So there is going to be a hearing after the Chaser's APEC stunt.
For those that forgot or wish to see it again:
Now I agree with that caller to that talk-back show. I think that they should rot in jail (or gaol, both are acceptable in Australian English).
Now the truth is that I think that these hearings are a joke. All the the government is trying to do (even though it is the Rudd Government now) is show face after their proudly toted security (which cost a ridiculous amount of money, did they ask for a refund?) failed miserably.
I know they technically broke the law but I don't think that they should go to gaol (see?). They really need a medal of some sort.
If you watched that video then you can rest assured, knowing that our RSL's are safe.
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Thursday, 13 March 2008
Saturday, 15 December 2007
Umm?
That's all I can say.
Yesterday a man was convicted of murdering another man. Ok, it was manslaughter and he got 5 years with a three year non-parole period.
The Scottish man killed another Scot over an argument on evolution and creationism.
Now I know that people have been killed for less but that is really, really stupid.
I wonder what the creationists are saying about this?
Yesterday a man was convicted of murdering another man. Ok, it was manslaughter and he got 5 years with a three year non-parole period.
The Scottish man killed another Scot over an argument on evolution and creationism.
Now I know that people have been killed for less but that is really, really stupid.
I wonder what the creationists are saying about this?
Wednesday, 5 December 2007
ET Corn Gods Suit, Another PZ Situation?
Just to note beforehand Mondoskepto mentioned this a few days after the suit was filed.
It's been about a month since it was filed but I only really looked at the complaint today. Currently I have no idea how the suit is progressing but if it hasn't been already I suspect that it might be dismissed as a frivolous case like PZ Myers.
The complaint can be found here.
Basically it's the same rubbish similar to Pivar's suit.
From what I understand the plaintiff came up with something like the "Bible Code" with a whole lot of rules that allow you to "interpret" texts. He subsequently posted this on the JREF Forum and was ridiculed.
As a side note he should have been happy that he faced what he did on the JREF forum, if he posted this stuff on the Myspace forum then he would have faced far worse (there are practically no rules and no mods there).
So let's look at the complaint.
Paragraphs 16 and 17 (the first two under "Facts") are hard to even call facts, because they refer to the basis for the "language". Paragraph 24 actually calls JREF members "geeks".
I liked paragraphs 31 and 32. They basically say that a mod damaged the reputation of the plaintiff by telling people not to insult him and used the words that the posters were calling the guy. A few of the chosen comments seem to be of the position that they are playing with his threat of a lawsuit.
Now we see his charges.
1. Fraud.
Claims that they violated their membership agreement by allowing people to call this man a fraud and a liar.
2. Misrepresentation and Breach of Contract.
Basically he is claiming that the moderators didn't moderate the thread enough and allowed people to call him names.
3. Misfeasance
Claims that the forum hurt his reputation and hurt him financially.
4. Malfeasance
He is claiming that the forum knew they were breaking the law and didn't do anything to stop it.
5. Defamation
Claims that their accusations of "liar", "fraud" and that he required "mental help" without providing any proof of the accusation. Once again his claim is about damaging his reputation and financial damages.
6. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Apparently he has been hurt so badly by people on the Internet, who for all intents and purposes know nothing about him, that he loses sleep over it. He is arguing that the statements are still on the site and continue to damage his reputation.
7. Violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
He claims that they have violated his freedom of speech and the right to practise his religion.
8. Violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
The forum has prevented him from practising his "religion" and he claims that they are a "religion" as well.
9. Conspiracy
Claims that they conspired to prevent him from exercising his rights to free speech and religion.
Now I think that for the claims that he has been hurt financially (counts 3,4,5) he will have trouble proving because you would have to determine how many people there were who didn't contribute to the thread (because the number of views doesn't differentiate between those contributing to the thread and those that don't), and then he would be assuming that those that looked at the thread would go to his website. I looked at the thread and went to his website to see what he was on about (I heard it was a tutorial to a game and thought it might be fun and then found out that it was quite serious without reading through the thread).
I have a funny feeling that the claims of defamation (namely count 5) probably won't stand up in court.
Count 6 is a bit odd. I don't know if he suffered what he suffered according to the count, however when the suit claims "[t]hose defamatory statements are still on the JREF site..." it paints a different impression as to what the facts state. The facts state that it went to the "abandon all hope" section. Regardless of what it says as a descriptor I would say that practically nobody goes there without a reason.
Count 7 is just a joke. I honestly hope that if there is a trial that people laugh when he claims that his right to free speech was violated. By the looks of it this suit is trying to censor free speech. I fail to see where the JREF prevented him from practising his faith. I don't know of any big conspiracy to remove his site from the Internet.
Count 8. Well all I can say there is that calling the JREF forum a "religion" is like Kent Hovind calling the Theory of Evolution a "religion". It makes even less sense when it claims that the JREF forum is "anti-religion". Now I know that the law doesn't use too much logic but
does that mean that the JREF forum hates itself?
Count 9 is probably the hardest to prove at all. I honestly doubt that there is any ongoing conspiracy to prevent him from posting there. If anything he has done that well enough himself by engaging in that suit.
Now we get to the punch line. The part where he makes the claim for money.
Compensatory and general damages, US$10 million
Punitive Damages, US$ 10 million
Not doing a Mastercard-like joke?
Yeah, I'm not answering that last one. He wants $20 million. If he wins he might as well go around claiming that he won the JREF Million Dollar Prize 20 times. It's idiotic to hear about claims like this. To a non-American like me it makes you wonder if this is common to the US. All I can say is that it is a stupid amount and I hope that the US Justice system sees the same thing.
As a side note, if the need arises I am more then willing to remove this post on request on the condition that I can repost it again at a later time.
----------------
Now playing: C.W. Stoneking - Don't Go Dancin Down The Darktown Strutter's Ball
via FoxyTunes
It's been about a month since it was filed but I only really looked at the complaint today. Currently I have no idea how the suit is progressing but if it hasn't been already I suspect that it might be dismissed as a frivolous case like PZ Myers.
The complaint can be found here.
Basically it's the same rubbish similar to Pivar's suit.
From what I understand the plaintiff came up with something like the "Bible Code" with a whole lot of rules that allow you to "interpret" texts. He subsequently posted this on the JREF Forum and was ridiculed.
As a side note he should have been happy that he faced what he did on the JREF forum, if he posted this stuff on the Myspace forum then he would have faced far worse (there are practically no rules and no mods there).
So let's look at the complaint.
Paragraphs 16 and 17 (the first two under "Facts") are hard to even call facts, because they refer to the basis for the "language". Paragraph 24 actually calls JREF members "geeks".
I liked paragraphs 31 and 32. They basically say that a mod damaged the reputation of the plaintiff by telling people not to insult him and used the words that the posters were calling the guy. A few of the chosen comments seem to be of the position that they are playing with his threat of a lawsuit.
Now we see his charges.
1. Fraud.
Claims that they violated their membership agreement by allowing people to call this man a fraud and a liar.
2. Misrepresentation and Breach of Contract.
Basically he is claiming that the moderators didn't moderate the thread enough and allowed people to call him names.
3. Misfeasance
Claims that the forum hurt his reputation and hurt him financially.
4. Malfeasance
He is claiming that the forum knew they were breaking the law and didn't do anything to stop it.
5. Defamation
Claims that their accusations of "liar", "fraud" and that he required "mental help" without providing any proof of the accusation. Once again his claim is about damaging his reputation and financial damages.
6. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Apparently he has been hurt so badly by people on the Internet, who for all intents and purposes know nothing about him, that he loses sleep over it. He is arguing that the statements are still on the site and continue to damage his reputation.
7. Violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
He claims that they have violated his freedom of speech and the right to practise his religion.
8. Violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
The forum has prevented him from practising his "religion" and he claims that they are a "religion" as well.
9. Conspiracy
Claims that they conspired to prevent him from exercising his rights to free speech and religion.
Now I think that for the claims that he has been hurt financially (counts 3,4,5) he will have trouble proving because you would have to determine how many people there were who didn't contribute to the thread (because the number of views doesn't differentiate between those contributing to the thread and those that don't), and then he would be assuming that those that looked at the thread would go to his website. I looked at the thread and went to his website to see what he was on about (I heard it was a tutorial to a game and thought it might be fun and then found out that it was quite serious without reading through the thread).
I have a funny feeling that the claims of defamation (namely count 5) probably won't stand up in court.
Count 6 is a bit odd. I don't know if he suffered what he suffered according to the count, however when the suit claims "[t]hose defamatory statements are still on the JREF site..." it paints a different impression as to what the facts state. The facts state that it went to the "abandon all hope" section. Regardless of what it says as a descriptor I would say that practically nobody goes there without a reason.
Count 7 is just a joke. I honestly hope that if there is a trial that people laugh when he claims that his right to free speech was violated. By the looks of it this suit is trying to censor free speech. I fail to see where the JREF prevented him from practising his faith. I don't know of any big conspiracy to remove his site from the Internet.
Count 8. Well all I can say there is that calling the JREF forum a "religion" is like Kent Hovind calling the Theory of Evolution a "religion". It makes even less sense when it claims that the JREF forum is "anti-religion". Now I know that the law doesn't use too much logic but
does that mean that the JREF forum hates itself?
Count 9 is probably the hardest to prove at all. I honestly doubt that there is any ongoing conspiracy to prevent him from posting there. If anything he has done that well enough himself by engaging in that suit.
Now we get to the punch line. The part where he makes the claim for money.
Compensatory and general damages, US$10 million
Punitive Damages, US$ 10 million
Not doing a Mastercard-like joke?
Yeah, I'm not answering that last one. He wants $20 million. If he wins he might as well go around claiming that he won the JREF Million Dollar Prize 20 times. It's idiotic to hear about claims like this. To a non-American like me it makes you wonder if this is common to the US. All I can say is that it is a stupid amount and I hope that the US Justice system sees the same thing.
As a side note, if the need arises I am more then willing to remove this post on request on the condition that I can repost it again at a later time.
----------------
Now playing: C.W. Stoneking - Don't Go Dancin Down The Darktown Strutter's Ball
via FoxyTunes
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
Some Deception from Scientology
Before I start, I must stress that in Australia the organisation known as the Church of Scientology is considered under the law as a legal religion. So I think that it might be best that I say a little about it's legal history in Australia.
In South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria have at one point or another banned the CoS from operating.
Victoria passed the Psychological Practices Act, 1965 after the findings of the Anderson Report (or in it's formal name Report of the Board of Enquiry into Scientology).
The recommendations started with:
In 1968 the government of Western Australia passed the Scientology Act (1968),
and South Australia followed suit with the Scientology (Prohibition) Act, 1968.
These were overturned in 1983 after the High Court decision in Church of the New Faith v. Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Victoria) which found that Scientology was a religion.
For those that don't know the Church of the New Faith was an organisation created by Scientology to counter the acts brought against them, but by that time Western Australia and South Australia had repealed their acts in 1972 and 1973 respectively.
And now with that very brief history of Scientology and the Law we move on to the present day.
This was reported yesterday in The Advertiser: Parent anger at religious 'advice' (In case something happens to the online version the printed versions details are: Kleinig X. 2007. "Parent anger at religious 'advice'" The Advertiser 29 October 29 p.23).
The briefest description would be that uniformed police officers have been found distributing Scientology related material at a Government school.
The version that I will give you is as follows.
Uniformed police officers went to Whyalla High School and distributed a pamphlet entitled "Whyalla High School presents the way to happiness, a common-sense guide for better living" after showing them a DVD on living a moral life.
There were two things that showed that it was a Scientologist production. The first was that the website it linked to was a Scientologist one. The second was that if you looked very carefully at the copyright information you would find out that it was written by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology.
The book apparently did not contain any religious material. All well and good you think? Well no actually, this is what the police had to say:
What makes it even more annoying is the blatant deception that the CoS has used to spread their "message". They used two uniformed officers to distribute a pamphlet that directed children to a site about Scientology, the pamphlet itself managed to convince parents that it was something from the Education Department, something that the department denies. What makes it worse is that this occurred in a Government school. They are places were proselytising is a big no no.
There is one other thing that makes it somewhat hypocritical.
They showed a DVD on morality, but they were acting in an immoral way, just like Scientology itself claims to be the most ethical group in the world, this was an unethical way of doing things.
If they don't seem to be able to gain more followers in a regular way, then maybe they should be looking at themselves and fixing what they need to fix?
I think that the name of the song that I am listening to fits well with this post...
----------------
Now playing: Sneaky Sound System - UFO
via FoxyTunes
In South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria have at one point or another banned the CoS from operating.
Victoria passed the Psychological Practices Act, 1965 after the findings of the Anderson Report (or in it's formal name Report of the Board of Enquiry into Scientology).
The recommendations started with:
"The Inquiry has revealed the real nature of scientology and its serious threat to the mental health of the community, and it is evident that its continued practice should not be permitted."
In 1968 the government of Western Australia passed the Scientology Act (1968),
and South Australia followed suit with the Scientology (Prohibition) Act, 1968.
These were overturned in 1983 after the High Court decision in Church of the New Faith v. Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Victoria) which found that Scientology was a religion.
For those that don't know the Church of the New Faith was an organisation created by Scientology to counter the acts brought against them, but by that time Western Australia and South Australia had repealed their acts in 1972 and 1973 respectively.
And now with that very brief history of Scientology and the Law we move on to the present day.
This was reported yesterday in The Advertiser: Parent anger at religious 'advice' (In case something happens to the online version the printed versions details are: Kleinig X. 2007. "Parent anger at religious 'advice'" The Advertiser 29 October 29 p.23).
The briefest description would be that uniformed police officers have been found distributing Scientology related material at a Government school.
The version that I will give you is as follows.
Uniformed police officers went to Whyalla High School and distributed a pamphlet entitled "Whyalla High School presents the way to happiness, a common-sense guide for better living" after showing them a DVD on living a moral life.
There were two things that showed that it was a Scientologist production. The first was that the website it linked to was a Scientologist one. The second was that if you looked very carefully at the copyright information you would find out that it was written by L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology.
The book apparently did not contain any religious material. All well and good you think? Well no actually, this is what the police had to say:
They were supposed to be giving a lecture on bullying. I fail to see where a pamphlet called "Whyalla High School presents the way to happiness, a common-sense guide for better living" has anything to do with bullying."Police Assistant Commissioner Graeme Barton confirmed that two officers had visited the school to give lectures on bullying and that the claims of religious instruction would be investigated."
What makes it even more annoying is the blatant deception that the CoS has used to spread their "message". They used two uniformed officers to distribute a pamphlet that directed children to a site about Scientology, the pamphlet itself managed to convince parents that it was something from the Education Department, something that the department denies. What makes it worse is that this occurred in a Government school. They are places were proselytising is a big no no.
There is one other thing that makes it somewhat hypocritical.
They showed a DVD on morality, but they were acting in an immoral way, just like Scientology itself claims to be the most ethical group in the world, this was an unethical way of doing things.
If they don't seem to be able to gain more followers in a regular way, then maybe they should be looking at themselves and fixing what they need to fix?
I think that the name of the song that I am listening to fits well with this post...
----------------
Now playing: Sneaky Sound System - UFO
via FoxyTunes
Thursday, 30 August 2007
News on the Frivolous Front
If you remember the lawsuit that PZ Myers was going to go through then you should also know that nothing will happen. Through common sense and the pressure of Peter Irons in pointing out pretty much all the deficiencies in the suit.
So Pivar has dropped the suit and apparently Mr. Little, Pivar's laywer, is threatening to sue Irons for some silly reason.
All I can say is congratulations PZ Myers.
I guess that since this battle is over we should probably look at the damages for both parties:
PZ Myers
Pivar
So as we can see PZ Myers clearly won this battle nearly all his points that are there are good ones, so we can give him +4. Pivar on the other hand has many negative points (you can see the bias...) so he gets -5. So the difference is 9, which would be say, an 'Epic Victory', in a complete and arbitrary point of view.
So Pivar has dropped the suit and apparently Mr. Little, Pivar's laywer, is threatening to sue Irons for some silly reason.
All I can say is congratulations PZ Myers.
I guess that since this battle is over we should probably look at the damages for both parties:
PZ Myers
- Probably down a few dollars in legal fees
- Gained more readers (I know I have started reading his blog more)
- Held and holds the morale high ground
- Is still an excellent blogger
- Has increased the usage of the word "crackpot"
Pivar
- Most likely lost more money on a lawyer that doesn't seem to be very good
- Has now managed to get himself laughed at by the entire internet
- Would not have sold any copies of his book
- Quit the suit in a really wimpy way
- Will most likely now be known as "crackpot" for ever and ever
So as we can see PZ Myers clearly won this battle nearly all his points that are there are good ones, so we can give him +4. Pivar on the other hand has many negative points (you can see the bias...) so he gets -5. So the difference is 9, which would be say, an 'Epic Victory', in a complete and arbitrary point of view.
Sunday, 26 August 2007
Citizenship test?
I heard this on the news at work.
Australia will be introducing a citizenship test
Now we are more like the Americans and Canadians.
People will have to know something about Australia like our Capital city (Canberra) or what is on our coat of arms (Kangaroo and Emu, but I know that because we also eat them (but I haven't had Emu yet, I guess it might taste like big chicken...))
One of the funnier ones involves our national anthem.
As a semi sidetrack I will point out that our national anthem is called Advance Australia Fair.
The two verses that are sung are:
Now there are some small things that you have to note. The first is that in official events you sit and listen to them play the tune once through and then you sing the first verse.
The second is that most Australians don't know the anthem.
I know both verses because I used to sing in a Choir (when I still had that young boys voice) and at big events we would sing the anthem, both verses.
The Age has 20 of the possible 200 questions that may be asked. The test has 20 out of a possible 200 that can be asked so if you are a person trying to become a citizen maybe you should learn these ones and hope you are lucky...
Anyway number four is:
4. What is the first line of Australia's national anthem?
What makes this funny is that, unlike in the US where my understanding is that an immigrant will know more about their constitution then an American, an immigrant who wants to become an Australian will learn the part of the national anthem that most Australians know.
So we will pretty much all be equal.
When you listen to a country sing it's national anthem you can usually make out what they are saying (unless you don't understand the language that well). Lets choose a national anthem almost at random. The German one.
Germans know their national anthem, many also know the first verse, the one they aren't allowed to sing.
What the Germans use as their national anthem is the third verse which is this:
Compare that to what you would hear from the Australians. I once heard this as a joke but it is perfectly true:
I would continue but I don't know how to exactly write it down. It is more of an unintelligible drawl in tune to the music. So really an immigrant needs to know the first verse, how to sound like they are singing and know where to put the word 'girt' which most don't know what it means (surrounded/encircled/etc.) but seem to be able to sing clearly.
Probably because girt doesn't make a good drawl sound.
I think there should be an even easier citizenship test. They learn the national anthem and then have to sing it to people. If they sing it clearly and well then they aren't allowed in and if they can't sing it we welcome them into the fold.
It is like Tripod's "New Aussie Anthem"
1. In what year did Federation take place?
A: 1901, January 1st to be exact.
2. Which day of the year is Australia Day?
A: January 26th
3. Who was the first Prime Minister of Australia?
A: Edmund Barton. Not many people know that in fact more people know the first president of the US, so the government ran some commercials in 2000-1 so inform people about our first PM.
5. What is the floral emblem of Australia?
A: The Wattle if I remember correctly, that is where we get the sporting colours of green and gold.
6. What is the population of Australia?
A: Last time I checked it was about 21 million.
7. In what city is the Parliament House of the Commonwealth Parliament located?
A: Canberra, the city of too many roundabouts and not enough traffic lights.
8. Who is the Queen's representative in Australia?
A: The Governor General, but I don't know his name.
9. How are Members of Parliament chosen?
A: Election
10. Who do Members of Parliament represent?
A: I guess the correct answer is the people, but I think for many the party they are from is more apt.
11. After a federal election, who forms the new government?
A: For the last 10 years a 'coalition'. And I suspect that it will be the same again after this years election. It is whoever has the majority of seats in Parliament.
12. What are the colours on the Australian flag?
A: Blue, white, red
13. Who is the head of the Australian Government?
A: The Prime Minister, who is currently called John but if Labor is lucky the PM will be called Kevin. Could you imagine the insults? Ruddy Kevin Rudd...
14. What are the three levels of government in Australia?
A: Local, state, federal
15. In what year did the European settlement of Australia start?
A: Officially 1788, when the First Fleet arrived.
16. Serving on a jury if required is a responsibility of Australian citizenship: true or false?
A: Apparently
17. In Australia, everyone is free to practise the religion of their choice, or practise no religion: true of false?
A: True, unless you are a Muslim then you can practice your religion but will also face insults for being a Muslim by the racist yobs.
18. To be elected to the Commonwealth Parliament you must be an Australian citizen: true or false?
A: True. Which is why I am divided on the Shane Warne becoming a German thing. I mean I don't want him to become a German because he is jerk, and it will reflect badly on me here due to cricket loving bogans (Oh you're German, just like Shane Warne...) but I don't really want him to go into Australian politics which is apparently something that he wants to do.
19. As an Australian citizen, I have the right to register my baby born overseas as an Australian citizen: true or false?
A: I wouldn't know. I think that is true.
20. Australian citizens aged 18 years or over are required to enrol on the electoral register: true or false?
A: True, however in South Australia you are on;y required by law to enrol on the federal register not the state one, but we aren't given the option of not registering on the state register.
Who knows, maybe I got the 12 out of 20 to pass the test...
I think this is my first post where I have used both 'Musings' and 'Silliness' as a tag...
Australia will be introducing a citizenship test
Now we are more like the Americans and Canadians.
People will have to know something about Australia like our Capital city (Canberra) or what is on our coat of arms (Kangaroo and Emu, but I know that because we also eat them (but I haven't had Emu yet, I guess it might taste like big chicken...))
One of the funnier ones involves our national anthem.
As a semi sidetrack I will point out that our national anthem is called Advance Australia Fair.
The two verses that are sung are:
- Australians all let us rejoice,
- For we are young and free;
- We've golden soil and wealth for toil,
- Our home is girt by sea;
- Our land abounds in Nature's gifts
- Of beauty rich and rare;
- In history's page, let every stage
- Advance Australia fair!
- In joyful strains then let us sing,
- "Advance Australia fair!"
- Beneath our radiant southern Cross,
- We'll toil with hearts and hands;
- To make this Commonwealth of ours
- Renowned of all the lands;
- For those who've come across the seas
- We've boundless plains to share;
- With courage let us all combine
- To advance Australia fair.
- In joyful strains then let us sing
- "Advance Australia fair!"
Now there are some small things that you have to note. The first is that in official events you sit and listen to them play the tune once through and then you sing the first verse.
The second is that most Australians don't know the anthem.
I know both verses because I used to sing in a Choir (when I still had that young boys voice) and at big events we would sing the anthem, both verses.
The Age has 20 of the possible 200 questions that may be asked. The test has 20 out of a possible 200 that can be asked so if you are a person trying to become a citizen maybe you should learn these ones and hope you are lucky...
Anyway number four is:
4. What is the first line of Australia's national anthem?
What makes this funny is that, unlike in the US where my understanding is that an immigrant will know more about their constitution then an American, an immigrant who wants to become an Australian will learn the part of the national anthem that most Australians know.
So we will pretty much all be equal.
When you listen to a country sing it's national anthem you can usually make out what they are saying (unless you don't understand the language that well). Lets choose a national anthem almost at random. The German one.
Germans know their national anthem, many also know the first verse, the one they aren't allowed to sing.
What the Germans use as their national anthem is the third verse which is this:
Einigkeit und Recht und FreiheitNow you will pretty much understand what they are going on about here.
für das deutsche Vaterland!
Danach laßt uns alle streben
brüderlich mit Herz und Hand!
Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
sind des Glückes Unterpfand;
Blüh im Glanze dieses Glückes,
blühe, deutsches Vaterland.
Compare that to what you would hear from the Australians. I once heard this as a joke but it is perfectly true:
Australians all let us rejoice
For we ar yun an re
Wi gowden soi an welf for toil
Our ome e girt i c
...
I would continue but I don't know how to exactly write it down. It is more of an unintelligible drawl in tune to the music. So really an immigrant needs to know the first verse, how to sound like they are singing and know where to put the word 'girt' which most don't know what it means (surrounded/encircled/etc.) but seem to be able to sing clearly.
Probably because girt doesn't make a good drawl sound.
I think there should be an even easier citizenship test. They learn the national anthem and then have to sing it to people. If they sing it clearly and well then they aren't allowed in and if they can't sing it we welcome them into the fold.
It is like Tripod's "New Aussie Anthem"
So we all need to raise our voice and say:The rest of the questions are:
(mumble mumble mumble mumble)... ay!
1. In what year did Federation take place?
A: 1901, January 1st to be exact.
2. Which day of the year is Australia Day?
A: January 26th
3. Who was the first Prime Minister of Australia?
A: Edmund Barton. Not many people know that in fact more people know the first president of the US, so the government ran some commercials in 2000-1 so inform people about our first PM.
5. What is the floral emblem of Australia?
A: The Wattle if I remember correctly, that is where we get the sporting colours of green and gold.
6. What is the population of Australia?
A: Last time I checked it was about 21 million.
7. In what city is the Parliament House of the Commonwealth Parliament located?
A: Canberra, the city of too many roundabouts and not enough traffic lights.
8. Who is the Queen's representative in Australia?
A: The Governor General, but I don't know his name.
9. How are Members of Parliament chosen?
A: Election
10. Who do Members of Parliament represent?
A: I guess the correct answer is the people, but I think for many the party they are from is more apt.
11. After a federal election, who forms the new government?
A: For the last 10 years a 'coalition'. And I suspect that it will be the same again after this years election. It is whoever has the majority of seats in Parliament.
12. What are the colours on the Australian flag?
A: Blue, white, red
13. Who is the head of the Australian Government?
A: The Prime Minister, who is currently called John but if Labor is lucky the PM will be called Kevin. Could you imagine the insults? Ruddy Kevin Rudd...
14. What are the three levels of government in Australia?
A: Local, state, federal
15. In what year did the European settlement of Australia start?
A: Officially 1788, when the First Fleet arrived.
16. Serving on a jury if required is a responsibility of Australian citizenship: true or false?
A: Apparently
17. In Australia, everyone is free to practise the religion of their choice, or practise no religion: true of false?
A: True, unless you are a Muslim then you can practice your religion but will also face insults for being a Muslim by the racist yobs.
18. To be elected to the Commonwealth Parliament you must be an Australian citizen: true or false?
A: True. Which is why I am divided on the Shane Warne becoming a German thing. I mean I don't want him to become a German because he is jerk, and it will reflect badly on me here due to cricket loving bogans (Oh you're German, just like Shane Warne...) but I don't really want him to go into Australian politics which is apparently something that he wants to do.
19. As an Australian citizen, I have the right to register my baby born overseas as an Australian citizen: true or false?
A: I wouldn't know. I think that is true.
20. Australian citizens aged 18 years or over are required to enrol on the electoral register: true or false?
A: True, however in South Australia you are on;y required by law to enrol on the federal register not the state one, but we aren't given the option of not registering on the state register.
Who knows, maybe I got the 12 out of 20 to pass the test...
I think this is my first post where I have used both 'Musings' and 'Silliness' as a tag...
Saturday, 25 August 2007
A Review
Just to ruin my lovely long post I will post a review of a novella that I have just finished reading. So just skip down to the next post.
The story is called Stuart Pivar v. Seed Media Group LLC and Paul Z Myers and can be found in PDF format here. It is the first in the "Crackpot" series of books by the current author, the United States District Court Southern District of New York, with help from the lawyers of Stuart Pivar.
Although only 10 pages long the reader will be taken on an emotional ride of apathy, confusion, happiness, sadness and fear.
There are some funny points where the book makes reference to real facts that are distorted to represent a fantasy life of a man who feels that he has been screwed over by another and decides to sue the other and his organisation for US$15 million.
At this stage we have the opening, where the man has submitted his complaint to the court system to get the other man to shut up.
He puts forth pretend anxiety to the court so that he may get some sort of pity but then demands that if he wins that the other man will have his mouth sewn so that he may never criticise anyone ever again.
As you move through the tale you will need to look up some supplementary material which is available free off the web. Just google for it, or look on other posts here.
From a plot perspective the tale is rather bland, and contains a bias towards the character called 'Plaintiff' but I suspect that any further books in the series will be more balanced.
Overall I would give this book two stars, it just doesn't stand up on it's own.
The story is called Stuart Pivar v. Seed Media Group LLC and Paul Z Myers and can be found in PDF format here. It is the first in the "Crackpot" series of books by the current author, the United States District Court Southern District of New York, with help from the lawyers of Stuart Pivar.
Although only 10 pages long the reader will be taken on an emotional ride of apathy, confusion, happiness, sadness and fear.
There are some funny points where the book makes reference to real facts that are distorted to represent a fantasy life of a man who feels that he has been screwed over by another and decides to sue the other and his organisation for US$15 million.
At this stage we have the opening, where the man has submitted his complaint to the court system to get the other man to shut up.
He puts forth pretend anxiety to the court so that he may get some sort of pity but then demands that if he wins that the other man will have his mouth sewn so that he may never criticise anyone ever again.
As you move through the tale you will need to look up some supplementary material which is available free off the web. Just google for it, or look on other posts here.
From a plot perspective the tale is rather bland, and contains a bias towards the character called 'Plaintiff' but I suspect that any further books in the series will be more balanced.
Overall I would give this book two stars, it just doesn't stand up on it's own.
Friday, 24 August 2007
Yes it is. Here is the complaint to prove it.
This is the more informative part of the PZ Myer "lawsuit", the one where I have read the things that I should have read last time but needed sleep.
Now reading some comments I heard that some real media sources said something about this. Too bad us bloggers have decided to talk about it.
The closest that I seem to have found is that the blog for Scientific American has said something.
Now nicking this link from PT takes us to the complaint in question.
I might as well point out now that the plaintiff is Stuart Pivar. The guy who wrote the book Lifecode. It is the review that has caused all the problems.
Reading the complaint I see many facts that seem to be completely pointless to me, I would say that paragraph 10 in the complaint (3rd fact point) could really be some sort of appeal to authority.
Paragraph 10 states:
As I said, what is the relevance for this?
But back to the point.
Here is the review by PZ Myers (Which is a repost). Here is another comment posted on the same day.
The biggest problem is that they don't mention in the complaint which post they are complaining about, the review, or the reasoning behind reposting the review. I suspect that it is the latter because the facts seem to fit it.
Paragraph 15 is the really the start of the matter at hand.
Paragraph 15 states:
(The hyperlink has been added in by me and is to the correct address).
Now then, from what I can see the post in question has no attack whatsoever, and can hardly be called vicious. The closest thing that I can even see as an attack is the use of the tag 'kooks' but bloggers everywhere should know that tags are completely opinionated. I could write a post about someone and use the tag 'wanker' if I wanted to (not that I ever will or may the almighty Google delete my blog), but it has no bearing on the actual person. But that is probably a false analogy.
What PZ Myers seems to have said is that the whole premise of the book is flawed.
The second post is just his annoyance about the media giving a book that has an idea that he thinks is completely pointless any time whatsoever. I see no attack just some criticism.
Paragraph 16 states:
Last I checked in countries with freedom of speech that is not a crime. There are far worse words that you can use to insult someone. Does that mean that a psychic will sue James Randi for calling their stuff "woo-woo"? Or homoeopaths suing because he claims that their 'medicine' is a hoax?
Paragraph 17 states:
PZ disagreed with the argument, he is allowed to do that.
Paragraph 18 continues with the supposed defamatory remarks somehow coming up with the conclusion that Myers somehow holds complete sway over the entire scientific community and that by calling Pivar a "crackpot" means that his endorsements will somehow go away.
Paragraph 20 made me laugh:
Now Pivar is the founder of Chem-tainer Industries (paragraph 9) , a business that has absolutely nothing to do with matters of biological research. I honestly doubt that people would stop business with his company because he has ideas that have been called 'crackpot'. It doesn't stop the other crackpots now doesn't it?
The same goes for Philanthropy. I am sure that nobody there would care that he has published a book that has been labelled as 'crackpot', it isn't as if he had committed mass murder or something like that.
The biggest irony is that he is really shot himself in the foot here. People would have read the entry by Myers, thought little of it, perhaps even bought the book so they could read for themselves what this guy was going on about and that would have been it. Now pretty much the entire blogosphere is talking about it, he is now being ridiculed because he decided to embark on a frivolous lawsuit.
Paragraph 21 cites the case McFaddn v United States Fidelity and Guarantee Company as possible precedent claiming that "crackpot" can be a slanderous term. Looking around (and managing to find something from Richard Dawkins) it looks like the case never went further then the Mississippi Court of Appeals, which means that they are citing non-binding precedent because I assume, as it is done here, only federal courts can produce binding precedent.
Paragraph 22 says that Myers has just decided to keep on attacking the book.
Paragraph 23 says:
However they do not say what information Tyson received or why he wanted his comments removed. I managed to find them on Butterflies and Wheels, which found that the quotes were either taken out of context and made up.
Pivar had a few people to support the book, Richard Milner, Robert Hazen, Brian Goodwin, Dimitar Sasselov and Neil de Grasse Taylor. Taylor decided to have his comments taken off the website because they were false and it seems that Pivar has somehow attributed lying on his part into "PZ Myers convinced him through ad hominems". PZ Myers himself stated that he received a copy of the book to review ("Instead, Pivar sent me a copy of his book to review, so I'll focus on that.").
Also notice that if you look at the reviews section the one from Hazen is the longest on that page but he admits that he is not an expert in "this area of topology and mechanics" he says many things that make little sense to me but all the reviews no matter how long are supportive of the claims so what is wrong with a dissenting view.
Because of his standing in the blog community (He is considered the best of the science blogs) I suspect that Pivar would have thought that it would have been good to get a positive review from him, but it backfired when the brutally honest review (paragraph 19 says that Myers has described himself as a cruel and insensitive person), was a negative one.
So Pivar writes another version of Lifecode called Lifecode:From egg to embryo by self-organization which received an "even worse" comment. This would have annoyed him so he ends up with the decision to sue PZ Myers, which really is shooting himself in the foot.
He didn't get the result that he wanted and is now trying to get his revenge.
Paragraphs 24 - 27 are there to try and argue why the parent company is at fault.
Paragraph 28 says that Pivar mentions (on July 17 2007) that Myers had reviewed the earlier book.
All I can say is the Myers seems to have been getting messages from Pivar well before the second review came out.
This is the link to the second review, which is another negative one.
Paragraph 30 states:
From a guy who has been bullied in the past let me tell you something. A bad review is nothing. If I could choose between getting a bad review or having a mob of people yelling names at me I would choose the review.
Paragraph 31 is trying to say that Myers has ruined the work of Pivar as a scientist, who I guess is most likely more at home in a Chemistry lab then a Biological one.
Paragraph 32 states:
(I added the [US])
Now from what I understand the suit is for US$15 million. So I guess the breakdown is US$5 million for supposed people not buying the book, and him not getting money for research. Even according to Amazon.com's "About the Author section, Pivar has no credentials in Biology. It says Physics, Mathematics, Chemical and Mechanical engineering.
In all honesty I doubt that he would get research grants for Biological work.
The final paragraph of fact, 33, claims that he has:
Well the public ridicule of him would really have increased since he decided to slap a lawsuit on PZ Myers and SMG and the other things are just complete rubbish from a guy who is trying to garner sympathy or is someone who can't handle criticism.
The declaratory relief says that he wants Myers to remove anything negative written about Pivar from his blog. What an interesting way to silence critics. If that happens then I will willingly give space on my blog for PZ Myers to post whatever the hell he wants and I am sure that others would be willing to do so as well.
The second claim is about business interference and the US$5 million.
The third claim is where the rest of the money appears, the US$10 million. That is damages for libel per se.
The next section is where it gets scary. Under 'Prayer for Relief' comes the reasons what Pivar wants to get out of this. I will copy this herein:
It also would open the door up to other lawsuits against other people who criticise someone, even in book reviews where the book was sent to the reviewer by the author personally. It would also turn the US blogosphere upside down because they cannot say things that criticise.
Blogs are primarily an opinonative thing, we are not the proper media, we write about things we want to write about, we are not the news where we must be completely neutral on all issues, what makes a blog great, like Pharyngula or PT, Baghdad Burning or the BABlog. We know that they have a bias, but that is what makes them good to read, they have viewpoints that they support or don't support because they are written by real people, from real places in the world, about issues and situations that are important to them.
Do you really want to see that disappear in a blink of an eye?
Now reading some comments I heard that some real media sources said something about this. Too bad us bloggers have decided to talk about it.
The closest that I seem to have found is that the blog for Scientific American has said something.
Now nicking this link from PT takes us to the complaint in question.
I might as well point out now that the plaintiff is Stuart Pivar. The guy who wrote the book Lifecode. It is the review that has caused all the problems.
Reading the complaint I see many facts that seem to be completely pointless to me, I would say that paragraph 10 in the complaint (3rd fact point) could really be some sort of appeal to authority.
Paragraph 10 states:
In 1982, with the late, celebrated artist, Andy Warhol, Plaintiff co-founded and provided the initial funding for the New York Academy of Art, a classical graduate school for painting and sculpture, whose current patron is H.R.H. Charles, Prince of Wales
As I said, what is the relevance for this?
But back to the point.
Here is the review by PZ Myers (Which is a repost). Here is another comment posted on the same day.
The biggest problem is that they don't mention in the complaint which post they are complaining about, the review, or the reasoning behind reposting the review. I suspect that it is the latter because the facts seem to fit it.
Paragraph 15 is the really the start of the matter at hand.
Paragraph 15 states:
On July 12, 2007, Defendant Myers launched a vicious attack on the integrity of Plaintiff's work on Myers' "Pharyngula" webiste, found on the internet at www.pharyngula.com.
(The hyperlink has been added in by me and is to the correct address).
Now then, from what I can see the post in question has no attack whatsoever, and can hardly be called vicious. The closest thing that I can even see as an attack is the use of the tag 'kooks' but bloggers everywhere should know that tags are completely opinionated. I could write a post about someone and use the tag 'wanker' if I wanted to (not that I ever will or may the almighty Google delete my blog), but it has no bearing on the actual person. But that is probably a false analogy.
What PZ Myers seems to have said is that the whole premise of the book is flawed.
The second post is just his annoyance about the media giving a book that has an idea that he thinks is completely pointless any time whatsoever. I see no attack just some criticism.
Paragraph 16 states:
On July 12, 2007, Defendant Myers maliciously, and without cause, defamed Plaintiff by referring him to as "a classic crackpot"
Last I checked in countries with freedom of speech that is not a crime. There are far worse words that you can use to insult someone. Does that mean that a psychic will sue James Randi for calling their stuff "woo-woo"? Or homoeopaths suing because he claims that their 'medicine' is a hoax?
Paragraph 17 states:
Upon information and belief, Defendant Myers' references to Plaintiff as "a classic crackpot" were necessarily intended to disparage Plaintiff's abilities as a scientific enquirer and were intended to hold Plaintiff up to ridicule and embarrassment in this specific area of Plaintiff's professional endeavors.
PZ disagreed with the argument, he is allowed to do that.
Paragraph 18 continues with the supposed defamatory remarks somehow coming up with the conclusion that Myers somehow holds complete sway over the entire scientific community and that by calling Pivar a "crackpot" means that his endorsements will somehow go away.
Paragraph 20 made me laugh:
Because Defendant Myers' defamation of Plaintiff has been disseminated widely throughout the world, his remarks were also likely and possibly intended to hold the Plaintiff up to ridicule in his business relationships as an industrialist, Plaintiff's social relationships and in his activities as a philanthropist
Now Pivar is the founder of Chem-tainer Industries (paragraph 9) , a business that has absolutely nothing to do with matters of biological research. I honestly doubt that people would stop business with his company because he has ideas that have been called 'crackpot'. It doesn't stop the other crackpots now doesn't it?
The same goes for Philanthropy. I am sure that nobody there would care that he has published a book that has been labelled as 'crackpot', it isn't as if he had committed mass murder or something like that.
The biggest irony is that he is really shot himself in the foot here. People would have read the entry by Myers, thought little of it, perhaps even bought the book so they could read for themselves what this guy was going on about and that would have been it. Now pretty much the entire blogosphere is talking about it, he is now being ridiculed because he decided to embark on a frivolous lawsuit.
Paragraph 21 cites the case McFaddn v United States Fidelity and Guarantee Company as possible precedent claiming that "crackpot" can be a slanderous term. Looking around (and managing to find something from Richard Dawkins) it looks like the case never went further then the Mississippi Court of Appeals, which means that they are citing non-binding precedent because I assume, as it is done here, only federal courts can produce binding precedent.
Paragraph 22 says that Myers has just decided to keep on attacking the book.
Paragraph 23 says:
Upon information and belief, [Neil de Grasse Tyson] has withdrawn any previous review of Plaintiff's work in relation to Lifecode due to the unwarranted and vitriolic attacks Defendant Myers has made on Lifecode and Plaintiff personally.
However they do not say what information Tyson received or why he wanted his comments removed. I managed to find them on Butterflies and Wheels, which found that the quotes were either taken out of context and made up.
Pivar had a few people to support the book, Richard Milner, Robert Hazen, Brian Goodwin, Dimitar Sasselov and Neil de Grasse Taylor. Taylor decided to have his comments taken off the website because they were false and it seems that Pivar has somehow attributed lying on his part into "PZ Myers convinced him through ad hominems". PZ Myers himself stated that he received a copy of the book to review ("Instead, Pivar sent me a copy of his book to review, so I'll focus on that.").
Also notice that if you look at the reviews section the one from Hazen is the longest on that page but he admits that he is not an expert in "this area of topology and mechanics" he says many things that make little sense to me but all the reviews no matter how long are supportive of the claims so what is wrong with a dissenting view.
Because of his standing in the blog community (He is considered the best of the science blogs) I suspect that Pivar would have thought that it would have been good to get a positive review from him, but it backfired when the brutally honest review (paragraph 19 says that Myers has described himself as a cruel and insensitive person), was a negative one.
So Pivar writes another version of Lifecode called Lifecode:From egg to embryo by self-organization which received an "even worse" comment. This would have annoyed him so he ends up with the decision to sue PZ Myers, which really is shooting himself in the foot.
He didn't get the result that he wanted and is now trying to get his revenge.
Paragraphs 24 - 27 are there to try and argue why the parent company is at fault.
Paragraph 28 says that Pivar mentions (on July 17 2007) that Myers had reviewed the earlier book.
All I can say is the Myers seems to have been getting messages from Pivar well before the second review came out.
This is the link to the second review, which is another negative one.
Paragraph 30 states:
Defendant Myers' defamatory remarks have caused the Plaintiff considerable mental and emotional distress
From a guy who has been bullied in the past let me tell you something. A bad review is nothing. If I could choose between getting a bad review or having a mob of people yelling names at me I would choose the review.
Paragraph 31 is trying to say that Myers has ruined the work of Pivar as a scientist, who I guess is most likely more at home in a Chemistry lab then a Biological one.
Paragraph 32 states:
By reason of the defamatory comments written by Defendant Myers and published by SMG, Plaintiff has been damaged by loss of book sales and diminished return of ten years of funded scientific research in special damages, a sum in excess of [US]$5 million.
(I added the [US])
Now from what I understand the suit is for US$15 million. So I guess the breakdown is US$5 million for supposed people not buying the book, and him not getting money for research. Even according to Amazon.com's "About the Author section, Pivar has no credentials in Biology. It says Physics, Mathematics, Chemical and Mechanical engineering.
In all honesty I doubt that he would get research grants for Biological work.
The final paragraph of fact, 33, claims that he has:
[Suffered], inter alia, the special damages referenced in Paragraph 30 supra, and gross impairment of his good name, public embarrassment, humiliation, impairment to his professional reputation, public impairment of his abilities and integrity, anxiety, emotional upset and public ridicule.
Well the public ridicule of him would really have increased since he decided to slap a lawsuit on PZ Myers and SMG and the other things are just complete rubbish from a guy who is trying to garner sympathy or is someone who can't handle criticism.
The declaratory relief says that he wants Myers to remove anything negative written about Pivar from his blog. What an interesting way to silence critics. If that happens then I will willingly give space on my blog for PZ Myers to post whatever the hell he wants and I am sure that others would be willing to do so as well.
The second claim is about business interference and the US$5 million.
The third claim is where the rest of the money appears, the US$10 million. That is damages for libel per se.
The next section is where it gets scary. Under 'Prayer for Relief' comes the reasons what Pivar wants to get out of this. I will copy this herein:
PRAYER FOR RELIEFWhat makes the whole thing scary is that would silence Myers from posting anything on his blog that criticises Pivar. Which may leave Pivar open to write a whole bunch of crap and pass it off as science.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully demands this court enter judgement in its favor and against Defendants Myers and SMG as follows:
1. Enjoining permanently the Defendants from making any future defamatory statements about the Plaintiff and immediately removing any remaining defamatory statements from their websites
2. Awarding on the Second Claim for such compensatory and punitive damages for the Defendants tortious interference with Plaintiff's business relationships as a jury may impost, but at least the sum of [US]$5 million, that constitutes Plaintiff's special damages.
3. Awarding on the Third Claim, such compensatory and punitive damages, inter alia for emotional distress and loss of reputation of at least [US]$10 million, or any sum as the jury may impost.
4. Granting such other and further relief as the Court seems just and proper, including the costs of this action.
It also would open the door up to other lawsuits against other people who criticise someone, even in book reviews where the book was sent to the reviewer by the author personally. It would also turn the US blogosphere upside down because they cannot say things that criticise.
Blogs are primarily an opinonative thing, we are not the proper media, we write about things we want to write about, we are not the news where we must be completely neutral on all issues, what makes a blog great, like Pharyngula or PT, Baghdad Burning or the BABlog. We know that they have a bias, but that is what makes them good to read, they have viewpoints that they support or don't support because they are written by real people, from real places in the world, about issues and situations that are important to them.
Do you really want to see that disappear in a blink of an eye?
Thursday, 23 August 2007
Frivilous?
I found this on The Panda's Thumb.
It isn't really nice to hear.
At this point in time it is rather late here so I won't say too much at the moment in regards to facts, my opinions however can and most likely will make me late for my Marine Science lecture tomorrow.
PZ Myers, the excellent author of scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/>Pharyngula has come under attack because he decided to be honest when he wrote a review on a book written by some creationist.
So now he and Seed magazine are under attack by this guy who is claiming, supposedly that PZ Myers (Who has nothing to say on the matter) used the review to ridicule the guy who wrote the book that he was reviewing.
So what?
If I write a really bad book should I honestly expect that the reviewer to be really nice and not hurt my feelings?
If I do then I am thinking like a complete idiot.
Now here in Australia we all know that we have some rights, although technically not enshrined anywhere (the Constitution lists two fully if I remember correctly and touches on a third one) but we know that there is a point where you can't do a thing when it comes to words.
There are some problems, like a fencing company having to take down a sign for a supposed rude word even though it is a rather clever play on the word 'erection'. If you have thought of anything except building fences, then, shame on you.
In the US from what I hear there seems to be a very weird way of doing things. It seems that you have a right to say whatever the hell you want, but you can't insult someone?
I love how there are blatant contradictions of freedoms like this.
I don't know what was written because I haven't looked yet, but I do know that as long as PZ was within the law, and I feel confident in saying from what I have read of his blog, he has, he can say whatever he wants.
If he gave the book a poor review then he gave it a poor review.
No need to sue someone over it.
Or supposedly claim "considerable mental and emotional distress" and demand financial damages.
Having your name run into the ground by the media for something you didn't do, that causes "considerable mental and emotional distress, getting a bad review doesn't. Most authors get bad reviews once in a while, they don't sue people over it.
It's like asking for US$15 million for financial compensation...
...
oh, yeah that is the amount he is being sued for...
...
Now US$15 million is a ridiculous amount to ask for after being given one bad review. It's quite like asking for $7 million because your $2 clothes peg broke. The amount wouldn't even fit a proper slander crime in this case.
There is one good thing though. If the media start going on about it there would be a lot of free publicity for PZ Myers, and they say that any publicity is good publicity.
Unless you happen to be that US Gridiron player who pleaded guilty to the dog fighting ring...
It isn't really nice to hear.
At this point in time it is rather late here so I won't say too much at the moment in regards to facts, my opinions however can and most likely will make me late for my Marine Science lecture tomorrow.
PZ Myers, the excellent author of scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/>Pharyngula has come under attack because he decided to be honest when he wrote a review on a book written by some creationist.
So now he and Seed magazine are under attack by this guy who is claiming, supposedly that PZ Myers (Who has nothing to say on the matter) used the review to ridicule the guy who wrote the book that he was reviewing.
So what?
If I write a really bad book should I honestly expect that the reviewer to be really nice and not hurt my feelings?
If I do then I am thinking like a complete idiot.
Now here in Australia we all know that we have some rights, although technically not enshrined anywhere (the Constitution lists two fully if I remember correctly and touches on a third one) but we know that there is a point where you can't do a thing when it comes to words.
There are some problems, like a fencing company having to take down a sign for a supposed rude word even though it is a rather clever play on the word 'erection'. If you have thought of anything except building fences, then, shame on you.
In the US from what I hear there seems to be a very weird way of doing things. It seems that you have a right to say whatever the hell you want, but you can't insult someone?
I love how there are blatant contradictions of freedoms like this.
I don't know what was written because I haven't looked yet, but I do know that as long as PZ was within the law, and I feel confident in saying from what I have read of his blog, he has, he can say whatever he wants.
If he gave the book a poor review then he gave it a poor review.
No need to sue someone over it.
Or supposedly claim "considerable mental and emotional distress" and demand financial damages.
Having your name run into the ground by the media for something you didn't do, that causes "considerable mental and emotional distress, getting a bad review doesn't. Most authors get bad reviews once in a while, they don't sue people over it.
It's like asking for US$15 million for financial compensation...
...
oh, yeah that is the amount he is being sued for...
...
Now US$15 million is a ridiculous amount to ask for after being given one bad review. It's quite like asking for $7 million because your $2 clothes peg broke. The amount wouldn't even fit a proper slander crime in this case.
There is one good thing though. If the media start going on about it there would be a lot of free publicity for PZ Myers, and they say that any publicity is good publicity.
Unless you happen to be that US Gridiron player who pleaded guilty to the dog fighting ring...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)