Freedom of speech

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog started the topic in Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 4:00pm

What is freedom of speech?

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 4:01pm

Sheepdog

talkingturkey's picture
talkingturkey's picture
talkingturkey commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 4:20pm

He's an annoying fuckwit but let him go.

talkingturkey's picture
talkingturkey's picture
talkingturkey commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 4:20pm

Hang on, you are talking about Bolt, right?

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 5:47pm

lol turk...... Yes..... and no........ Interesting that Andrew blurt should argue for the banning of speech, don't you think?

Sheepdog

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 6:15pm

Sheepdog wrote: lol turk...... Yes..... and no........ Interesting that Andrew blurt should argue for the banning of speech, don't you think?

If you took it without context yes, but I'm pretty sure Bolt never advocated for the wholesale slaughter of anyone . Let alone mass murder.

Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 6:32pm

Blowin wrote:
Sheepdog wrote: lol turk...... Yes..... and no........ Interesting that Andrew blurt should argue for the banning of speech, don't you think?

If you took it without context yes, but I'm pretty sure Bolt never advocated for the wholesale slaughter of anyone . Let alone mass murder.

No he just chooses to ignore it and try and convince his audience that certain atrocities never happened.

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 6:41pm

Will banning him from speaking stop the mindset? Wont the discussion go online, or behind closed doors..... Wont people now be attracted to this? if people with radical thoughts are allowed to speak publicly, does it not allow the public to respond and possibly quash these radical thoughts?

Sheepdog

happyasS's picture
happyasS's picture
happyasS commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 7:02pm

nothing can stop the mindset. the concept of a perfect world were we can stop everything is not possible. the underground will always exist. but that doesn't necessarily condone the overt. the concept of a "truly" free society is garbage though. free speech is fine only to a point. this blokes philosphophys are backward if I take the .news article for its worth, but so are bolts. but should he be banned? too hard to say. how bad are his writings? how many people actually follow him? is he really a risk?

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 7:37pm

Happy, I just wrote that in another thread re' "perfect world"...... One mans utopia is another mans hell....
But your line "free speech is fine only to a point"........... Your point? My point? Who's point? Who decides the point? Therin lies the conundrum.... There would be things you think are fine to say that 1 billion people would find offensive..... Do they draw the line or do you?
My thoughts? Well.... Who fucking cares...... And what difference will it make? None....... But I think banning thought, or speech is a dangerous street to drive..... It always has been and always will be..... I would rather this islamic preacher be able to participate in a fully open debate, to be able to air his views and opinions, and to have them scrutinized.... When you allow real freedom of speech, you allow real debate.... Society knows exactly where it stands.... No one can debate this guy now.....
ps- his views are not that different from the very christian Rev' Fred Nile.....

Sheepdog

Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 7:46pm

Agree Sheepdog you cannot ban freedom of speech people need to be held accountable for their words though via criticism or defamation cases much like Bolt went through. The Bolt case caused controversy with attempted changes to 18C of The Racial Discrimination Act which would have given Bolt more leeway to sprout his controversial misleading views.

indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming's picture
indo-dreaming commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 9:21pm

Freedom of speach is kind of a hoax really, everyone is limited to what they can say under certain circumstances and rightly so, try making a bomb joke to a hostess next time you fly, and offcourse you could get sued if you said certain things about people in public in particular if they could damage the persons reputation and are in no way true, you could possibly even get locked up for saying certain things at least short term.

I have to assume sheepdog wasn't referring to if Bolt can say what he said, maybe I read it wrong but I can't see where he has said anything wrong? (In this case)

All he has pointed out is a double standard, where on one hand it seems a sheikh visa is withdrawn because of things he has said preaching hate, while others can do the same without consequence?

I don't really follow Bolt and a lot of times I don't agree with him, but one thing I really like about him is he says what he thinks and looks at things from an alternative angle, while pretty much the rest of the main stream media or so called independent media have a sheep mentality and either tell people what they want to hear or what will sell, and offcourse anyone is open to criticism unless you are a minority group, then you will be treated differently and protected rather than treated equally and called out for what things are.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 9:24pm

Bolt never tried to ignore murder or convince people that murder never took place. He disputed whether historically , children were removed from their parents - rightly or wrongly . He never advocated or encouraged , let alone prescribed murder.

If you think the difference is semantics then maybe you ought to think again.

Free speech is a beautiful thing.

Invite to homocide is never to be accepted.

Cultural interpretation or not.

Even if a billion people believe this it's not acceptable.

Would you consider it an acceptable thread of free speech if I was to stand on your lawn and yell at passers by that we should storm your house and murder every one inside ?

I'd say no.

happyasS's picture
happyasS's picture
happyasS commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 10:13pm

Sheepdog wrote: Happy, I just wrote that in another thread re' "perfect world"...... One mans utopia is another mans hell....
But your line "free speech is fine only to a point"........... Your point? My point? Who's point? Who decides the point? Therin lies the conundrum.... There would be things you think are fine to say that 1 billion people would find offensive..... Do they draw the line or do you?
My thoughts? Well.... Who fucking cares...... And what difference will it make? None....... But I think banning thought, or speech is a dangerous street to drive..... It always has been and always will be..... I would rather this islamic preacher be able to participate in a fully open debate, to be able to air his views and opinions, and to have them scrutinized.... When you allow real freedom of speech, you allow real debate.... Society knows exactly where it stands.... No one can debate this guy now.....
ps- his views are not that different from the very christian Rev' Fred Nile.....

Im sure there would be things I would say that 1 billion would find offensive. and as such I would not be so silly to visit some middle eastern countries and start preaching the values of respecting gay people. I value my own life too much. and of course in this country (Australia) there is a difference between offending someone through use of words and preaching concepts involving the killing of other humans. that's being said I understand your point. there is certainly generally a loss to society when ideas cannot be scrutinized through public debate. in this instance though Id don't think this example would form a very useful debate. what would be gained? those in Australian society that are homophobic to the point of believing in killing gays would be little swayed through any public debate. why? because they are single minded in their beliefs. so in this instance the question for me is, do I want to entertain a debate with a bunch of nutjobs or rather prefer that those nutjobs keep as low a profile as possible?

happyasS's picture
happyasS's picture
happyasS commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 10:14pm

Wharfjunkie wrote: Agree Sheepdog you cannot ban freedom of speech people need to be held accountable for their words though via criticism or defamation cases much like Bolt went through. The Bolt case caused controversy with attempted changes to 18C of The Racial Discrimination Act which would have given Bolt more leeway to sprout his controversial misleading views.

wharfj, question for you. do you support repeal of 18c?

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 10:59pm

"Would you consider it an acceptable thread of free speech if I was to stand on your lawn and yell at passers by that we should storm your house and murder every one inside ?"

I bad analogy, showing you didn't read the link...... I think Happy didn't read it either..... yeah yeah I know..... Such a busy life, only time to read Bolts inflamatory headline.... If you had've taken the time to read the link to the book , you would've also read this;
" Although
individual Muslims should not attack homosexuals, we do
not have to accept homosexuality, even if we become
unpopular for saying so. Just as the rights of homosexuals
are protected by law, our right to freedom of religious
belief is also protected by law. "

So....... This muslim dude states that in theory homosexuals are meant to be put to death, but later reiterates that is an islamic sharia theory, but that in reality "individual Muslims should not attack homosexuals"........
No one on the front lawn, Blowin.......

Because he is now banned, and not allowed here, no one can clarify this with him in public.....

Sheepdog

wellymon's picture
wellymon's picture
wellymon commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 11:08pm

Would be pretty hard for 'Bolt' to say anything at all whilst running the hundgie under 10secs!

Now that's freedom of speech ;-0

Our brains are too small at the moment to comprehend the reality of what's happening in our forests . We're only just waking up so to speak . The big problem is we think we know everything, we are specks of dust on a timeline and we know nothing .

wellymon's picture
wellymon's picture
wellymon commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 11:09pm

Would be pretty hard for 'Bolt' to say anything at all whilst running the hundgie under 10secs!

Now that's freedom of speech ;-0

Our brains are too small at the moment to comprehend the reality of what's happening in our forests . We're only just waking up so to speak . The big problem is we think we know everything, we are specks of dust on a timeline and we know nothing .

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 11:20pm

Btw, happy and blowin, I know Australia does not have the death penalty..... But it wasn't until 1997 that homosexuality was not a criminal offence with jail time in all areas of Australia.... It was a criminal offence up until 1990 in both W.A and Qld...... It was a criminal offence up until 1997 in Tasmania..... Yes, you could be jailed here in Australia less than 19 years ago....
But thankfully because of free speech, things have changed..... Could you imagine championing gay marriage in Brisbane 1950? They would be on your front lawn, blowin........

Sheepdog

happyasS's picture
happyasS's picture
happyasS commented Thursday, 16 Jun 2016 at 11:54pm

sheepdog, yes I didn't read it. why? because when I clicked it, it opened a 52 page manifesto that I don't have time to read.

however, now that i do read it (on page 51 btw) I don't think it means what you think it means. he is not saying that homosexuals should not be punished by death. he is simply saying that individual muslims should not be the ones to enforce the punishment. he is directly implying that the "state" is correct to undertake the punishment. ergo. criminal laws that correctly interpret Islamic law.

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Friday, 17 Jun 2016 at 12:07am

happyasS wrote: sheepdog, yes I didn't read it. why? because when I clicked it, it opened a 52 page manifesto that I don't have time to read.

however, now that i do read it (on page 51 btw) I don't think it means what you think it means. he is not saying that homosexuals should not be punished by death. he is simply saying that individual muslims should not be the ones to enforce the punishment. he is directly implying that the "state" is correct to undertake the punishment. ergo. criminal laws that correctly interpret Islamic law.

That's exactly right, a far cry from blowins angry mob on the lawn..... He is arguing for his interpretation of law, just as christians argue for illegal abortion.... And it is his right to do so, as it is the christians right, as is those who want to bring back the death penalty for drug traffickers..... It was the right of Australian gays to argue for the decriminalization of homosexuality.... Now some of these arguments you and I may agree with.... Some we may not........ But in general, we as a society get it "right" more often than we get it wrong....... So let them say their stuff..... Let us say "hey that's bullshit"..... or let us say "you have a point"......
And there is a difference between being free to talk philosophy, and abusing people personally.... Anyhoo.... It's late...... Catch ya on the flip side....

Sheepdog

Truwally's picture
Truwally's picture
Truwally commented Saturday, 18 Jun 2016 at 12:51pm

blow in said: 'Would you consider it an acceptable thread of free speech if I was to stand on your lawn and yell at passers by that we should storm your house and murder every one inside ?

I'd say no. '

Exactly, blow in, blow that trumpet!

As you say, understanding, accepting and highlighting, not sweeping under the rug (ben, a rug would be cheaper and more environmentally friendly than icky sunblock), the unparalleled, still upheld and perpetuated crude, brute force atrocities that were, and are the aftermath of the british thieves invasion of this land, is a start to the solution.

Simply planting a pommy flag on the lawn of the true, the rightful, legal owners of this land, before
'yelling and manically screeching and storming the home and murdering, raping and butchering every one inside', doesn't make it okay and civilised to do so. Only crude brutes or blatant idiots think that.

Which is the problem in a nut shelter.

Under the shade of that crude flag, a corgi pissing on the pole, manic british invaders, thieves and terrorists, 'yelling' and screeching the (scientific) lies, 'not human, just vermin, no one here, no one home', raped (often to death) and tortured Indigenous women, splattered and butchered Indigenous babies and children, murdered, tortured and humiliated Indigenous men. Stole their homes, their houses, their 'lawns' that they had lived in, and nurtured for at the very least 40,000 years. Butchered the world's longest running, most successful Cultures ever. Cultures with a record no other society or culture has ever come close to. (Well one has, the North Sentinel Isanders, who surprise, surprise, 100% reject the slimy, flag waving brutes advances) The british, flag waving thieves attempted genocide, lied and cheated. Then smugly, deceitfully and crudely call it 'founding' 'Australia fair'.

The problem is blow in, adolph didn't have to try very hard. Just give the cretins a flag to wrap them selves in, to hide under. And a stamped set of keys to the club furnace. And a bit of 'superior science'. It doesn't take much to get manic brutes and cretins yelling, screeching, butchering, raping and murdering on the 'lawns.' And lying comes natural to morons and cretins.

No sane and fair person, calling, considering them self human(e) beings would accept such a homicidal, still perpetuated atrocity.

inzider's picture
inzider's picture
inzider commented Saturday, 18 Jun 2016 at 1:37pm

What about the law the OZ govt passed to stop free speech from workers in your detention prison islands of man us and Nauru??
Tell the truth about how fu ked up those places really are and risk jail
Mhmm, free speech in OZ . Not even.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Saturday, 18 Jun 2016 at 1:59pm

So you've left Australia then Truwally ?

Where have you invaded now then ?

Truwally's picture
Truwally's picture
Truwally commented Saturday, 18 Jun 2016 at 2:43pm

Blow in! Blow that trumpet! Belt the shit out of that bag! Thump and crack and jab the bastard, or anyone that don't fly the flag! Adoph had it easy!

That's the problem. That's not much of an answer to the slimy, deceitful, crude, brute like invasion that you so rightly highlight. Or do you feel it was a 'fair' one, a nice, smug invasion and all round massacre?

Best to put the constantly heavy bag away, throw that into the furnace instead. And stop running away! Man up! Figure out how to truly make amends, how to truly clean up, how to truly fix the mess and make things right, and truly 'found Austalia fair'. From experience, Indigenous Australians are open to that.

Traditional Indigenous Australians meticulously championed and understood respect, reciprocity inclusiveness, and belonging, connection.

Different set of keys.

The truth goes a long way in their very successful Cultural history, which is so much, much more advanced and successful than the british, brute like, corgi feeding and grooming history. Best to start and build the foundation there. Demolish the old one. Expose the lies. Start again by telling the truth, not hiding it. Its what makes a human. Give it a try!

Surely you don't believe the lies blow in! Bloody Addy didn't have to try too hard! Lay off the bag(s) and bintangs for starters! Give it a try!

floyd's picture
floyd's picture
floyd commented Saturday, 18 Jun 2016 at 3:20pm

In our society as offensive as these views are I see little difference in them and the extreme views expressed any religious leader e.g. known recent comments in AU from christian leaders and organisations about gay marriage and the safe schools program.

Equally, I find it offence that the Murdoch press will focus on this ignorant muslim guy feeding into the prejudices and base racist fears of a small yet vocal minority in our community while supporting lunatics from the christian lobby groups all along creating more division and hatred in our community.

As a race we haven't advanced very far on such matters.

Excuse yet another link on a SN forum but I love this guy and his message .... everyone has 51/2litres of blood ... its worth a watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_0NRsgzbjw

talkingturkey's picture
talkingturkey's picture
talkingturkey commented Saturday, 18 Jun 2016 at 3:25pm

'True Wally' welcome back, welcome back, welcome back...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5VlGyMG0ksg

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Saturday, 18 Jun 2016 at 7:42pm

Turkmanistan...... Here's some free speech for ya........ From ABC news facebook page...... Relating to British politician murdered in the street the other day......

Sheepdog

floyd's picture
floyd's picture
floyd commented Saturday, 18 Jun 2016 at 9:20pm

So where does this hate come from? How is it that it has come to this?

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Saturday, 18 Jun 2016 at 9:25pm

Floyd.... I'm sure you know.... Or I'm sure you'd have a theory..

Sheepdog

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Saturday, 18 Jun 2016 at 9:39pm

What's your theory Sheepdog ?

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Saturday, 18 Jun 2016 at 9:57pm

Blowin writes "What's your theory Sheepdog ?"........

Me?? My theory?? Surely you jest.......

BTW, "Thomas Mair has given his name as “death to traitors, freedom for Britain” during his appearance in court charged with the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox."........... source - UK Guardian..

Something in that for everyone, don't you think?

Very intersting he wasn't charged with terrorism......

Sheepdog

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Saturday, 18 Jun 2016 at 10:09pm

So what's your theory ?

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Saturday, 18 Jun 2016 at 10:20pm

Me?? My theory?? Surely you jest............ Seriously you jest........ I'll just open wikipedia on another tab shall I?

Are you bored and looking for something to ridicule, Blowin? Why should I tell you what I think? You are not genuinly interested in my opinion.... You are interested in taking a contrary position. Put forward your theory, for a change....

Sheepdog

floyd's picture
floyd's picture
floyd commented Sunday, 19 Jun 2016 at 7:05am

Sheepdog says " Very intersting he wasn't charged with terrorism......"

Yes, indeed.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Sunday, 19 Jun 2016 at 8:09am

I was curious.

Now I'm wondering why I'd bothered in the first place.

Back to your vague allusions.....

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Sunday, 19 Jun 2016 at 11:42am

Blowin writes "I was curious.".....

Bullshit.....

Floyd..... One could only imagine the Rupert inspired "Terrorist Assasin" headlines had the dude been a muslim.....

Sheepdog

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Sunday, 19 Jun 2016 at 12:23pm

One can only imagine the deafening silence from yourself if it had been an Islamic political assassination Sheepdog.

Last chance ....I'm genuinely curious as to your theory.

Even though it must be quite tenuous if it can't stand up to debate, I promise I won't respond.

I'd just like to hear it.

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Sunday, 19 Jun 2016 at 12:53pm

"Last chance" or what? You gonna do a hako "don't ever talk to me again"? Knock yourself out bro...

Mate, i have soooooo many time asked you for your opinion on things and never ever get it.... Just more questions... More insinuations..... More pissant "it must be quite tenuous if it can't stand up to debate" type retorts.... I am quite interested in your opinion on it..... But we wont get that.... Just a critique of others opinions....
I have no set "theory" at this stage.... Just a bunch of refletions...
What do you own now, Blowin? What is "yours"? Not physical stuff..... Do you own your privacy? No...... Do you own your love? No...... Do you own your destiny? Not any more....... There is one thing you still own..... It's yours and no one elses.......... Your anger....... People still own their anger.... it's all they really have left...........

Do you remember back say 20 years ago when you went from a customer to a consumer?....

Do you remember a time when we as humans had a psychological break from "war"? With the Orwellian invention of the war on "terror" (terror being a human emotion, so we've declared war on an emotion), there is no break..... No release of the pressure cooker....... The never ending hatred.... Whicj you own...... It's all you own........ People are breaking..... Some of us, you and me, probably take time out..... But the vast majority dont...... They are the ones imploding....

That's the "human side of it"........ But there's so much more...... There's the political side, but I'm sure I have covered that....

Sheepdog

Hako o hakonde ni-biki no inu's picture
Hako o hakonde ni-biki no inu's picture
Hako o hakonde ... commented Sunday, 19 Jun 2016 at 3:35pm

I bet sheepdog comes in under 5'3" tall

Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie's picture
Wharfjunkie commented Sunday, 19 Jun 2016 at 4:11pm

HappyasS asked, wharfj, question for you. do you support repeal of 18c?

No I don't repealing 18C of the racial discrimination act would legally allow people to say deeply hurtful things towards people from races other to their own without consequence. Think AFL crowds calling the likes of Adam Goodes a Nigger, Abo, Black Cunt etc or allow a coloured person to call say equally racial offensive slurs in public or in the medial to a white person. 18C does not restrict free speech its designed to stop people being racially humiliated..

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Sunday, 19 Jun 2016 at 4:47pm

Hako.. Is it 1 foot and sideshore at pont leo today? That fat little mal wave you hang out at not working? Meanos and Guns a bit too much hey?

Sheepdog

tim foilat's picture
tim foilat's picture
tim foilat commented Sunday, 19 Jun 2016 at 4:49pm

"The new fine is the highest on-the-spot penalty for swearing in Australia. Police in Victoria can fine you $240, while in Queensland it will cost just $100 if you let one drop in public. The only other state where fines are issued on the spot is South Australia.Feb 6, 2014"

happyasS's picture
happyasS's picture
happyasS commented Sunday, 19 Jun 2016 at 5:50pm

18C is not just about humiliation, also offending. and not just individual people either, but also just "generally" to other races. jewish people for example in relation to articles written about the holocaust. such examples where its been nothing personal about anyone, just generally saying very hurtful things about a group of people.

my point being, what this muslim guy is saying is really no different than examples that have already found protection under 18c. potentially worse because he calling for introduction of completely backward ideologies.

btw, Im happy with 18c just as it is, but I also believe this muslim guy should be banned for preaching his crap. muslim moderates do not agree with his terms and conditions so why should anyone else.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Sunday, 19 Jun 2016 at 5:58pm

Get rid of 18c . Let this Muslim bloke , or anyone else for that matter, say whatever the fuck they like as long as they're not inciting violence.

Come on - have you people never been insulted ?

What did you do ?

You got over it .

Sticks and stones etc etc.

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Sunday, 19 Jun 2016 at 7:21pm

I agree with Blowin.. (wtf?????) lol

The best thing about freedom of speech is that debate is not stifled... Allow me to say for example, that christianity is "islam lite"..... It's abhorrent.... It's probably more insideous than Islam, though I find both religions equally absurd......
Now because of freedom of speech, you know exactly where I stand..... You can debate me, agree with me, or shrug your shoulders and say "mehh, Couldn't give a fuck"....

Sheepdog

Hako o hakonde ni-biki no inu's picture
Hako o hakonde ni-biki no inu's picture
Hako o hakonde ... commented Monday, 20 Jun 2016 at 6:45am

You mentioned me sheepdog, I responded to the loud little man that is you.

Think you have me confused with someone else angry ant, I've never surfed the Mornington, though I imagine surfing a fat mal wave would probably be a step up on what you surf.

tonybarber's picture
tonybarber's picture
tonybarber commented Monday, 20 Jun 2016 at 9:30am

If you wish to read an interesting 18c case, suggest - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/gillian-trigg...
A real doozy. May have even got the human rights commissioner in a twist.

tim foilat's picture
tim foilat's picture
tim foilat commented Monday, 20 Jun 2016 at 9:46am

There's a paywall on the article, bet it's a doozy though!

floyd's picture
floyd's picture
floyd commented Monday, 20 Jun 2016 at 9:58am

Sprung, Tones has a paid subscription to Murdoch's shitwashed conservative propaganda rag.

Tones, you have let the cat out of the bag !!

tonybarber's picture
tonybarber's picture
tonybarber commented Monday, 20 Jun 2016 at 10:45am

Looks like some were unable to get to the story. It has been going on for a few months. Had got QUT involved. Try - http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/qut-student-faces-200000-bill...