Why are you spreading misinformation? That is not even close to true.

The various state governments (from both main political parties) are considering making citizenship a pre-requisite for a gun licence. Race is irrelevant. Citizenship does not follow a white/non-white binary.

bsky.app/profile/bunc...

The Australian has buried Ms Albrechtsen’s name in the middle of its article, omitted to mention the friendly + excessive comms she pursued w Sof, falsely equated the release of report to her and Ms Byrne, and misreported Kaye Js prior judgment. And of course no apology or ackno by Ms A.

And here is Abraham J’s judgment today, dismissing S’s application for judicial review of the Juno report’s corruption findings.

Apologies - 3 chapters, being chapters 4, 5 and 6 of S’s report.

Here are Kaye J’s orders:

For those who lost track: S ran an ACT Inquiry into the Lehrmann prosecution. Drumgold successfully challenged S’s report as it related to him (1 chapter). A separate ACT inquiry (Juno) found S engaged in “corrupt” and “serious corrupt” conduct. S’s challenge to those findings has been unsuccessful.

The mistake comes from the fact that D raised a *separate* argument of legal unreasonableness, with partial success. That didn’t mean the remaining findings were justified. They just weren’t legally unreasonable… but they were still a legal nullity due to the (separate) apprehended bias.

This reasonable apprehended bias infected the entirety of Sofronoff’s report as it related to D. None of S’s findings re D were “upheld” by Kaye J - that statement by The Australian is totally untrue.

It’s not arbitrary and the relevant conduct (Aust user accessing site) occurs in Aust. But yes, the q of whether that conduct is prohibited in the local j’tion might affect the courts willingness to enforce the Aust judgment. Not sure I’d risk it vs just complying or geoblocking users, were I CEO.

It‘s the local rules of the jurisdiction where assets are based that are relevant, not where a website is hosted. 4Chan I understand is owned by an individual who could have assets in many places. But yes agree enforcement could be difficult.

Funny how none of these PR-driven articles mention that R has had to amend her claim twice and drop substan parts (such as allegation that Cth owed her a fiduciary duty!) - 8 months on foot, and their defences aren’t even due until Feb earliest. R is slow-walking her own claim because it’s so weak.

Commonwealth’s / HWLE’s application for summary dismissal or strike-out is due in 2 days - if they choose to go that way - so bitter end might be coming soon! 🍿

eSafety highlights:

"We've published our views on whether some platforms will be age-restricted social media platforms to provide additional certainty to Australianot families and industry.

But we expect all online platforms that operate in Australia to assess their obligations under Aus'n law."

My article on the social media minimum age obligation for the Alternative Law Journal is now online:

journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

(and open access)

Australian judgments can be enforced overseas, depending on the local rules of the jurisdiction where assets are located.

Screenshots - definition and exemptions.

The Commish’s views on which platforms are in scope or exempted may also change, particularly if the facts (eg the way users engage) change. OTOH, the high court may yet strike the legislation down - v rare in Aust, but watch this space.

Users moving to other platforms who are not currently complying with the new rules may find that, if and when the platform takes further steps or becomes the target of enforcement activity, their freedom is short-lived.

The Act applies to all platforms that fall within the definition (and other parameters in the Act) - NOT only to those larger platforms that the Commish has stated are probably within scope.