Poison Deviny
Classic Miranda, July 2011: “Adolescent psychiatrist Michael Carr-Gregg says people who spread hate on the internet do real psychological harm and should be punished. In Australia they can be prosecuted for violating the Commonwealth criminal code act of 1995, section 474, “using a carriage service to menace, harrass or cause offence”. It’s about time purveyors of hate and the websites they use are held accountable for the pain they cause.”

Classic Miranda, September 2011: “The Twitterati voiced delight as well: “Great victory against Andrew Bolt, hope one day he will be removed from radio and TV”. One tweet said: “now for Alan Jones”. The irony, of course, is that the chortlers are so stupid that they don’t realise they are next. The Federal Court has shown us that the Racial Discrimination Act can be used to silence unfashionable opinion.”

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/bolt-case-has-ominous-echo/story-e6frfhqf-1226152332593

"But Minchin, 59, the climate skeptic former Liberal senator, didn’t hold back from home truths: “Look, it’s a real problem in this debate that those of us who are not prepared yet to be convinced that man is causing dangerous global warming just get attacked personally all the time.”"

"In July, Hadley took a call on his 2GB program from “David” proclaiming to be a neighbour of Flannery’s. Flannery owned a waterfront home, the caller said, detailing its precise location and highlighting his apparent hypocrisy on sea level rises. The story took off: Andrew Bolt took to his blog with further details of the house (including a Google map) and its value, The Daily Telegraph went to print with a story, and after promising an “intelligent article” on the issue of sea level rises, Flannery claims, The Australian’s Ean Higgins wrote a piece rehashing the Hadley revelations.”

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/22/flannery-hadley-concocted-story-on-my-waterside-home/

Classic Miranda, 2006: Reports yesterday that Hilaly’s planned deportation in 1986 was stopped by none other than the former member for Bankstown, Paul Keating, and that a public servant lost his job for trying to stand up to the political interference, are certainly frustrating.
That argument could justify sending Andrew Bolt back to Holland.
Classic Miranda, 2004: Re: Big Brother “Ten must comply with quite draconian restrictions under threat of “serious punitive sanctions” - as in losing its licence. But it has only itself to blame. The sexual harassment of the notorious penis/shoulder massage and the “very coarse” song about “fetishistic and degrading sexual behaviour” have brought it undone. Thanks to its contempt for standards, it will have the media authority breathing down its neck.”
Grotty sexual behavior deserves intervention but racial vilification doesn’t re: Bolt?
Classic Miranda, 2004: After years of cowardly pandering to environmental and animal rights activists, at last industry is fighting back. Groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Wilderness Society have long been getting away with twisting the truth and using questionable methods to push their agendas. Many other groups have become power-crazy bullies using a compliant media to expand their influence. But last week, in a twin blow for fairness, the Tasmanian timber company Gunns Ltd filed suit against 20 activists, alleging they have told lies and sabotaged the company; and Italian clothing giant Benetton refused to cave in to PETA threats and boycott Australian wool. Not only that, but the Australian Wool Innovation group last month launched legal action in the Federal Court to stop PETA threatening clothing retailers.

I guess only columnists deserve unbridled free speech and only corporations deserve protections from smears.

I don’t think this issues is separated by left/right lines, more like free speech vs media regulation. Many so called “lefties” have been worrying over the implications the ruling has on free speech, Guy Rundle and Dr Tad to name a few. But for Miranda, any excuse to take a pot shot at her ideological opponents will do.

I don’t think this issues is separated by left/right lines, more like free speech vs media regulation. Many so called “lefties” have been worrying over the implications the ruling has on free speech, Guy Rundle and Dr Tad to name a few. But for Miranda, any excuse to take a pot shot at her ideological opponents will do.

Unless the “chortlers” start vilifying a specific race I don’t think they will be next.

Unless the “chortlers” start vilifying a specific race I don’t think they will be next.