The Continuing Adventures Of Your Own Personal Jesus

Lots of debate about freedom of speech and how people have the right to be bigots.  Good stuff too, anything that allows me to the freedom to upset Andrew Bolt without the fear of him demanding an apology for 'hurting his feelings' (the poor luv) the better.  Trust me, if the proposed changes are adopted, then watch me really unleash! Nothing is more worrying that giving someone like me the freedom to write whatever the hell I want to. This could get very, very messy. In amongst the many debates, people have been quoting the famous frog philosopher, Voltaire.  Now, allow me to help some of you out here.  For the record, Voltaire never said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend the death your right to say it."  He also didn't say, "Yum yum, pigs bum, turn it into powder," either.  As far as I know. So, who said it?  That'd be the relatively unknown Greek philosopher, Electrolux. What Voltaire did say was, "Think for yourselves and let...

EASLING v RANKINE [2014] SADC 40     This is a defamation action by which the plaintiff alleges that he was defamed by the defendant.  At the time of the publications relied on by the plaintiff the defendant was a Member of the House of Assembly of the South Australian Parliament.  She was also the Minister for Families and Communities; for Housing; for Ageing; and for Disability.   The publications relied on by the plaintiff occurred in October and November 2008.   The first occurred in the South Australian Parliament on 30 October 2008.  On that day the defendant answered a question put to her by another member of the Parliament.  Obviously, that publication was made inside Parliament.   The other two publications are said to have occurred on 12 and 14 November 2008.  Those two publications were made outside of Parliament.   All three publications are referred to in the plaintiff’s Second Statement of Claim.    The ...

I dunno about you, but I love reading about people who are given all the chances in life, live richly and successfully and yet want more, all without lifting a finger.  Entitlement is a grand thing indeed, and this guy takes the cake.  Not only does he want it all, he wants to ensure he gets it all solely by taking his mother to court and contesting the will of her father, his grandfather. From the first case. "Robert, the plaintiff, made clear in his evidence that the plaintiffs not only claimed everything from the testor's estate, but had given virtually no consideration to what should happen to their mother. Q: Your case as pleaded is that you and your brother should inherit your grandfather's entire estate, is that correct? A: Yes. Q: And your mother should get what? A: Whatever she likes. Pension. Trust." Lovely kids those. You can almost see the judge sitting there and holding back from calling this guy some choice names.  Perhaps he should have, but, alas, he h...