The hon(!) R. Finkelstein in the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation commissioned by the Australian Federal government:

A respected Australian retired judge would seem to endorse that view. And he not only applauds the greater restrictions on their speech that Australians "enjoy", he thinks that we don't enjoy enough of them.

It's not a pickup truck, it's a ute (abbreviation of "utility") and Fosters is the crap no one here will drink so they have to export the stuff.

Say rather not on any agenda anywhere in the country and you're closer to the truth. The hon(!) R. Finkelstein, a respected Australian jurist, has this to say about freedom of speech

more on the hon(!) R. Finkelsteins' views of free speech here

By requiring online retailers to file sales tax nearly 50 times per year when they could have accomplished exactly the same thing by requiring online retailers to pay sales tax in their home state for all sales. They've vastly increased business costs, most of which will go not to the public purse but to wealthy accounting firms. I wonder whose idea that was.

Quite so. Why separate can be equal as well.

Yup, we must punish our sons and our grandsons to the nth generation to make up for the privileges enjoyed by our fathers and our grandfathers (while they lay in a pool of mud diluted with their own blood and tried desperately and futilely to take just one more breath.)

the projection is strong with this one. I explained why it is not zero cost and you simply asserted that it is zero cost. I'm done with you. Feel free to have the last word.

I disagree with your statement because it is not only wrong, it is weapons grade stupid.

The commonly used one doesn't actually include situations where it isn't actually zero cost.

You have an interesting definition of zero cost. Someone else pays for it, so it doesn't cost us anything and the people who do pay for it don't charge us any extra and neither does designing technology around the capability of being used for eavesdropping, regardless of the actual purpose of that technology have any costs involved.

If only we actually lived in that world.

The mechanical telephone system which permitted eavesdropping wasn't designed that way either, police just took advantage of the fact that it was possible. Like you, I'm uninclined to cripple future tech developments by imposing a design philosophy appropriate for mechanical telephone exchanges.

"We don't have a switch room. So sorry."

"You're going to redesign your technology to comply with laws designed for an ancient technology that became obsolete decades ago"

Yeah, that's a great plan.

A nation might have the power to kill whomever they want but that is a very different thing from a right.

If a person is committing what can reasonably described as acts of war against a nation that they are not physically present in and the government of the nation that they _are_ present in declines to punish or extradite the individual, I think it's reasonable to regard that individual, and the government protecting them, as being in a state of war with the nation against which those acts of war were committed. That being the case, I would regard the individual as being subject to retaliation by the nation that they are at war with.

That, however, would be a very different scenario than an individual against whom all civilian legal avenues have not been exhausted.

So jack your rates up and do the best damn job you know how to do.

I hope you feel the same way when it's Tony Abbott's appointees harassing the Sydney Morning Herald instead of Julia Gillards appointees harassing the Daily Telegraph.