Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

More censorship from the government, this time in Vic.

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by grue, May 31, 2011.

  1. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/big-fines-for-those-who-cry-foul-20110530-1fctb.html

    And under laws set to be introduced to State Parliament this week, Victoria Police will get permanent powers to slap potty-mouthed perpetrators with on-the-spot fines of up to $240 for using language deemed to be indecent, disorderly, offensive or threatening.

    Give me a ****ing break you goddamned pussies. They are WORDS.
  2. Next is enforcing pre-crime.
    And it is coming.
  3. It's called upholding community standards; now limp-wristed magistrates won't be able to acquit foul-mouthed low-lifes who abuse the Police, a good thing.
  4. Just like Tom Cruise :)

    I think popo and their eazy to bruise ego would start fining people for "looking at them funny" :nopity::nopity:..................****en pussys
  5. Censorship is never, ever a good thing. Any cop offended by someone calling him names should suck start a shotgun, he is too much of a sissy to do his job.

    The lack of protected freedom of speech is far more disgusting than any words can ever be.
  6. The law has always been there, and for the past 3 years a trial has been run to allow On The Spot fines to be issued to avoid tying up the courts. This week the trial will be changed to a permanent Infringement Notice.

    Not quite what the OP said, nor something to get wound up about. No "law" is set to be introduced, just a confirmation of current procedures :-({|=
  7. it really is the nanny state down there. liberal govt's always try this sort of bullshit....dont they realise it limits their electability?
  8. Welp, either way it's crap, just like every single thing the government seems to do. A fine and a trial are both unacceptable. I look forward to celebrating the deaths of the people involved whenever they get around to dying.

    In fact, why aren't they getting fined for offending me with their cryptofascist crap?
  9. Sadly, it doesn't. The public as a whole join together to become the drooling retard version of Voltron or something when it comes to elections.

    Not to mention voting doesn't work anyway.
  10. No, it's called upholding a false sense of community standards.
  11. no, it is upholding the standards of the community in general, standards which underpin our laws and which make this the safest country in the world in which to live
  12. Real community standards, based on observation.

    Drinking to excess.
    Living beyond your means.
    Doing what you can to bring successful people down a peg.
    Imposing the restrictions you want in your life on other people.
  13. The laws concerning what actually constitutes offensive language haven't been tightened or changed, so this is not really about more censorship as such. It's about transferring more power from the courts to the police.
    That's my concern. This is only a small matter, but it's another one where po po are now the judges of fact. You'll probably still get the option of a hearing if you choose, at the risk of expenses.

    Vicpol will accept this minor elevation in status without complaint, but I believe its mainly an attempt to cut court costs and waiting times by the government.

    I wonder if ABC will get charged next time 'Deadwood' is screened?
  14. Nowt to do with the Liberal Gummint: it is a 3 year trial started in 2008 by the Labor Gummint

    Not that you would expect The Age to miss a chance to have a pop at Ballieu ;)

    Shame the facts get in the way of a good beat-up.
  15. I don't know. I thought they we're being too generous by suggesting Baillieu had an agenda at all... :p
  16. Isn't there a court ruling from last year that would set a precedent against this? If I remember correctly, a case in which a man swore and the police and was subsequently charged was thrown out because "it was to be expected" or something along those linse. How can a court let someone off for swearing at the police, and yet the police can fine people for swearing?
  17. I suspect the clue is in the question Batman.
  18. Ok, that wasn't the greatest of posts. I'll try again: how can the police fine you for something a court has ruled acceptible. Does that makes sense? Am I just saying the same thing? Why am I Batman? :S
  19. I'll think you'll find it was only a Magistrates decision, not a higher court, so it's not really a precedent. More just a public awareness. Also I'm not sure it was Victoria.

    They claim they are doing it to help free up the Police and the court. If they really were doing that, they would have repealed the law, not created a TIN mechanism.

    No, this is about cementing a certain voting demographic and the added benefit of raising revenue. They know that many people will just pay it, not realising they now have a criminal record.

    Meanwhile the police get even more power, when they already have too much.

    Another step toward the revolution
  20. What you call foul mouthed others may call 'normal use of anglo-saxon words'.

    If you are being abusive, then fair enough, but if you are simply using a word to express yourself where is the issue.

    Most words that are consider '4 letter' or 'rude' words are infact old
    Anglo-Saxon words. The longer words used to describe the same thing are generally Norman (French).