Comments on: David Bullard’s weird view of press freedom

By: Garg

Garg — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:45:30 +0000

I love how David Bullard is having a field trip with everyone here.

By: Pastor Ray Mac Oily

Pastor Ray Mac Oily — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 21:57:49 +0000

Now I agree with Shakespeare….the law is truly an ass or is it arse?

By: nkululeko

nkululeko — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 07:26:09 +0000

Icarus, not too close to the sun (ie hate speech). I believe that we should let this slide. I have not and will not read what Bullard wrote but unless it fails in the internal modifier contained in s16 and also the external modifier in s26 as well as in PEPUDA then there’s nothing to be done. In fact, Bullard should have a claim in terms of the Labour Relations Act.

I admit that whatever he wrote may have been distateful, deeply offensive and truly stretched the limits of freedom of expression. If it did, his editor was responsible for either saying “I refuse to accept this nonsense. I want something acceptable and in keeping with our standards by tomorrow morning”. He instead approved the piece, it got printed, people got offended and Bullard was fired because he had a lilly-livered editor.

I therefore say, SCREW Bullard. The Constitution, and not our grave dislike for him, should be our guide.

By: Icarus

Icarus — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:06:07 +0000

Bullard is a bastard – vain, conceited, RICH, and full of BS (Bullardisms). Not the posterchild for promotion of Freedom of the Press, and expression. And he seems to be waging a war of vendetta against his former employers. Yet the principle remains true – if we agree on freedom of speech, less incitement to hate and violence or other crime, we should accept that it should be allowed, as our constitution does.

So the question is: Do we go with the constitution? Or emotion? Is there a convergence?

F**K Bullard. How are we dealing with it?

By: Chris Mcdaniel

Chris Mcdaniel — Fri, 29 May 2009 07:57:36 +0000

Sne // May 28, 2009 at 4:54 pm

fair enough but until then im sticking to my guns

interesting read this update on the DA and Mpshe review of dropping charges

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20090529052938606C538197

By: nkululeko

nkululeko — Fri, 29 May 2009 06:07:36 +0000

What an interesting change… I still maintain that firing Bullard at that time and for those reasons was unjustified. I don’t necessarily balieve that what he wrote was racist and should have been subject to the internal and external modifiers of s16. In fact, one of the justifications for expression which may be regarded as racially offensive may be that it maintains the balance between stability and change in society as full and free discussions, even if stemming from hatred and instilled prejudices, allows for a vibrant and tolerant society. Such societies realise that all its various groups are unique yet share a common thread that binds them as a state and one nation. I have not read what he wrote (I have respectable standards) and thus canot make any definite submission regarding that element of the debate.

Regarding all this PAJA etc debate. I still wish the court would have refused to endorse the decision to withdraw prosecution against Zuma. I hope that Pikoli does get re-instated. What he did shows a greater element of independancy than that shown by Adv. Mpshe.

By: Sne

Sne — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:54:11 +0000

Chris,

Well bro, do not expect me to disagree with what is written in a statute unless there is case law which has not been overturned on appeal or is currently under appeal, which states that a decision to prosecute or to continue with prosecution is subject to review in terms of PAJA 3 of 2000.

Let us wait for the CC to give its decision on this issue bro…

By: Chris Mcdaniel

Chris Mcdaniel — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:26:39 +0000

Sne ok bro home boy

Firstly
B) ) a natural or juristic person, other than an organ of state…….bla bla bla

um NPA is an organ of state, its not a natural or juristic person

your definitions to section (b) does not belong to NPA hello?? NPA belongs to (a) organ of state i dont see

courts belong to organ of state, judges presiding belong to organ of state (b) does not apply, (a) applies

what does this mean to you? Promotion of Administrative Justice Act

what does this mean to you

6. (1) Any person may institute proceedings in a court or a tribunal for the judicial
review of an administrative action. DA

what was the administrative action????? dropping charges

“but does not include” well golly gum drops its seems to include it in Judicial review of administrative action argue round this one please (2) A court or tribunal has the power to judicially review an administrative action

well if it has the power to review an administrative action well then clearly a court has the power to give a judgement on the administrative action, thats what courts do they judge and give orders.

unless you feel Judicial review of administrative action is a waste of time and shouldnt be in there bro

By: Sne

Sne — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:20:01 +0000

Thanks Prof. I bet you’d want the decisions to be subject to review;)

By: Pierre De Vos

Pierre De Vos — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:59:07 +0000

Chris and Sne, subsection (ff) is ambiguous and can be read to mean that a decision to institute and not to drop charges are not reviewable under PAJA but that a decision to drop charges can. That is how Nicholson interpreted it. It can also be interpreted to mean that a decision to drop charges are not reviewable under PAJA. The CC has not ruled on this yet.