out that Tony, or some other person, has posted the content of the email on his blog. Under the heading "John Sunol is deranged", the following text appears: I promised John Sunol that I would not take his abuse and publish any threatening emails I get from this turd of a human being. I have not checked my account for a while and this was sitting in my inbox. 51 The content of Mr Sunol's email is then set out. We are not satisfied that the publication of the content of the email on www.zgeek.com was a public act of Mr Sunol. As he is the only respondent in these proceedings, Mr Burns' complaint of homosexual vilification against him in relation to this publication is not substantiated. 52 In summary, all the publications, apart from the fifth and the eleventh, are public acts of Mr Sunol. Do the remaining acts incite serious hatred towards, serious contempt for or severe ridicule of a person or group of people on the ground of homosexuality? Introduction 53 Of the remaining publications, the first, second, third, fourth (paras 1 and 3), seventh, eighth (para 2), ninth and tenth publications constitute homosexual vilification. The fourth (paras 2, 4 and 5), sixth and eighth (para 1) are not substantiated. 54 Mr Sunol submits that none of his publications incite hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule against a person or group of people on the ground of their homosexuality. He says that was not his intention. He does not consider all members of the gay community to be paedophiles or drug dealers, but he says he knows "for a fact" that pedophiles "roam" at the Mardi Gras and that "drugs are heavy". Mr Sunol says, "I was not vilifying but stating what I think of the event, not the gays, this has nothing to do with gays." 55 Mr Sunol's understanding of what he said, or meant to say, is irrelevant. The words themselves are the public act, not what Mr Sunol intended to say or his subsequent interpretation of his words: Burns v Sunol (No 2) supra at [38] and [39]. 56 The publications on Mr Sunol's website were directed to internet users. Anyone who uses the internet was able to access his website and read the text. Internet users are the class of persons to whom the text is directed. The Tribunal made the same finding in its 2012 decision: