted by those words; or
>>
>>(ii)
>>
>>addresses any indecent or obscene words to any person."
>>
>>So it comes down to whether or not Paul intended to "to threaten, alarm,
>>insult, or offend that person".
>This case is a travesty. I hope it is thrown out with a stern lesson for
>whoever decided to bring the prosecution.
>Not only was what he said in no way offensive, what the young person said to
>Paul would offend many anti-abortionists - but so far as I know only Paul was
>arrested.
Technically it is what his lawyer says that he said - and as lawyers
know, sometimes the memory of a person that has been charged with an
offence may not be totally accurate.

>What drives this one sided nonsense is not clear.
One aspect may well be only having part of the story. I am surprised
that it was announced before the court hearing - it would probably
have been just as interesting afterwards - as it is I will not be the
only person hoping to see a report on the website following the case

>The very idea that sonmeone can be prosecuted because they offended soneone
>else is absolute nonsense and the police have better things to do.
If that is true, then I guess it depends on how many were offended and
to what extent, but the charge was apparently based on "an intent to
offend", not on whether anyone was actually offended.

>To assist the weak minded, clearly defamation is a very different matter to
>this.
Yours is the first mention of defamation I have heard in relation to
this case - are you concerned about your mind, Tony?

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 01:45:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>https://www.fsu.nz/is_this_the_new_normal_we_want
>>>
>>>It does appear that the hate speech idea has not died. This incident shows
>>>that we, New Zealand is on the wrong path.
>>>
>>>One does wonder if money was not involved whether the outcome would have
>>>been the same.
>>>
>>>From the referred to Summary of Offences Act 1981
>>>
>>>https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0113/latest/DLM53500.html
>>>
>>>
>>>"4 Offensive behaviour or language
>>>
>>>(1)
>>>
>>>Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who,—
>>>(a)
>>>
>>>in or within view of any public place, behaves in an offensive or
>>>disorderly manner; or
>>>
>>>(b)
>>>
>>>in any public place, addresses any words to any person intending
>>>to threaten, alarm, insult, or offend that person; or
>>>
>>>(c)
>>>
>>>in or within hearing of a public place,—
>>>
>>>(i)
>>>
>>>uses any threatening or insulting words and is reckless whether
>>>any person is alarmed or insulted by those words; or
>>>
>>>(ii)
>>>
>>>addresses any indecent or obscene words to any person."
>>>
>>>So it comes down to whether or not Paul intended to "to threaten, alarm,
>>>insult, or offend that person".
>>This case is a travesty. I hope it is thrown out with a stern lesson for
>>whoever decided to bring the prosecution.
>>Not only was what he said in no way offensive, what the young person said to
>>Paul would offend many anti-abortionists - but so far as I know only Paul was
>>arrested.
>Technically it is what his lawyer says that he said
No it is what the police said he said. You don't trust the police dod you? -
and as lawyers
>know, sometimes the memory of a person that has been charged with an
>offence may not be totally accurate.
Irrelevant because it was the police.
>
>>What drives this one sided nonsense is not clear.
>One aspect may well be only having part of the story. I am surprised
>that it was announced before the court hearing - it would probably
>have been just as interesting afterwards - as it is I will not be the
>only person hoping to see a report on the website following the case
Irrelevant to the discussion.
>
>>The very idea that sonmeone can be prosecuted because they offended soneone
>>else is absolute nonsense and the police have better things to do.
>If that is true, then I guess it depends on how many were offended and
>to what extent, but the charge was apparently based on "an intent to
>offend", not on whether anyone was actually offended.
Nonsense - there is nothing offensive in what the police said he said.
>
>>To assist the weak minded, clearly defamation is a very different matter to
>>this.
>Yours is the first mention of defamation I have heard in relation to
>this case - are you concerned about your mind, Tony?
Defamation has nothing to do with this case - I was pre-empting your response
(it was aimed at you as you correctly guessed) - thanks for showing your true
colours once more.
I will back my mind againsta yours anyday, and I will do so when I am asleep.

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:41:32 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 01:45:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>https://www.fsu.nz/is_this_the_new_normal_we_want
>>>
>>>It does appear that the hate speech idea has not died. This incident shows
>>>that we, New Zealand is on the wrong path.
>>>
>>>One does wonder if money was not involved whether the outcome would have
>>>been the same.
>>>
>>>From the referred to Summary of Offences Act 1981
>>>
>>>https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0113/latest/DLM53500.html
>>>
>>>
>>>"4 Offensive behaviour or language
>>>
>>>(1)
>>>
>>>Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who,—
>>>(a)
>>>
>>>in or within view of any public place, behaves in an offensive or
>>>disorderly manner; or
>>>
>>>(b)
>>>
>>>in any public place, addresses any words to any person intending
>>>to threaten, alarm, insult, or offend that person; or
>>>
>>>(c)
>>>
>>>in or within hearing of a public place,—
>>>
>>>(i)
>>>
>>>uses any threatening or insulting words and is reckless whether
>>>any person is alarmed or insulted by those words; or
>>>
>>>(ii)
>>>
>>>addresses any indecent or obscene words to any person."
>>>
>>>So it comes down to whether or not Paul intended to "to threaten, alarm,
>>>insult, or offend that person".
>>This case is a travesty. I hope it is thrown out with a stern lesson for
>>whoever decided to bring the prosecution.
>>Not only was what he said in no way offensive, what the young person said to
>>Paul would offend many anti-abortionists - but so far as I know only Paul was
>>arrested.
>Technically it is what his lawyer says that he said - and as lawyers
>know, sometimes the memory of a person that has been charged with an
>offence may not be totally accurate.
>
>>What drives this one sided nonsense is not clear.
>One aspect may well be only having part of the story. I am surprised
>that it was announced before the court hearing - it would probably
>have been just as interesting afterwards - as it is I will not be the
>only person hoping to see a report on the website following the case
>
>>The very idea that sonmeone can be prosecuted because they offended soneone
>>else is absolute nonsense and the police have better things to do.
>If that is true, then I guess it depends on how many were offended and
>to what extent, but the charge was apparently based on "an intent to
>offend", not on whether anyone was actually offended.
>
>>To assist the weak minded, clearly defamation is a very different matter to
>>this.
>Yours is the first mention of defamation I have heard in relation to
>this case - are you concerned about your mind, Tony?

And here is a good summary of some of the legal issues involved - it
is not as straightforward as ACT would have you believe (and note that
they, and their astroturf organisation the "NZ Free Speech Union"
would have you believe.

https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/imagine-a-world-of-speech-without-rules
which opens with
"The ACT Party's "plan to protect freedom of expression" is long on
aspiration, short on detail, and would usher in an extremely
unpleasant society should it ever be put into place."

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:41:32 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 01:45:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>https://www.fsu.nz/is_this_the_new_normal_we_want
>>>>
>>>>It does appear that the hate speech idea has not died. This incident shows
>>>>that we, New Zealand is on the wrong path.
>>>>
>>>>One does wonder if money was not involved whether the outcome would have
>>>>been the same.
>>>>
>>>>From the referred to Summary of Offences Act 1981
>>>>
>>>>https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0113/latest/DLM53500.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"4 Offensive behaviour or language
>>>>
>>>>(1)
>>>>
>>>>Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who,—
>>>>(a)
>>>>
>>>>in or within view of any public place, behaves in an offensive or
>>>>disorderly manner; or
>>>>
>>>>(b)
>>>>
>>>>in any public place, addresses any words to any person intending
>>>>to threaten, alarm, insult, or offend that person; or
>>>>
>>>>(c)
>>>>
>>>>in or within hearing of a public place,—
>>>>
>>>>(i)
>>>>
>>>>uses any threatening or insulting words and is reckless whether
>>>>any person is alarmed or insulted by those words; or
>>>>
>>>>(ii)
>>>>
>>>>addresses any indecent or obscene words to any person."
>>>>
>>>>So it comes down to whether or not Paul intended to "to threaten, alarm,
>>>>insult, or offend that person".
>>>This case is a travesty. I hope it is thrown out with a stern lesson for
>>>whoever decided to bring the prosecution.
>>>Not only was what he said in no way offensive, what the young person said to
>>>Paul would offend many anti-abortionists - but so far as I know only Paul
>>>was
>>>arrested.
>>Technically it is what his lawyer says that he said - and as lawyers
>>know, sometimes the memory of a person that has been charged with an
>>offence may not be totally accurate.
>>
>>>What drives this one sided nonsense is not clear.
>>One aspect may well be only having part of the story. I am surprised
>>that it was announced before the court hearing - it would probably
>>have been just as interesting afterwards - as it is I will not be the
>>only person hoping to see a report on the website following the case
>>
>>>The very idea that sonmeone can be prosecuted because they offended soneone
>>>else is absolute nonsense and the police have better things to do.
>>If that is true, then I guess it depends on how many were offended and
>>to what extent, but the charge was apparently based on "an intent to
>>offend", not on whether anyone was actually offended.
>>
>>>To assist the weak minded, clearly defamation is a very different matter to
>>>this.
>>Yours is the first mention of defamation I have heard in relation to
>>this case - are you concerned about your mind, Tony?
>
>And here is a good summary of some of the legal issues involved - it
>is not as straightforward as ACT would have you believe (and note that
>they, and their astroturf organisation the "NZ Free Speech Union"
>would have you believe.
>
>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/imagine-a-world-of-speech-without-rules
>which opens with
>"The ACT Party's "plan to protect freedom of expression" is long on
>aspiration, short on detail, and would usher in an extremely
>unpleasant society should it ever be put into place."
You are a moron. Nobody including ACT is trying to liberalise speech any more
than it is today. What they are trying to do, and you know it, is protect
against any attacks on freedom of expression etc., attacks like the last
government was actively considering.
There are no legal issues around tha, noen at alll. It is merely the status
quo. Yes, you are a moron if you think your lies and deliberate misdirection
fools anyone.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:41:32 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 01:45:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>https://www.fsu.nz/is_this_the_new_normal_we_want
>>>>>
>>>>>It does appear that the hate speech idea has not died. This incident shows
>>>>>that we, New Zealand is on the wrong path.
>>>>>
>>>>>One does wonder if money was not involved whether the outcome would have
>>>>>been the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>From the referred to Summary of Offences Act 1981
>>>>>
>>>>>https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0113/latest/DLM53500.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"4 Offensive behaviour or language
>>>>>
>>>>>(1)
>>>>>
>>>>>Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who,—
>>>>>(a)
>>>>>
>>>>>in or within view of any public place, behaves in an offensive or
>>>>>disorderly manner; or
>>>>>
>>>>>(b)
>>>>>
>>>>>in any public place, addresses any words to any person intending
>>>>>to threaten, alarm, insult, or offend that person; or
>>>>>
>>>>>(c)
>>>>>
>>>>>in or within hearing of a public place,—
>>>>>
>>>>>(i)
>>>>>
>>>>>uses any threatening or insulting words and is reckless whether
>>>>>any person is alarmed or insulted by those words; or
>>>>>
>>>>>(ii)
>>>>>
>>>>>addresses any indecent or obscene words to any person."
>>>>>
>>>>>So it comes down to whether or not Paul intended to "to threaten, alarm,
>>>>>insult, or offend that person".
>>>>This case is a travesty. I hope it is thrown out with a stern lesson for
>>>>whoever decided to bring the prosecution.
>>>>Not only was what he said in no way offensive, what the young person said to
>>>>Paul would offend many anti-abortionists - but so far as I know only Paul
>>>>was
>>>>arrested.
>>>Technically it is what his lawyer says that he said - and as lawyers
>>>know, sometimes the memory of a person that has been charged with an
>>>offence may not be totally accurate.
>>>
>>>>What drives this one sided nonsense is not clear.
>>>One aspect may well be only having part of the story. I am surprised
>>>that it was announced before the court hearing - it would probably
>>>have been just as interesting afterwards - as it is I will not be the
>>>only person hoping to see a report on the website following the case
>>>
>>>>The very idea that sonmeone can be prosecuted because they offended soneone
>>>>else is absolute nonsense and the police have better things to do.
>>>If that is true, then I guess it depends on how many were offended and
>>>to what extent, but the charge was apparently based on "an intent to
>>>offend", not on whether anyone was actually offended.
>>>
>>>>To assist the weak minded, clearly defamation is a very different matter to
>>>>this.
>>>Yours is the first mention of defamation I have heard in relation to
>>>this case - are you concerned about your mind, Tony?
>>
>>And here is a good summary of some of the legal issues involved - it
>>is not as straightforward as ACT would have you believe (and note that
>>they, and their astroturf organisation the "NZ Free Speech Union"
>>would have you believe.
>>
>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/imagine-a-world-of-speech-without-rules
>>which opens with
>>"The ACT Party's "plan to protect freedom of expression" is long on
>>aspiration, short on detail, and would usher in an extremely
>>unpleasant society should it ever be put into place."
>You are a moron. Nobody including ACT is trying to liberalise speech any more
>than it is today. What they are trying to do, and you know it, is protect
>against any attacks on freedom of expression etc., attacks like the last
>government was actively considering.
>There are no legal issues around tha, noen at alll. It is merely the status
>quo. Yes, you are a moron if you think your lies and deliberate misdirection
>fools anyone.

I did not write the article, Tony, it was written by Andrew Geddis,
back in June 2019. There clearly are legal arguments about what was
being proposed then, and similar (or possibly identical) issues now.
Certainly it is "on topic" for this thread, which is more than your
post immediately above.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 03:55:39 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:41:32 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 01:45:58 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>https://www.fsu.nz/is_this_the_new_normal_we_want
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It does appear that the hate speech idea has not died. This incident shows
>>>>>>that we, New Zealand is on the wrong path.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One does wonder if money was not involved whether the outcome would have
>>>>>>been the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>From the referred to Summary of Offences Act 1981
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1981/0113/latest/DLM53500.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"4 Offensive behaviour or language
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(1)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who,—
>>>>>>(a)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>in or within view of any public place, behaves in an offensive or
>>>>>>disorderly manner; or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(b)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>in any public place, addresses any words to any person intending
>>>>>>to threaten, alarm, insult, or offend that person; or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(c)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>in or within hearing of a public place,—
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(i)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>uses any threatening or insulting words and is reckless whether
>>>>>>any person is alarmed or insulted by those words; or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(ii)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>addresses any indecent or obscene words to any person."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So it comes down to whether or not Paul intended to "to threaten, alarm,
>>>>>>insult, or offend that person".
>>>>>This case is a travesty. I hope it is thrown out with a stern lesson for
>>>>>whoever decided to bring the prosecution.
>>>>>Not only was what he said in no way offensive, what the young person said
>>>>>to
>>>>>Paul would offend many anti-abortionists - but so far as I know only Paul
>>>>>was
>>>>>arrested.
>>>>Technically it is what his lawyer says that he said - and as lawyers
>>>>know, sometimes the memory of a person that has been charged with an
>>>>offence may not be totally accurate.
>>>>
>>>>>What drives this one sided nonsense is not clear.
>>>>One aspect may well be only having part of the story. I am surprised
>>>>that it was announced before the court hearing - it would probably
>>>>have been just as interesting afterwards - as it is I will not be the
>>>>only person hoping to see a report on the website following the case
>>>>
>>>>>The very idea that sonmeone can be prosecuted because they offended
>>>>>soneone
>>>>>else is absolute nonsense and the police have better things to do.
>>>>If that is true, then I guess it depends on how many were offended and
>>>>to what extent, but the charge was apparently based on "an intent to
>>>>offend", not on whether anyone was actually offended.
>>>>
>>>>>To assist the weak minded, clearly defamation is a very different matter
>>>>>to
>>>>>this.
>>>>Yours is the first mention of defamation I have heard in relation to
>>>>this case - are you concerned about your mind, Tony?
>>>
>>>And here is a good summary of some of the legal issues involved - it
>>>is not as straightforward as ACT would have you believe (and note that
>>>they, and their astroturf organisation the "NZ Free Speech Union"
>>>would have you believe.
>>>
>>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/imagine-a-world-of-speech-without-rules
>>>which opens with
>>>"The ACT Party's "plan to protect freedom of expression" is long on
>>>aspiration, short on detail, and would usher in an extremely
>>>unpleasant society should it ever be put into place."
>>You are a moron. Nobody including ACT is trying to liberalise speech any more
>>than it is today. What they are trying to do, and you know it, is protect
>>against any attacks on freedom of expression etc., attacks like the last
>>government was actively considering.
>>There are no legal issues around tha, noen at alll. It is merely the status
>>quo. Yes, you are a moron if you think your lies and deliberate misdirection
>>fools anyone.
>
>I did not write the article, Tony, it was written by Andrew Geddis,
>back in June 2019. There clearly are legal arguments about what was
>being proposed then, and similar (or possibly identical) issues now.
>Certainly it is "on topic" for this thread, which is more than your
>post immediately above.
My post quite distinctly addressed what you wrote - therefore is on topic.
Nobody is trying to liberalise speech or freedom of expression laws. That was
what I wrote and that is fact - all they want to do is to prevent those
freedoms being damaged - you are a moron if you don't agree.