VIC 'Publishing on the Internet' - Breach of Intervention Order?

[Tangent Runner]

You poor thing. I feel for you, I really do. Because you can’t see how your own thoughts and actions can and will negatively impact your kids and the mother of your children.

I have just been in court re a DV matter and been on Federal Circuit Court for 2 years. Guess what both judges have said? They’re concerned that such a basic condition in a protection order can’t be followed which leads them to think the ‘big’ ones can’t be followed and therefore a very real risk exists. And guess what they’re thinking as a result? No contact for the father...

You need a reality check stat. And a hug from the sounds of it.

Spoken like a true toxic fembot....

Notice the patronizing gas-lighting, the tone of moral superiority, notice how only the males thoughts and actions WILL negatively impact the children...

BTW - kids are the offspring of goats....so perhaps avoid projecting here how you perceive your clients eh ?
BTW2 - thoughts occur inside your head - unless they are translated into actions, they harm no one but the person thinking them...
Or is that too objectively rational for you....?
Perhaps you'd better stick with the subjective feelings of confected outrage...eh ?

And guess what - the fact lawyers and courts cannot follow or apply fundamental basic principles of law - demonstrates
you lot are incompetent when it comes to dealing with complex issues, like family violence...or the biggest issue of all
- protecting the welfare of the children...check the "stats" if you need a reality check about that truth....

The glee in your text - regards the fact another father is to be alienated from his children is clear for all to see...
Shame on you for aiding and abetting child abuse...
Shame on you for increasing the risk of harm to the children, and the mother...
But people like you - so proud of your moral superiority and ignorance, don't experience shame - do you ?

You poor thing - it would take more than a hug and or a reality check, to wake you from the la la land of ideological bigotry you inhabit...
How tragic for the children - that YOU - Complex16 - cannot see how your own thoughts, actions and toxic feminist ideology are
harming many children...

 

[sammy01]

oh dear.
Mate. So this chick states her ex had over 30 breaches of avo. I don't like working on assumptions (a lesson you could learn) so I'm gonna go with 2 or 3 hypotheticals.
1. 30 breaches of serious nature. All proven. Dad would likely have done some jail time for that. Do you reckon a family court judge will grant access to the kids? NOPE.
2. 30 accusations of breach, mostly minor, posting some happy snaps of the kids on FB on a private page, for example... None leading to a conviction. Do you reckon a family court judge will grant access to the kids? YES.

Is it possible that Complex fits the first criteria? YES... Is her intention to celebrate that she got the dad outa the kids lives? NOPE - it is to give advice of the possibility of the consequences of breaching, so no 'glee'. Just another punter on this site using her experience to advise others.

 

[Atticus]

Having read some of the comments from @Complex16 in this thread, regardless of her own back story, history & experiences, I found some of her comments to be condescending, gendered & unnecessary.... A bit of a trend in some quarters these days unfortunately.

 

[sammy01]

yep you're totally right there Atticus. But look back through Phil's contributions and tell me there isn't more than a sprinkle of condescension, gendered and unnecessary ranting.

 

[Atticus]

look back through Phil's contributions and tell me there isn't more than a sprinkle of condescension, gendered and unnecessary ranting.

Yep ... Definitely a chip on the shoulder. Sufficient enough to lean in one direction....

Probably no more imbalanced then the current state of D&FV Laws & the inability (or lack of will) in positions of power to properly debate the issues around their misuse & lack of accountability or consequences for that misuse.

I understand that frustration, particularly when it results in kids being separated from a parent, & particularly when that person is by all accounts a decent & caring parent who could go for months without seeing their kids, only being able to communicate with the other parent about arrangements via a lawyer at a prohibitive cost... It's a system that can push people to the edge.

 

[Atticus]

So can anyone respond to the question ?

What does - Publish to the internet - legally mean ?

Particularly in relation to breach of intervention order ?

Particularly in relation to the definitions of 'publish' AND as is described in the relevant act?

publish " means disseminate or provide access to the public or a section of the public by any means, including by—

(a) publication in a book, newspaper, magazine or other written publication; or

(b) broadcast by radio or television; or

(c) public exhibition; or

(d) broadcast or electronic communication—

and publication must be construed accordingly;

SOURCE >>>> FAMILY VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT 2008 - SECT 4 Definitions

NOTE the words Construed accordingly

 

[Tangent Runner]

Probably more a hunchback, than just a chip....from being flogged senseless, so many times,
by the cruel injustices that our legal system delivers to dumb shmucks like me...
And no, my meaning is not what you assume for I have rarely been "the defendant"...

Yeah, my heart is crushed forever, for what the legal process did to the children, and how it
exacerbated the conflict with my X...and has totally destroyed my life / left me impoverished
and unemployable...and of little use to my children...

But it's hardly like I am the only one...And it's hardly like my suffering, is as bad
as what so many others have been put through...both women, men and children...

To those foolish enough to imagine "common sense" may be found within the ranks
of the Vic Pol goon squad...Consider this little gem...

Perhaps the most bizarre breach IVO charge I face (of many), was sharing a link to a story
about father's rights - written by some stranger in the USA. The post had no names, no threats,
and was shared privately, to about half a dozen close friends - all bound by promises of
confidentiality... Every known associate of the X was blocked from viewing the page - but
dumb shmucks like me, tend to forget how females excel at espionage...So yeah, a spy
was recruited, and got a copy... without my knowledge or consent...

Of course - according to Vic Pol - the story is "about" her and therefore an obvious breach
of the IVO....Funny that when I read the IVO - It doesn't say anything about sharing stories
about fathers' having rights being forbidden...I guess they find that concept so highly
offensive that the meanings of the words in the IVO must be "expanded" somewhat
in order to keep poor vulnerable women safe from being confronted with such an
unacceptable idea - eh ? Still a clear breach eh ? Well I don't get it... but like I said,
I am a dumb shmuck, so probably serves me right for not anticipating what both
the spy and Vic Pol would do- right ?

Trying to make sense of this, has pretty much driven me insane...
There has been a pretty huge cost to my general health too...
The process has been one of utter and complete destruction...
not just of my life... but the kids, the X, extended family,

And the shame and dishonor, makes a man long for death...
For men cannot live without honor, and there is nothing
more dishonorable than to fail in your duty to protect
your own family....

Likely very soon I will have the experience of being accommodated
at her majesty's pleasure...apparently the other residents don't like
people with my employment history... Oh well... such was life...

Yet my conscience remains clear... I still believe, on reasonable
grounds - there is no factual basis to claim I EVER committed any
family violence, towards my family either before or after the IVO
was "granted". None of the allegations contain violence, threats of it,
or anything else that rationally fits the definition of "family violence.."

And both Vic Pol and the OPP declined to provide any further
and betters, regards what family violence or harm I may have caused...
Seems they know - harm caused is not an element of proof regarding this shameful crime...
Funny - I thought it was an ancient principle of law - no harm done means no crime committed...

But none of that "Law" stuff really matters to the Victorian "Justice" System - eh ?
For it seems well designed, to ensure harm occurs anyway...

And trust me - no person can understand what it is like,
to have your children stolen by the gum-mint...
Unless you have experienced it yourself, and when you
do, you never recover from it...

I reckon I would prefer endless waterboarding at Gitmo...
That would be far more humane...

 

[Dpj]

I know this is an old thread, and apart from some argy bargy, it's a useful one. I'm adding the high court definition of publish on the internet which was outlined in the Gutnick case

The seven judge bench found that in the case of the Internet, published material was

not available in comprehensible form until downloaded on to the computer of a person who [had] used a web browser to pull the material from the web server. It [was] where that person [downloaded] the material that the damage to reputation [might have been] done. Ordinarily then, that [would] be the place where the tort of defamation [was] committed.