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

[Skull Face]

Sam Newman is such a *******. He has a history of racism. I remember all the closest racists, misogynists, rednecks, John Howard supporter, justifying his actions saying that he was just playing a character on the footy show, that he was actually a good bloke. Turns out he was actually reining it in on the footy show and he is a seriously sh*t bloke.

Winmar was either pointing to his skin saying he is proud of his indigenous colour, or saying in spite of all the racist comments he has the guts to win. For Sam to get on radio and dog whistle to his racist base about this shows what a pathetic piece of sh*t he is.

Worse case - Nicky Winmar was out there saying he played with guts, and it has been interpreted as he is proud of his skin.

That was a turning point.

It put a line in the sand to say we will not accept racism in AFL anymore. Whether it was the original intention or not is not the point. Every player in the AFL knows that was when things changed, that's when the line was drawn. It inspired kids all around the country, it gave grown men the courage to speak up and not put up with the crap anymore. He inspired thousands, it changed history for the better.

Why is Sam Newman trying now to debate this? What purpose does it serve to question Winmar's motives?

There are two reasons for Newman to push this.

He is a Racist
He is irrelevant and wants attention

Either way, he is human garbage.

Takes one to know one, the way you speak about another human is no better and you have the nerve to act superior.

 

[StevoBruiser]

Story is true but goes further.


The club was broke at one point during Newman's playing days and his father and local businessman (and later life member) and club patron Alec Popescu paid the wages for the whole club. Playing and non-playing.

What sort of wages were players on back then?

 

[Chief]

Really strange company he keeps for such a bigot

I’m sure some of his best friends are black.

 

[The King!]

Oh well apology and a donation is the settlement , I’m sure that won’t be enough for some

 

[Chief]

Oh well apology and a donation is the settlement , I’m sure that won’t be enough for some

Who do you mean? A type of person?

 

[CharacterFirst]

Who do you mean? A type of person?

Hey "Chief".

Have you considered changing your user name?

Some Native Americans may be offended.

You could set a real example here.

Go for it mate.

 

[Gough]

Perhaps as much as six figure compo and an unconditional apology, hope it was all worthwhile for them.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

I didn't think Newman would retract what he said so quickly. He really is nothing more than a spineless troll.

 

[Moonrat]

That apology is just window dressing. So forced and ungenuine I reckon.

 

[power09]

I didn't think Newman would retract what he said so quickly. He really is nothing more than a spineless troll.

Its pretty obvious if you listen to this week podcast that if Sam didnt want it resolved as quick as possisble Mike certainly did so he probably has taken the hit.

 

[StevoBruiser]

Appears they had a legitimate legal case together which got Sam’s sphincter puckering.

 

[Kram]

Its pretty obvious if you listen to this week podcast that if Sam didnt want it resolved as quick as possisble Mike certainly did so he probably has taken the hit.

Emperor Goodes getting on to him would have made him move.

"When Goodesy rang me, and he's almost the elder statesman of the Indigenous players, he wasn't angry and he wasn't nasty, but he certainly was decisive and said a couple of things to me that really cut deeply," Sheahan said.

 

[threesixpio]

Freedom of Speech and stuff


We don’t have freedom of speech in Australia. The same people whinging about “freedom of speech” in this thread would be the last to vote for a Bill of Rights enshrining it in the Constitution. I bet...

And quite a few bush lawyers in here pretending they about the law of defamation

‘ken laughable dimwits

 

[Gough]

Freedom of Speech and stuff


We don’t have freedom of speech in Australia. The same people whinging about “freedom of speech” in this thread would be the last to vote for a Bill of Rights enshrining it in the Constitution. I bet...

And quite a few bush lawyers in here pretending they about the law of defamation

‘ken laughable dimwits

You can't rewrite history and lie about it, that's not freedom of speech.

 

[threesixpio]

You can't rewrite history and lie about it, that's not freedom of speech.

I agree

 

[Cleric]

Its not against the law to have an opinion on something.
You could be wrong on that opinion, but that doesnt make you legally liable.
I could say that the reason Scott Morrison handed out the Job Keeper payments was to help them win the Eden by election. Now that could be wrong, but anyone who thinks that I should be sued for saying it, or that a legal action would be successful, are clowning.
You are allowed to question other people's motives, and by them doing that with Winmar, it didnt lead him to any loss.
If That's the low standard it takes to sue someone, 99% of Big footy posters could be sued for their comments about players, coaches and media personalities, let alone the comments about umpires.

 

[revo333]

As long as the money goes to a charity and not to any individuals.

 

[the harry]

Its not against the law to have an opinion on something.
You could be wrong on that opinion, but that doesnt make you legally liable.
I could say that the reason Scott Morrison handed out the Job Keeper payments was to help them win the Eden by election. Now that could be wrong, but anyone who thinks that I should be sued for saying it, or that a legal action would be successful, are clowning.
You are allowed to question other people's motives, and by them doing that with Winmar, it didnt lead him to any loss.
If That's the low standard it takes to sue someone, 99% of Big footy posters could be sued for their comments about players, coaches and media personalities, let alone the comments about umpires.

There is a difference between political discussion that doesn't really infer anything more serious than pork barreling and airing a conspiracy theory standard rumour about how someone contorted the story of their actions to profit from the fact that they're a minority.

The forum it's expressed is also important. If you write it on a public toilet wall, it's a lot different to being published in a widely distributed and much respected newspaper.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

As long as the money goes to a charity and not to any individuals.

Why?

Although it would be a noble deed by Winmar - it was his reputation that they tarnished.

 

[threesixpio]

Its not against the law to have an opinion on something.
You could be wrong on that opinion, but that doesnt make you legally liable.
I could say that the reason Scott Morrison handed out the Job Keeper payments was to help them win the Eden by election. Now that could be wrong, but anyone who thinks that I should be sued for saying it, or that a legal action would be successful, are clowning.
You are allowed to question other people's motives, and by them doing that with Winmar, it didnt lead him to any loss.
If That's the low standard it takes to sue someone, 99% of Big footy posters could be sued for their comments about players, coaches and media personalities, let alone the comments about umpires.

Defamation is about casting aspersions on someone’s character and reputation. The lawyers in this case obviously thought they had a case.

People are anonymous on Bigfooty in the main. Not sure I will be walking down the street any time soon and someone yells out “you’re a ****ing campaigner Threesixpio”....

no yeah nah

 

[threesixpio]

PS: I would completely deserve someone yelling that at me

 

[threesixpio]

Its not against the law to have an opinion on something.
You could be wrong on that opinion, but that doesnt make you legally liable.
I could say that the reason Scott Morrison handed out the Job Keeper payments was to help them win the Eden by election. Now that could be wrong, but anyone who thinks that I should be sued for saying it, or that a legal action would be successful, are clowning.
You are allowed to question other people's motives, and by them doing that with Winmar, it didnt lead him to any loss.
If That's the low standard it takes to sue someone, 99% of Big footy posters could be sued for their comments about players, coaches and media personalities, let alone the comments about umpires.

BTW: Whilst there is no freedom of speech there is a weak arsed “implied right to political communication”. Your example about Scott Morrison would neatly fit into this right. This right is tied to the parts of the constitution which mention voting for the legislature (and executive, which is expressly stated as being part of the legislature).

Politicians still sue for defamation where the reputational damage is disproportionate to the right to political communication on the topic. So calling a random politician a pedophile would probably be no good without any substantiation

Also, truth is a defence to defamation. And something asserted as fact rather than a possibility is important. In fact, asserting something as “your opinion” sometimes helps to suggest that you are not asserting it as a fact.

So saying that Nicky definitely did something for another purpose and then that he exploited it for other reasons is tarnishing his reputation particularly where his positive reputation is partly connected to a famous moment which displays his strong proud character and spokesperson for his people

 

[threesixpio]

It’s not rocket science - if people believed this shit about Nicky more people would think he was a shit bloke than before

basically

 

[Gough]

Its not against the law to have an opinion on something.
You could be wrong on that opinion, but that doesnt make you legally liable.
I could say that the reason Scott Morrison handed out the Job Keeper payments was to help them win the Eden by election. Now that could be wrong, but anyone who thinks that I should be sued for saying it, or that a legal action would be successful, are clowning.
You are allowed to question other people's motives, and by them doing that with Winmar, it didnt lead him to any loss.
If That's the low standard it takes to sue someone, 99% of Big footy posters could be sued for their comments about players, coaches and media personalities, let alone the comments about umpires.

Newman questioned Winmar's motives for no better reason than he's a confused old man who no longer understand the world around him. It wasn't an opinion it was simply not factually correct and said deliberately to impugn Winmar's reputation. If Newman thought he had leg to stand on legally you can guarantee his signature wouldn't have been on the apology.

 

[queensberryrules]

Perhaps as much as six figure compo and an unconditional apology, hope it was all worthwhile for them.

Don has a nice siggy.