Woah woah woah, how is society in any way benefiting from a journalist publishing that sort of information.Of course it should be illegal and it reflects very badly on anyone who says otherwise.
To avoid having the argument you shift the burden of proof and then assert the axiom whilst simultaneously throwing in a weak ad-hom against anyone who disagrees. CLASSIC BOS POSTING.
And there is no consensual agreement to give evidence under oath you can be subpoena'd and held for contempt if you refuse.
If only we had some way of protecting people against compelled self-incrimination.
Except when you don't, in the instance of privileged information for example in which you said a private contract could mitigate it.
A private contract provides methods for establishing a grievance in court. We're going to wander down that wonderful social contract Rousseauian slippery slope so I'll give that a miss for now.
freedom of speech I agree with. You don't think Price has valid concerns about the SES of Indigenous communities? Or are you taking the equally offensive viewpoint that she's News Ltd's pet aborigine?
In terms of this Bolt case I don't really see it as a free speech argument in the way that it's been framed. I see the real weakness as the clauses of the RDA that grant damages when offense has been made against an individual along biological lines. Bolt would have had protection under the 'fair comment' clause of the act if he had bothered to do any basic research on the allegations he made against the individuals named in the case.
I think what's most offensive about this entire brouhaha is how News Ltd and specifically the Oz went on the offensive on bolt's behalf after Behrendt brought the case and went out of their way to smear her in regards to tweets and the like to try and get her employer (UTS) to fire her. If that's not substantial abuse of privilege then I'm not sure what is.