End of Freedom of Speech or a blow for Journalistic integrity?

Come to my town mate..you can hear it all the time, while you are here you might help us pick the drunk ones up and stop em from beating the hell outta the gins cos its a PITA.

 

You are the one that seems to come up with the stories about little boys bums and what other men think about em...

 

Actually it was Oxyqueen who started it, nonetheless I apologise for the young boys anuses remark.

 

Its all good mate and thank you, a true gent you are.
Have a beer on me ok.

 

They know it, and do want to know it...and try to do something about it.
It's the Lefty govt that seems not to.
What's it actually done for Indigenous people since its "Sorry Day"?


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXVTdWu4u84"]Reverse Racism in Australia. - YouTube[/ame]

Reverse Racism in Australia.


http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/latest/article/-/6812577/reverse-racism/

 

How about you read what i wrote princess.

I stated Abo and Gin are not words people should use.

 

Go to Redfern on a Saturday night and start calling the local indigenous folk by those names.

Then get back to me and let me know if anyone was offended (after you get out of hospital).

 

WTF are you talking about?

F i hate key board cowards.

 

Redfern...yet another thing that needs to be sorted out...

 

I'm derailing again, sorry, however I found this quite interesting the other day:

"Australia's hottest ugly duckling suburbs

Ugly ducklings, golden eggs

NSW

Redfern, Alexandria, Dee Why, Botany Newcastle, Cessnock, Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour"

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/proper...rs/story-e6frfmd0-1226162755220#ixzz1aRzXn0Xe

I wouldn't live near Redfern, but Coffs Harbour is nice enough.

 

Redfern is a failure as it was an attempt to pacify and contain the aboriginals living in the city. While at the same time it created an area of welfare dependence and high crime

 

I'd rather he were just charged with defamation, but whatever.

That Today Tonight story is a complete load of bollucks. 'Reverse Racism', no what that's actually called is exploitation. I can't believe people watch that show.

 

Mass media and legislation will eventually train us all to "think" the same as
we are supposed to, until then, you oddball vile freaks had better keep your mouths shut.

 

Bolt was caught telling lies, and as a result, his newspaper now has to print an apology


OMG - WE ARE LIVING IN A NAZI NANNY STATE!!!!!!
Dickhead columnists should be free to tell lies without ever having to apologise to the people they tell lies about.

 

It wasn't until the 1967 referendum that aboriginal people were considered more than flora and fauna from what I understand, prior to this no appropriate laws were made to support indigenous people, especially federally. It wasn't until around 1974 the ball started rolling. Aboriginal people were not allowed to practice their own culture and weren't properly accepted into main stream society, so you would expect there to be a little lag. There had to be reverse discrimination to account for the many years of neglect, which dated right up to 1967 from the time of settlement, and I suppose beyond despite the good will of many european australians. The governments again played the indigenous issue like a political pawn. Today, thanks to these measures Indigenous people are now represented in many areas of society, but obviously still a long way to go. All that was needed was a chance. I actually heard that there were 1000's of Aboriginal teachers across australia, along with doctors, lawyers, nurses, engineers etc etc. All due to the good will of Australian people due to the overwhelming vote for citizenship rights of Aboriginal people in the referendum of 1967. There are still issues. Anyway, on the matter of identity. Aboriginal people are considered to be dark skinned caucasians by scientific types. This is the reason that colour is less prominent as opposed to negroid blood apparently. Many blued eyed blond haired aboriginal people have never lost connection to their culture due to family connections. Anyway, I know this a little off course from the OP but just thought the converse was interesting.

 

No, 1967 is when they got the vote. Aborigines had rights as subjects of the Queen since early colonisation. Presumably you wouldn't say women were considered "flora and fauna" before they got the vote.

 

It was broadly thought to be the "vote", but was actually a referendum for citizenship, therefore could not have been subjects of the queen. The vote was given in 1962, but it wasn't compulsory. I'm pretty sure states had different policies regarding Aborignal issues.

 

Yes you're right the vote was in 62 not 67.

They were considered subjects of the Queen and had protections under law since 1829. Same as the various other native inhabitants of Britain's other colonies.

 

Freedom of speech is useless if you're not heard.

Journalism and integrity should never been used in the same sentence.

 

So apart from the fact that you just used them in the same sentence, why do you think they shouldn't be?

 

DBL POST ffs

 

If I told a kid not to swear and asked me what a swear word is should I tell him the words or say "just don't use them" like your example, And just hope he does not swear?

Well lets start with Iraq, We were told they had WMDs, Wrong and then the joke made by Bush jr which gathered very little attention. Then you have Syria it is always "Opposition claims it was government" followed by a minute video of a activist claiming the same,when the UN itself has no idea who it was but they present bias clip of it being the Government.
No mention that Gaddafi wasn't even in charge of Libya but in fact it was a people elected Senate which was in charge, He was what the Queen is to Britain.

 

If you're telling a kid not to swear, you obviously need to tell him what a swear word is. If you tell a kid that no one should ever swear, and then you swear, then that's just logically inconsistent and a pretty stupid thing to say anyway.

Journalists report, they don't (usually) create news. Journalists did not tell us that Iraq had WMD's, journalists told us that politicians said that they did. The rest of your rant is just nonsense.

Some journalists have integrity, some don't, just the same as the rest of us.

 

It ain't a stupid thing to say if you believe it.

The WMD was not my point, the point was when Bush jr made his joke about the WMD it received little attention.
Nonsense? I can't recall the last time the truth was considered nonsense,they said Gaddafi "abused human rights" despite him about to receive a "UN Human Rights Award" which they never mention, You only have to look on Sky to see the current bias against the Syrian Government,So please prove what I said to be nonsense.

You can't say "like the rest of us" apart from the obvious, the rest of us are not paid to be.

EDIT: Said He and not Gaddafi.

 

Believing in something doesn't mean it isn't stupid.

Integrity isn't something that you buy.

I'm really not interested in your frankly stupid opinion that the Syrian government hasn't violated human rights. If you spent 10 seconds googling I'm sure you could find thousands of journalists who opposed the iraq invasion, and if you spent another couple of minutes, I'm sure you could find journalists who support the Syrian government.