While admittedly the law is nuanced, that the Bathurst councillors voted to remove the word "offensive" from the council's social media policy was a naive and uneducated decision which must be reversed to protect those who may join the council come the December elections.

Across the democratic world, there are express laws that govern all citizens and protect them from offensive behaviour. In Australia, these include:

Some councillors, and prospective or hopeful councillors, I observed during the Elect Women to Bathurst Council meetings, which were overwhelmingly attended by male hopefuls incidentally, as the young like to say, "are so last century" and deeply uninformed about the laws which bind once elected.

Some recent court cases illustrate that should councillors breach community standards or if a breach is established by a court, or a case for defamation proven, the community's damages' bill will be high.

For example, in its decision in Trkulja v Google LLC [2018] HCA 25, the High Court of Australia ruled the Google search results were capable of defaming Mr Trkulja.

In February 2020, in the Supreme Court at Adelaide, in Cheng v Lok [2020] SASC 14, Adelaide lawyer Gordon Cheng won a $750,000 defamation judgment over a bad Google review.

Sexual harassment and discrimination however perpetrated, including by social media, also deliver a fertile source of work for lawyers working in this area of the law.

Councillors and council must engage in high levels of propriety, legal compliance and risk management.

It is time that it be disclosed on council's website exactly how much and what legal compliance training is being rolled out by management to councillors.

Right now, it would appear there is very little or, if there is adequate training being provided, it is certainly not being heeded by all.