In March of 2017, the Federal Court ruled that blogger Belle Gibson was misleading her audience by pretending to cure her brain cancer using alternative medicine, and that she pay a $410,000 fine for this infraction. The Herald Sun published the article ‘Belle Gibson should be charged for deceptive conduct, writes Susie O’Brien’ on the 29th of September 2017. O’Brien argues that Gibson should be pressed with criminal charges, instead of the civil punishment she received. O’Brien takes on a slightly bitter tone, but as O’Brien explains her reasons, this shifts to a more logical tone. The author explains that Gibson should face criminal charges, due to the scale of her conduct. O’Brien also states that if Gibson were given criminal charges, it
…show more content…
In particular, O’Brien mentions Joshua Schwarz and his family, she quotes the judge who presided over Gibson’s trial, this adds an expert opinion to the article, making the readers more likely to agree with O’Brien’s contention.
O’Brien contends that if Gibson were to be charged criminally, it would act as a deterrent for people who may try similar practises. She writes that ‘Civil penalties are one thing, but criminal charges and jail time would surely send a much stronger message and be a much tougher deterrent.’ O’Brien uses repetition, repeating the word ‘much’; this is done to make her assertion seem stronger.
The author contends that Gibson can easily get out of her civil penalties, so criminal charges must be laid, in order for justice to be achieved. O’Brien mentions that Gibson can easily avoid paying the fine required by claiming bankruptcy, this makes the civil charges placed against Gibson look weak and ineffective. Additionally, she states ‘this woman (Gibson) doesn’t seem to care what Consumer Affairs thinks or does; By writing this, O’Brien once again makes the current punishment look useless and ineffective, she does this to ensure that reader’s agree with her
In particular, O’Brien mentions Joshua Schwarz and his family, she quotes the judge who presided over Gibson’s trial, this adds an expert opinion to the article, making the readers more likely to agree with O’Brien’s contention.
O’Brien contends that if Gibson were to be charged criminally, it would act as a deterrent for people who may try similar practises. She writes that ‘Civil penalties are one thing, but criminal charges and jail time would surely send a much stronger message and be a much tougher deterrent.’ O’Brien uses repetition, repeating the word ‘much’; this is done to make her assertion seem stronger.
The author contends that Gibson can easily get out of her civil penalties, so criminal charges must be laid, in order for justice to be achieved. O’Brien mentions that Gibson can easily avoid paying the fine required by claiming bankruptcy, this makes the civil charges placed against Gibson look weak and ineffective. Additionally, she states ‘this woman (Gibson) doesn’t seem to care what Consumer Affairs thinks or does; By writing this, O’Brien once again makes the current punishment look useless and ineffective, she does this to ensure that reader’s agree with her