Who would Jesus sue?

That was right between the eyes; spirited. As Marilyn commented, referring perhaps to Jennifer’s point about numerous deaths through backyard abortion in her comments about asylum seekers, a lot of people actually suffer through the denial of relevant information. Expanding, you can contemplate ethnic purges also, as a consequence of the ignorance induced by censorship practices as well as contempt for the suffering of the masses of “undeserving” third world poor.

LikeLike

You might want to contact Popehat for some legal advice. Oh, and I’ve written a little post about this myself. Cheers.

LikeLike

Go Jennifer! You’re an inspiration!

LikeLike

You have my support re: Tankard Reist attempt to sue. Good luck to her proving you weren’t accurate in your account.

LikeLike

Jennifer, you are my new hero!! i read the smh piece today and thought the only way MTR could pursue a defamation suit against you is if she argued fundamentalist Christians were abhorrent and her reputation has been negatively affected by being associated with them. Oh and if you have truth on your side, thats a decider right there. More power to you, we need more people to carry on the Hitchens fight of asking the hard questions and expecting answers, especially to those who seek to affect our rights and tell us how to live our lives. MTR’s lawyer will know she has no chance but they also know people who are threatened don’t want to test it in court so they bluff it by coming down hard with threats, and pretending they are entirely confident in their case. Its a well known tactic.

LikeLike

Jen. You say that it appears to be of little consequence to MTR that women in underdeveloped countries suffered and died as a direct consequence of Harradine’s religious beliefs, and her lobbying efforts, during the period when he was her employer. I saw this post on another of your articles that demonstrates that MTR doesn’t care about the sanctity of life, nor the true welfare of children. She really is quite an odious person, focused only upon self aggrandizement.

————–

I read with great interest the following passage between a Face Book member and Melinda Tankard Reist on her personal FB page. The exchange suggests to me that Ms Reist is far less interested in serious issues and immediate dangers to children from predators, say, as much as she is outraged by ‘sexist’ men’s magazines. It appears she likes publicity, more than reality.

9 September ’11 at 18:40

Richard Henderson –

“Ms Reist. Mandatory internet filtering promises disaster for our children. Kids commonly use free proxies to circumvent school network blocks. Many of these are, in fact, “honeypots” used by unscrupulous free proxy operators to exploit kids’ email and social networking accounts. Some are fronts for pedophile networks and predators that set-up virtual servers to lure their prey. Instead of tightening the net on pedophiles, mandatory censorship will create millions of additional trapdoors where perverts patiently lay in wait for our kids. Is that avoidable, direct danger to our children an acceptable outcome of mandatory censorship which you clearly supported on ‘The Drum’? Why do eminent groups such as Save the Children, National Children’s Youth Law Center, The Australian Library & Information Association and Civil Liberties Australia all oppose mandatory internet censorship? The immutable fact is that if Labor censor the Internet, kids and teens WILL use these proxies, swapping them like we used to exchange bubblegum cards. ISP level filtering, meanwhile, will give parents a false sense of security, believing their children are actually limited from accessing age-inappropriate material. Not opposing this mandatory internet filtering legislation means that we – well-intentioned people – are literally helping to push them closer to danger. Finally, there are free opt-in ‘Net Nanny’ filters, one less since the Rudd/Gillard administration removed the government subsidised platform, why do we need mandatory ones? I hope you will acknowledge this on Q&A

Melinda Tankard Reist –

Thanks Richard. It is true motivated individuals will always be able to find their way to circumvent filters, however the purpose of the Governments policy to block RC content is to prevent inadvertent access to this harmful content so that the very many people who do not want to be exposed to it, won’t be. The Goverment’s (sic) policy is to only block RC content- child abuse material, sexual violence such as rape, bestiality, detailed promotion or instruction in crime or drug use and terrorism material. Just because some people break speeding laws doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have speed limits. The Government’s policy includes education, law eforcement (sic) and research recognising that there is no simple solution.

Richard Henderson –

Thank you for your reply, Ms Reist. The ‘motivated individuals’ you refer to are largely Internet savvy children and teens who can effortlessly circumvent any filter in existence over a matter of minutes. I am saddened that you chose not to address the grave issue of ‘honeypots’ … the fact that mandatory Internet filtering will likely bring our children into DIRECT contact with sexual predators. I don’t really understand your analogy that because some people break speeding laws doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have speed limits; I put it to you that society has a duty of care whereby we should not risk putting a predator into closer proximity with our children. Would you not be personally devastated to find that a child had been abducted or sexually exploited as a result of their email or FaceBook account being hacked due to phishing schemes – scams made infinitely easier courtesy of mandatory filtering and ‘honeypots’? Clearly, you would. As I mentioned in my earlier post, ISP level filtering will give parents a false sense of security, believing their children are actually limited from accessing age-inappropriate material. Again, this false belief that the Net is safe, or safer even, will actually result in marked reductions in parental supervision. There is a raft of far better ways to counter child exploitation, many of which actually lead to convictions of the perpetrators. I agree that there is no simple solution; however, mandatory filtering plays no part in any solution when it INCREASES real risk – and achieves so little. Lastly, I would appreciate your thoughts on my previous question – why do eminent groups such as Save the Children, National Children’s Youth Law Center, The Australian Library & Information Association and Civil Liberties Australia all oppose mandatory internet censorship?

Melinda Tankard Reist

[There was no further reply].

————–

May God forgive her for her selfish artifice.

LikeLike

Hi JW – at this link there is some interesting stuff about a big London law firm threatening a 17-y-o blogger.

worth the clickthrough to read Antony Cox’s turn-of-phrase
eg “response to recent criticisms is to wildly thresh about in the internet, like a napalmed octopus with multiple Blackberries. “

LikeLike

Who would Jesus sue? Well he would not sue Living National Treasures Clarke and Dawe, that’s for sure, because Jesus had a sense of humour, eg “forgive them, they know not what they do”.

A Perth schoolteacher with a BA, Theology, does not understand satire it seems.
Those of us with an understanding of The Meeja, think he needs to gird his loins for the week now coming at him like a train –
Sueing Clarke and Dawe for Godssakes.

Satire? one would think a teacher would recognise it.

LikeLike