curious

No. I've said that repeatedly. It's another autocratic attempt by NZTR to shut down criticism instead of listening and engaging and responding. There are heaps of wonderful hard working people doing a fantastic job at NZTR just as there are at the coalface of racing. This stuff just undermines their efforts. Can't re-litigate the Morton case here. I doubt NZTR will test that precedent. As I said that would be bloody stupid. They wisely chose not to appeal at the time.

From the report on the Morton case. And the introductory words he used - "came across as" - made it plain he was expressing his personal view which, under the Bill Of Rights, he was entitled to. McKechnie's words from the decision and prior, as Morty has said here. As I said. Try again.

It certainly does and was in the Morton case. It's not a private company but one performing a "public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law." Try again.

or that is otherwise harmful to the reputation or standing to the New Zealand racing industry; So, for example, critical comment that may be harmful to the industry seems to go way beyond the BOR rights' limitations doesn't it? Whether or not they deem it harmful to the industry can not be a Rule of Racing if it conflicts with the BOR. This seems to go way beyond it, so is probably not valid because of that conflict?

They already get way more than the net revenue from the oncourse betting plus any gate and hospitality. not sure I agree with NZTR throwing more at it.

I reckon you are as stupid a prick as he is if that's what you think.

What I quoted above is the law? Your question doesn't make sense.

I don't think they'd dare. Be the wrong bloke to pick on I'd say. They'd get hammered and waste begoodles of money. Be a great spectacle though. I wish they would!

I don't think it's imprecise at all. I'd be quite confident that my examples are not even close to "grossly offensive" by legal standards. The case would be laughed out of court.

Racing Industry Act 2020 41 Rules must not conflict with any Act or general law (1) A provision of any racing rules that conflicts with any provision of this Act, any other Act, or the general law of New Zealand is invalid. Given the above, I would question whether some of the proposed rule is even valid.

If I say that I think Hesi is a stupid prick or that the NZTR board are a bunch of the same, then I'm simply expressing an opinion which I'm entitled to do under the BOR. Whether or not you feel insulted or abused, or an observer thinks you have been, doesn't come into it. Neither the Rules of Racing nor any other Act can over-ride that.

In my view, the "personal attacks" would have to involve the use of "insulting and abusive" words prohibited by the rule but that would have to be at a level that met the standard of being a breach of the BOR.

Page 34 of 204 RULES OF RACING PART I APPLICATION, INTERPRETATION AND DEFINITIONS APPLICATION 101 (1) These Rules shall apply to all Races, Race Meetings and all matters connected with racing, and shall apply to and be binding on: (a) NZTR; (b) all Clubs and Club committees; and agents, employees and officers of every such Club; (c) all Licensed Persons; (d) any other person working: (i) in or about any racing stable, Trainer’s Premises, Training Facility or Racecourse; (ii) in connection with the care, control, transportation or management of a horse or horses; or (iii) otherwise in connection with horses, races or racing; [Amended 1 September 2020] (e) all Owners, lessees and any persons comprising or having a legal or beneficial interest (either directly or indirectly) in an Owner, lessee or Legal Ownership Entity that is an Owner or lessee, or in a Legal Ownership Entity that has a legal or beneficial interest (either directly or indirectly) in an Owner or lessee under these Rules, and the Racing Manager, as applicable, thereof, and all Accountable Persons [Amended 1 September 2020]; (f) all persons seeking admission to or attending any Racecourse on which any Race Meeting is held; (g) all Horse Breeders; (h) every person who in any manner directly or indirectly, by himself or any other person on their own behalf or on behalf of any other person, does or attempts to do any act or thing for the purpose of securing any right, benefit or privilege which they or any such other person is not entitled to receive under these Rules, or to evade any disability of any kind imposed on him or any such other person by or under these Rules; (i) every person who aids, abets, counsels or procures a breach of these Rules (and such person shall be liable to the same penalty as is provided for the actual breach); (j) every person who so acts as to bring himself within the purview of these Rules; and (k) all Adjudicative Committees and Appeals Tribunals and Training Disputes Tribunals. [Amended 1 September 2020]

This is exactly the point I am trying to make. The same thing applies to the Rules of Racing which is why I think the proposed rule change won't make any difference. Licenceholders have to adhere to a higher standard via the code of conduct that they have agreed toAbuse (legally) has a meaning. That has a way different threshold to how it is bandied about here. It has to be harmful and persistent to be abuse, not just someone claiming their feelings are hurt. It's thankfully rare in racing social media.

Well the rules apply to a way wider population than just licence holders don't they? Owners, breeders, anyone on course on a raceday, club committees etc. etc.