Nicky Winmar to take legal action against Newman, Scott and Sheahan

[Blackas87]

I wouldnt though because I dont want to make money out of being a morally bankrupt, borderline racist attention whore.

But hey, thats just vanilla old me.

That’s some claim you’re making of these 3 people. Lucky you have free speech.

 

[iBeng]

That’s some claim you’re making of these 3 people. Lucky you have free speech.

And if they bothered to read the forum and chose to dox my identity and found a lawyer willing to they could take me to court.

 

[Black white]

I dont have the audience these three people have. I dont have a podcast with sponsors. I dont make a living talking about sh*t I know is going to cause controversy and bring me in views and clicks and MONEY!

Nor do you own an image that can bring in money.

Now tell us more about Hitler

 

[Demonic Ascent]

So it's an iconic photo, it doesn't mean the story cannot be manipulated. I was there that day also and though I was just a kid I do have issues with the way it has been reported by some in the media also.
Just to clarify, not just black guys received racial abuse. . No player in that time in my opinion received more abuse than Daicos in my opinion. So I have an issue in particular with the portrayal of Vic park and Collingwood fans by SBS , ABC etc. As I said also only Nicky will know why he lifted his shirt. To say these guys are trying to whitewash history though is as offensive as any other attempts by the photographer /SBS trying to manipulate the story to benefit from it.

So, maybe , court will be a good thing.

Being in your late 40s you would've been around 20 at that game in 1993 so not "a kid"

Why do you think "court will be a good thing"?

 

[Back One Out]

yep and its been turned into a racist debate and attack on Winmar, an attempt to rewrite history it judt wasn't.

Surely people are within their rights to question historical events and the challenge the accepted version without being sued?

Particularly people who were there and remember things differently.

I'm assuming the podcast was partly addressing the Black Lives Matter activism and Newman's recent sacking from Channel 9 because he's had a gutful of the left-wing biased editorialising from the media and them ramming their socially progressive agenda down everyone's throats. (Pushing back against PC narratives is a real hobby horse of Newman's which sees him get branded as "racist" and "bigoted" by his haters.)

If Newman's scorn for the BLM media agenda & SJW posturing was the context for questioning the Winmar incident, perhaps there is some weight to the defamation lawsuit. I dunno... Like I said, I'm no QC. But doesn't this open the door for everyone to get sued if they have their own version or interpetation of history? If everyone lawyered up whenever they thought people were calling them liars, our courts would be tied up for the next 20 years.

 

[Black white]

This is three people trying to rewrite history on a historic moment to try and pretend racism doesnt happen in the AFL.

And they KNOW this would get them attention and views and ultimately money.

Its a game played out so much in media that people dont see it when it smacks them in the damn face.

It's just like Hitler, it needs to be stopped before it's too late

 

[iBeng]

Nor do you own an image that can bring in money.

Now tell us more about Hitler

Hey, you are almost there! So close! Almost!

Hitler was a BAD MAN!

There we go. Better? Better.

 

[iBeng]

It's just like Hitler, it needs to be stopped before it's too late

Hey, we agree on something, Hitler bad! Very bad! Naughty bad even!

 

[Black white]

Hey, you are almost there! So close! Almost!

Hitler was a BAD MAN!

There we go. Better? Better.

Teach me teach me wise one

 

[Blackas87]

And if they bothered to read the forum and chose to dox my identity and found a lawyer willing to they could take me to court.

I think others have stated what you’re stating more publicly for them to ever worry about you.

 

[iBeng]

Teach me teach me wise one

Lets not waste both of our times here.

We understand and accept you think its appropriate for these three men to announce that they think the entire scenario, as stated from THE PERSON WHO WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN IT, was not actually what he says it was and has just been used as a fuel to light the racist fire.

Its fine, we get it.

 

[Wosh]

Free speech be damned, next Hitler post gets an infraction. Stick to the topic.



Yes I’m grumpy

 

[iBeng]

I think others have stated what you’re stating more publicly for them to ever worry about you.

And if they want they can counter sue Winmar for suing them for trying to stop their free speech of them using their free speech to say he was lying.

 

[iBeng]

Free speech be damned, next Hitler post gets an infraction. Stick to the topic.



Yes I’m grumpy

I have so many responses to this that involve said person that I really want to use now but I wont because hell hath no fury like a WCE woman scorned.

And thats just my free speech opinion.

 

[Wosh]

I have so many responses to this that involve said person that I really want to use now but I wont because hell hath no fury like a WCE woman scorned.

And thats just my free speech opinion.

Smart man Watkins

But really Hitler has nothing to do with Nicky Winmar and I find references to him offensive...move on friend, and don’t make me work on a Saturday night.

 

[Blackas87]

And if they want they can counter sue Winmar for suing them for trying to stop their free speech of them using their free speech to say he was lying.

Like I said you can sue someone for saying something that defames you that causes you to have a loss.

Nothing can stop these 3 having free speech, I doubt they’ll be running at a loss, if anything more people will tune in.

 

[iBeng]

Like I said you can sue someone for saying something that defames you that causes you to have a loss.

Nothing can stop these 3 having free speech, I doubt they’ll be running at a loss, if anything more people will tune in.

And thats how free speech works in this day and age.

Freedom of Speech but not freedom from potential consequences of said speech, hence lawsuits.

 

[Blackas87]

And thats how free speech works in this day and age.

Freedom of Speech but not freedom from potential consequences of said speech, hence lawsuits.

If it causes someone a loss. Not if you get your feelings hurt

 

[iBeng]

If it causes someone a loss. Not if you get your feelings hurt

Big difference between hurting feelings and claiming someones version of events were a lie.

 

[Suspense]

I honestly dont see how people get confused when money gets involved in these situations. We live in a society where a value can be put on anything and that includes speech like that of Newman, Scott and Sheahan. They are saying things for the sheer controversy of it to get the extra views and revenue they know their shtick gets them.

Free Speech is great and all, but IT DOES NOT FREE YOU FROM CONSEQUENCES.

If it did then hate speech could never be a thing, defamation would never be a thing, hearsay, rumour, all that sh*t wouldnt exist because its just free speech.

I could accuse someone of being a rapist and then just claim free speech.

No one is arguing that free speech does not have consequences.

It's simply that the consequences that you are suggesting (defamation) do not have any legal basis as the expression an honest opinion is an actual legal defence from defamation.
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/da200599/s31.html

Accusing someone of being a rapist is a statement of fact - not the expression of an honest opinion - so they are not legally equivalent.

I've listened to the podcast from the start and Don Scott is a strange and unique unit. He doesn't do social media and I don't think he really kept up with much footy news before starting the podcast. I have little doubt that he was expressing a genuine recollection of his memories from the time and expressing his honest opinion about it being "dined out on" (as much as I disagree with his weird take).

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Surely people are within their rights to question historical events and the challenge the accepted version without being sued?

Particularly people who were there and remember things differently.

I'm assuming the podcast was partly addressing the Black Lives Matter activism and Newman's recent sacking from Channel 9 because he's had a gutful of the left-wing biased editorialising from media and them ramming their "systemic racism" agenda down everyone's throats.

This seems to a real hobby horse of his. It's also why he gets branded as "racist" by his haters whenever he publicly pushes back

So maybe if this was the context and then the 3 of them started to question the Winmar incident, perhaps there is some weight to the defamation lawsuit. I dunno... Like I said, I'm no QC. But doesn't this open the door for everyone to get sued if they have their own version or interpetation of history?

What ****ing planet am I on?



Winmar, was THE ACTUAL GUY THAT DID IT!!!


Yet apparently a guy who was there is just as entitled as THE GUY THAT ACTUALLY DID IT to determine why he did it.




Is this shit for real? Am I actually reading this stuff?

 

[iBeng]

No one is arguing that free speech does not have consequences.

It's simply that the consequences that you are suggesting (defamation) do not have any legal basis as the expression an honest opinion is an actual legal defence from defamation.
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/da200599/s31.html

Accusing someone of being a rapist is a statement of fact - not the expression of an honest opinion - so they are not legally equivalent.

I've listened to the podcast from the start and Don Scott is a strange and unique unit. He doesn't do social media and I don't think he really kept up with much footy news before starting the podcast. I have little doubt that he was expressing a genuine recollection of his memories from the time and expressing his honest opinion about it being "dined out on" (as much as I disagree with his weird take).

Then in the lawsuit its likely Scott wont see any real damage from this, but Newman and Sheahan clearly know better than to entertain it.

 

[Suspense]

Then in the lawsuit its likely Scott wont see any real damage from this, but Newman and Sheahan clearly know better than to entertain it.

Um, Newman and Sheahan said nothing remotely defamatory. Newman was targeting nameless "activists" and Sheahan agreed with Don's recollection but disagreed that it was "dined out on" and said only Winmar knows the truth. Listen to it again.

 

[Blackas87]

Big difference between hurting feelings and claiming someones version of events were a lie.

Don and Mike were reporting the on the day.

They said what they believed the gesture was for.

you’re claiming what they thought is a lie.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Don and Mike were reporting the on the day.

They said what they believed the gesture was for.

you’re claiming what they thought is a lie.

They may have thought that on the day. But who gives a ****?

The guy that actually did it has told us for 30 years why he did it.

So to dispute that is not only the height of arrogance, it's also straight out calling him a liar.