Social media users and journalists may find 2015 brings a definite atmospheric chill courtesy of a far-right Tasmanian Government

Not content with passing the Workplaces (Protection From Protesters) Bill 2014 15 of 2014 which only impacts on people who are actually in Tasmania, the Hodgman Coalition Government has turned its eye towards reforming the state’s defamation laws in such a way that bloggers, tweeters, Facebook aficionados and professional journalists all around Australia will be able to be sued by large corporations as a way of ending public scrutiny of these commercial entities.

Mercury News 11 January 2015:

NATIONAL groups representing Australia’s journalists and lawyers have vowed to take on the Tasmanian Government over its controversial new defamation laws.

The proposed laws will make Tasmania the only state in the country to allow companies to sue individuals for defamation to protect businesses from “dishonest campaigns”.

But journalists’ union federal secretary Christopher Warren says the laws will kill freedom of speech and make it impossible for journalists to do their job.

High-profile social media commentators across the country have labelled the laws “a national disgrace”.

Mr Warren said journalists who made corporations accountable for their actions would be the target of those trying to sue.

The laws could also affect anyone commenting on news stories on websites or in letters to the editor, or reporters filing in other states.

“Someone in Broome might write something about a corporation that may not operate in Tasmania but could be subject to being sued in Tasmania,” he said.

“It will have the impact of killing freedom of speech.”

Mr Warren said the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance would be raising its concerns with Tasmanian Attorney-General Vanessa Goodwin.

Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesman and Mercury columnist Greg Barns said his group was looking into whether the laws would be constitutional.

“It will just get used for SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) writs on your opponents just to shut them up,” he said.

Dr Goodwin yesterday told the Sunday Tasmanian the laws were not aimed at media organisations.

“While the detail is yet to be finalised, these changes aren’t and won’t be aimed at the media,” Dr Goodwin said.

“They are aimed at groups who deliberately spread misinformation about Tasmanian businesses, costing jobs.”

But Mr Warren, whose union represents various media professionals, said the laws would make Hobart the “defamation capital of Australia” because companies will use the state as the place to launch defamation suits.

Dr Goodwin said the changes would restore laws to Tasmania that existed before 2006.

Uniform national laws were enacted in 2006, in part to stop individuals from “jurisdiction shopping” and picking the state they felt was going to give them the greatest chance of winning or the greatest reward……

The Rabbits Eat Lettuce rave saga continues

The Daily Examiner 16 January 2015:

Organisers of the Rabbits Eat Lettuce rave have accused Coffs Harbour City Council of wasting ratepayers' money to stop a pre-festival launch party that was never going to happen.

The council went to the NSW Land and Environment Court for an injunction to stop this weekend's 24-hour electronic dance music event going ahead at 500 Fridays Creek Rd in Upper Orara.

However, the festival's organisers issued a statement saying that location was never on the cards.

"The event on the weekend has never been advertised as being in Coffs Harbour Shire," it stated.

"The event on the weekend is our launch party for our festival (on the Easter long weekend).

"We notified the lawyers representing Coffs Harbour Shire that the event is not taking place at the Friday Creek venue in Coffs Harbour Shire, however they did not listen and wasted ratepayer money to file an injunction at the Land and Environment Court." 

Background

Rabbits Eat Lettuce won’t be dancing at Upper Orara this weekend

UPDATES

2:11pm 17 January

It would appear that the situation is hotting up Ebor way:

5.30 pm

Everyone trekking back home after NSW Police close the rave.

UPDATE

Echo Netdaily  21 January 2015:

A police raid that closed down a weekend dance party on private land near Coffs Harbour was an over-reaction according to organisers.

The event, at Ebor, was closed down in its early stages on Saturday afternoon when just over 150 people had arrived and were in the process of setting up camp.

It was organised by Rabbits Eat Lettuce and was intended as a launch event for a much larger Easter party in the Richmond Valley.

The Rabbits Eat Lettuce (REL) electronic dance music parties have been running for around six years and are attended by up to 1500 people. Last year’s event ran without incident near Casino.

Police said they were called to the party because, NSW Forestry, which owns land on the Styx River adjoining the event site, expressed concerns there were illegal campsites, cars and portaloos in the forest.

Coffs Harbour Shire Council had attempted to have the party stopped by the Land and Environment Court on Friday afternoon but organisers told them they had the wrong site.

Police said they attempted to speak with the event organisers at the site but were ‘denied entry and shown a handwritten note allegedly granting permission to hold the event from the land owner’.

‘As police and forestry rangers began to clear the forestry land, organisers of the party moved all persons there onto the adjacent private property, telling partygoers that police could not stop them from holding the event,’ a police media spokesperson said.

But police say they managed to persuade the landowner to revoke permission for the event and then went about disbanding it.

‘About 5.30pm, police issued demands to the organisers and patrons to shut down the party. When this did not occur, police cut open locked gates to gain entry and shut down the event without further incident,’ the spokesperson added.

‘Senior police also authorised the use of a roadblock to turn around a large number of people attempting to attend the event.’

Just one person was charged over the raid, for trespass. There were no drug arrests....

Kids & Adults Creative Workshops at Grafton Regional Gallery 22-23 January 2015

So what changes so drastically between the child and the man?

http://youtu.be/b2OcKQ_mbiQ

Last year ABC News reported that in Australia domestic violence is the leading cause of death and injury in women under 45, with more than one woman murdered by her current or former partner every week. There are young victims too, with more than one million children affected by domestic violence. Accounting for 40 per cent of police time, the cost to the economy is $13.6 billion per year.

It further reported that there were at least 1,625 domestic violence related incidents on the NSW North Coast in 2013.

So what changes so dramatically between the attitude of male children to domestic violence and the attitude of so many adult men?

Twitter user flipping through a newspaper

Yeah, I know Yeah, I know Yeah, I know Yeah, I know Yeah, I know…..

(found on Twitter and apologies to the tweeter for not crediting - I've lost your handle)

Telstra/Big Pond at its "very best"

Readers, before proceeding to read  what follows ensure a stiff drink is readily available. If coffee is the preferred beverage, ensure its super duper strength.

At the table of knowledge at the local watering hole this afternoon Jacko, one of the regulars, delivered the report that follows.

During the report some of Jacko's mates had to be given assistance to get up off the tiles at the watering hole. A visiting medico who was on site said they were in a state of shock and recommended a couple of the lads should, as a matter of urgency, obtain counselling to assist them in their recovery.

"As a long term Telstra/Bigpond customer (30 years+) in the Clarence valley I had no/nil/zilch ADSL service from the provider this week and, on occasions, no telephone access. When T/BP finally restored the services I contacted the telco's billing department with the view to having my bill adjusted to reflect my week's "experience".

A T/BP consultant, obviously one with a first class honors degree in pure AND applied mathematics, used a magnifying glass and, it would seem a multitude of other devices, to examine my account and concluded I had been "inconvenienced" by four, maybe five days. Consequently, I was told my account would be credited on a pro rata basis for four days.

"Hold on", I said, "things out here in the real wide world are not based on such thinking."

The T/BP consultant, obviously a quick thinker, said, "OK, I see where you're coming from. We'll give you seven days' credit."

I replied, "HEY, YOU STILL DON'T GET IT!"

"What do you mean?" was the consultant's response.

After an extensive period of explaining logic 101 to the consultant an auction-like procedure was adopted.

Finally, the consultant said I should be compensated for T/BP's stuff-up and given a 50% discount on my monthly T/BP bill.

You'd swear Telstra's bottom line was going to drop so much its share price was destined to go down the gurgler on the basis of this single event!

Rabbits Eat Lettuce won't be dancing at Upper Orara this weekend

Rabbits Eat Lettuce 2014 from SADOWSKI on Vimeo.

A Rabbits Eat Lettuce dance party in 2014

Coffs Harbour City Council v Rabbits Eat Lettuce Pty Ltd [2015] NSWLEC 2, 14 January 2015:

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT

1. Council seeks an interlocutory injunction to restrain a “dance party” it expects the respondents to hold on Saturday/Sunday 17 – 18 January at 500 Fridays Creek Rd, Upper Orara, or at some other probably remote location within Council’s area.
2. It would be a 24 hour event occupying its site from 12 noon Saturday to 6pm Sunday, and is intended to serve as a “taster” for a three day event over Easter.
3. On Council’s application to me as Duty Judge, at around 3pm yesterday (Tuesday), I agreed to hear the injunction application at 11am today (Wednesday).
4. The respondents are known to Council and to the local police, from their earlier dance party ventures, which generated many problems and complaints, and there have been negotiations over time, which have yielded a range of contact details, but have resulted in no undertakings being given by the respondents.
5. I am satisfied that the dance party promoters, the 1st and 2nd respondents, know of today’s hearing, and that the 3rd respondent, who owns the subject site, but is apparently in hospital, is at least on notice of the application being made to me prior to the scheduled event.
6. As no respondents have chosen to appear or be represented today, I granted leave to Council to proceed ex parte.
7. It is in the interests of all interested persons, including up to 2,000 intended participants, that this decision be given immediately.
8. It is clear on the cases – e.g. Baulkham Hills Shire Council v Horseworld Australia Pty Ltd, BC9707595, (Land and Environment Court (NSW), Lloyd J, 27 June 1997, unrep), Byron Shire Council v The Rising Damp Corporation Pty Ltd [2001] NSWLEC 260, and an earlier decision involving the 2nd respondent, Bellingen Shire Council v Lamir-Pike [2010] NSWLEC 195 – that dance parties of this type are “development” within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“EPA Act”).
9. Also, the Coffs Harbour planning documents, especially the Local Environmental Plans of 2000 and 2013, require a Development Consent or a “temporary use” approval to be in place.
10. It is also clear to the Court that the respondents know of these legalities – indeed one has admitted the absence of compliance – and that no relevant approval is in place.
11. These matters establish that there are serious issues to be tried in the substantive proceedings, and that is a vital consideration on the question of granting interlocutory relief.
12. It is in the public interest to restrain development which is in breach of the EPA Act, but, in addition, all the evidence suggests that the proposed event poses serious threats to public safety and the environment generally. There is also evidence that some aspects of the suggested venue represent breaches of the planning regime in the area, and may themselves pose a safety threat.
13. The relevant principles for the granting of ex parte interlocutory relief are well established – see Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd [1968] HCA 1;118 CLR 618, American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396; [1975] 1 All ER 504,Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia [1986] HCA 58; 161 CLR 148, Silktone Pty Ltd v Devreal Capital Pty Ltd (1990) 21 NSWLR 317, Tegra (NSW) Pty Ltd v Gundagai Shire Council [2007] NSWLEC 806; 160 LGERA 1, Shoalhaven City Council v Bridgewater Investments Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 103, Save Our Figs Inc v General Manager Newcastle City Council [2011] NSWLEC 207;186 LGERA 127, and Hume Coal Pty Ltd v Alexander [2012] NSWLEC 267.
14. They have been previously applied to dance party situations, such as occurred in Bellingen Shire Council v Lamir-Pike [2010] NSWLEC 195, and in the other cases to which Council refers in paragraph 20 of its submissions.
15. Some of those particular cases were brought immediately before, or shortly after, the event commenced, but in this case I am satisfied that no exercise of discretion in favour of the event is justified on the grounds of any alleged delay on Council’s part. In this case, the orders I intend to make will or should be served at least 48 hours prior to the advertised starting time of the event.
16. Those orders were articulated in the summons and amended summons, but had been clearly foreshadowed in warning correspondence sent to the respondents by hand, by email, by post of various types, by facsimile, and lately via Facebook.
17. Apart from the large number of likely patrons, huge vehicular traffic is expected (Exhibit C1, tab 1, p20). The relevant senior Council officer, Mr Oliver, deposes to the constraints of the site – flood risk, threat to water quality and koala habitat, fire risk, poor emergency and other access and evacuation arrangements, and likely neighbour impacts.
18. Those concerns are echoed by the two police witnesses (Inspector Jameson and Sergeant Roach), and the Court notes that Council had put the respondents on formal notice of its safety concerns in a letter dated 11 April 2014.
19. The balance of convenience clearly lies in favour of granting Council the relief it seeks.
20. I am satisfied, apart from lack of consent, that inadequate attention will be paid to the State Government’s “Dance Party Guidelines 1998” or Sgt Roach’s “Standard Operation Procedures Manual 2008”.
21. In all the circumstances, especially those regarding time, I accept Council’s submission that, because of public interest considerations, I should apply Rule 4.2(3) of this Court’s Rules, and not require Council to give an undertaking as to damages.
22. I make the following orders:

1.    Pending the final determination of this application or until further order of the Court:

a)    The First and Second Respondents by themselves, their servants, agents or assigns be restrained from the carrying out of a dance party event known as the 'Rabbits Eat Lettuce Launch Party' on 17 and 18 January 2015 as advertised on the website www.rabbitseatlettuce.com.au and the social media site Rabbits Eat Lettuce Facebook Page at premises known as 500 Fridays Creek Road, Upper Orara or on land within the local government area of Coffs Harbour City Council, without the prior development consent of Coffs Harbour City Council.

b)    The Third Respondent by himself, his servants, agents or assigns be restrained from carrying out or permitting, causing or suffering the carrying out of a dance party event known as the 'Rabbits Eat Lettuce Launch Party' on 17 and 18 January 2015 as advertised on the website www.rabbitseatlettuce.com.au and the social media site Rabbits Eat Lettuce Facebook Page at premises known as 500 Fridays Creek Road, Upper Orara, or on land within the local government area of Coffs Harbour City Council without the prior development consent of Coffs Harbour City Council.

2.    The Applicant to have leave to serve the First and Second Respondents by:

a)    delivery of a sealed copy of these orders to premises known as 4 Braithwaite Ave, Bellingen by 1pm Thursday 15 January;

b)    serving the First Respondent by its known email address info@rabbitseatlettuce.com.au by 6:00pm on Wednesday 14 January 2015; and

c)    serving the Second Respondent via his known email address info@rabbitseatlettuce.com.au by 6:00pm on Wednesday 14 January 2015.

3.    The Applicant has leave to serve the Third Respondent by delivery of a sealed copy of these orders to premises known as 500 Fridays Creek Road, Upper Orara.

4.    Direct that the Applicant cause notice of these orders to be posted at a prominent location at the entrance to any property notified as a site for the proposed dance party event.

5.    The Respondents jointly and severally are to pay the Applicant's costs of these proceedings to date.

6.    The parties to have liberty to apply to the Duty Judge on short notice.

7.    The substantive proceedings are stood over to the first Friday List for 2015, Friday 6 February 2015.