Quote:

DUAL STANDARD OVER FREEDOM OF SPEECH 20th October 2007 The hysteria being whipped up over the The Chaser's satirical song is highly amusing for the light it sheds on Australian values. When Muslims reacted indignantly to Danish cartoons that mocked Muhammad, they were ridiculed and chastised. They were told that freedom of speech was a core value in Western democracies and their failure to appreciate this showed that they were not adapted to Western society. The Chaser, however, has mocked sacred Australian symbols: a racing car driver, cricket player, talkback radio host and rich newspaper proprietor. Such a reaction shows how flimsy is the commitment of some Australians to freedom of speech. Colin Sheppard, Essendon The Age, Letters Section

actually i would say every one in all those cases was exhibiting their right to reedom of speech. By the way we dont have the right to freedom of speech in australia.

I agree.

We have restricted or limited freedom of speech in Australia enforced by law or society.

We have laws dictating the limits on what we can read or write. Public dissent and protest is treated heavy handedly by authorities. Dialogue that are considered at odds with "society" are censored, struck down and ridiculed. Public debate is no longer encouraged. Should a debate occur the topic is seldom discussed and nearly always degenerate to name calling and personal insults.

People with differing opinions are dismissed with a broad brush of labels - left-wing, right-wing, commie, fascist, moron, idiot, stupid, X-hugger, X-hater, appeaser, sympathiser, warmonger, tree-hugger, latte-drinker, chardonnay-sipper, patriot, nationalist, socialist, radical, conservative, fundamentalist, red-neck, nazi etc. This does not contribute to the debate or to free speech except to raise the heat of hate of both parties towards the other.

"Attack the messenger, distract from the message" is the mentality. You will never sway anyone with insults. Instead, you will only strengthen their resolve and harden their opinion. The disenfranchised and those of little or no voice are ostracised, ignored and forgotten. Extremism is given birth in this way. But, I digress.....  ;)

Cheers!

The Chaser, however, has mocked sacred Australian symbols: a racing car driver, cricket player, talkback radio host and rich newspaper proprietor. Such a reaction shows how flimsy is the commitment of some Australians to freedom of speech.

What reaction? Giving them piles of money to keep it up? How is that in any way comparable to killing the author?

People with differing opinions are dismissed with a broad brush of labels

How is that contrary to the principle of freedom of speech?

Don't get me wrong, I do see some worrying trends from our government, but they are fairly technical and more to do with freedom of information. This stuff misses the point.

freediver wrote on Oct 20^th, 2007 at 3:00pm:

How is that contrary to the principle of freedom of speech?

My point was that to dismiss an opinion by labelling/branding the orator is a subtle but personal tactic of intimidation. For example, one may make a comment that one thinks that the ALP's policies are good. One could that then be attacked as 1) a union sympathiser, 2) a socialist, 3) a left-wing radical, 4) a commie and even 5) a red (the lastest catch-phrase is of course the re-hash "reds under the beds"). All this is to intimidate and to subtly say "Shut up!" This a lower form of stifling free speech and is probably 3-5 steps away from beating someone up for voicing differing opinion.

Most people are poor debaters or public speakers. Most people are too timid or shy to voice opinion in public. But ,should they speak out for whatever reason only to be shouted down and branded with preconceived or ill-conceived generalisation IS kerbing free speech.

Maybe I exaggerate but hey, extremes are really never too far away to materialise especially when we are not paying attention.  :-X
Or maybe, I'm too much of an idealist to want a civil discourse when discussing sensitive topics.  ::)


Quote:

Don't get me wrong, I do see some worrying trends from our government, but they are fairly technical and more to do with freedom of information. This stuff misses the point.

Yes, it is a worry. FoI? Now that's a different kind of argument.  ::) You only have to look at Ruddock's latest review (in spite of sitting on reccomendations for 11 years now) - he commisions FoI Review Lite with vague and broad ranging terms of references >:(

Cheers!

But ,should they speak out for whatever reason only to be shouted down and branded with preconceived or ill-conceived generalisation IS kerbing free speech.  

So you support freedom of speech by kerbing freedom of speech?

People should be free to say what they like within the boundaries of our laws, but they should also be prepared to wear the consequences of that freedom...it's a two way street.

For example, one may make a comment that one thinks that the ALP's policies are good. One could that then be attacked as 1) a union sympathiser, 2) a socialist, 3) a left-wing radical, 4) a commie and even 5) a red (the lastest catch-phrase is of course the re-hash "reds under the beds"). All this is to intimidate and to subtly say "Shut up!" This a lower form of stifling free speech and is probably 3-5 steps away from beating someone up for voicing differing opinion.  

I see the politically correct brigade doing exactly the same thing

IQSRLOW wrote on Oct 20^th, 2007 at 9:16pm:

People should be free to say what they like within the boundaries of our laws, but they should also be prepared to wear the consequences of that freedom...it's a two way street.

Oh yes, I totally agree with you that it is a two way street. If my opinions are wrong then I fully expect somebody's rebuttal with the correct and appropriate facts. However, if I'm wrong and all I'm told is "You know nothing you idiot! STFU!" or, worst maybe I'm right but I'm called a "moron" anyway simply because my opinion differs; is my point. Luckily, I'm thick skin enough to ignore such personal abuse and only respond to appropriately stimulating comments. However, many people are poor speakers and are intimidated by such behaviour. Political and public commentators would know that, the Govt and the Opposition knows that, politcal party supporters all know that. They all use it deliberately and effectively with the primary aim of intimidating the timid, stifling opinions that contradicts their own and emotionally pummelling "dissent" into submission. It happens on all sides of the political spectrum - some do it better than others (the Young Liberals are particlularly good at it and so is the MUA).


Quote:

I see the politically correct brigade doing exactly the same thing

Again, I agree with you. I've never said otherwise.  

However, I don't believe that a civilised debate or discourse has anything to do with being politically correct. It's not about spokesman vs spokesperson, stupidity vs intellectually challenged, or tall vs verticlly enhanced. It's not even about being nice to each other. It's about respecting the opposing view, agreeing to disagree, hearing all sides, challenging ideas not the person. I'm begining to think that I'm old fashion or maybe (shock horror) a conservative! I should wake up an smell the coffee. ;)

Cheers!

However, if I'm wrong and all I'm told is "You know nothing you idiot! STFU!" or, worst maybe I'm right but I'm called a "moron" anyway simply because my opinion differs; is my point. Luckily, I'm thick skin enough to ignore such personal abuse and only respond to appropriately stimulating comments. However, many people are poor speakers and are intimidated by such behaviour.

Welcome to life! LOL

Dialogue skills and intimidation are part and parcel of voicing an opinion. If you have one, then odds are someone is going to have a differing one.

Although some who parrot the ideas of others without thought, should heed the advice of STFU as they neither have the skills nor the knowledge to argue their case effectively

IQSRLOW wrote on Oct 20^th, 2007 at 10:18pm:

Dialogue skills and intimidation are part and parcel of voicing an opinion. If you have one, then odds are someone is going to have a differing one.

Sure. A difference of opinion is fine. One must lead a very sheltered life if one isn't aware that there are people out there who disagrees with one. However, the context here is freedom of speech. As long as the other side can get their opinions out without being vitriolicly abused is all I'm saying - that is true freedom of speech. The right to verbally abuse someone is also technically true but it fundamentally goes against the preamble of freedom.  :)


Quote:

Although some who parrot the ideas of others without thought, should heed the advice of STFU as they neither have the skills nor the knowledge to argue their case effectively

Lol. Yes, indeed. Unfortunately, there are many parrots in the political arena. It may as well be an avary.  :)

Too many people believe in propaganda. Too many people believe rumours and heresay. Too many opinions are spoken without experience or research. Too many people are brainwashed (greenwashed?). Too many people are swayed by innuendo. People are just too lazy or complacent to educate themselves on the issues; and yet they consider themselves as experts on the subjects. The political parties and interest groups knows and exploits this ignorance. Its a case of voter beware.

They say "nobody told me" and they believe. They say "I didn't read the memo" and they believe. They say "I have anecdotal evidence..." and therefore it must be true (nb. anecdotal evidence could be that they overheard the night janitor discussing an incident - technically true but very misleading). And then armed with these "evidence" they go forth to preach (parrot) the doctrine. ::)

Cheers!

have we got a little off the topic ?

My thoughts are Aussie shows an overacceptance of freedom of speech.
If there be such a thing.
There has been no fatwa/death threats against them, so at the least, freedom of speech of very well here.

For some time I have disliked chasers. However I prefer freedom of speech more.
Had I been one of the loved ones left behind by those that chasers mentioned I would check with a lawyer about a class action against them.

muslims murder.  That idiot colin should go live in saudi arabia.
The apologist, he has no idea whatsoever about them

Sure. A difference of opinion is fine. One must lead a very sheltered life if one isn't aware that there are people out there who disagrees with one. However, the context here is freedom of speech. As long as the other side can get their opinions out without being vitriolicly abused is all I'm saying - that is true freedom of speech. The right to verbally abuse someone is also technically true but it fundamentally goes against the preamble of freedom.

Therein lies the rub, but we are all human and our passion dictates the course or discourse as it may be. History is littered with those that might have been right but lacked the passion to overcome the discourse to fulfilment

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 20^th, 2007 at 11:02pm:

have we got a little off the topic ?

Lol. Yes we have. ;D

However, I was enjoying the discussion so much that I was quite happy to let it go off. Lol. Afterall, I started this thread therefore I should be able to steer its direction... I'm assuming of course. Haha.

Of course there wouldn't be fatwas against the Chaser Team. This is not the nature of our Western society. The comment Colin made was about the disparity of backlash against free speech in the form of parody. Death threats? This is not uncommon here in Australia against free speech. I recall the museum curator receiving death threats for exhibiting Piss Christ a few years ago. Also, the same for the artist who exhibited street art in Melbourne's Fed Square highlighting atrocities by Israel against Palestinians. Essentially the same.

The West accused the Muslims for overeacting over "some harmless cartoons" inspite of the fact that their religion states the image of Mohammed is sacrosanct. Much in the same way as our society is saying that villifying the death is taboo. Based on the same, aren't we therefore overeacting as well?



IQSRLOW wrote on Oct 20^th, 2007 at 11:07pm:

Therein lies the rub, but we are all human and our passion dictates the course or discourse as it may be. History is littered with those that might have been right but lacked the passion to overcome the discourse to fulfilment

Too true. Imagine what our society would have been like if they had the courage and passion to pursue and fulfil their convictions.

Cheers!

Hi acid,
How have you been ?

Yes, it's not in the nature of western society to issue fatwas.
it is VERY uncommon for anyone to get death threats or bombing attempts here in aussie or any other christian country.
It is not in western society to do that. Only muslims.

We may be overreacting but our laws of freedom of speech allows chasers to do as they wish though.

You don't get it, do you ?


muslim march in their thousands, issue a hit on a cartoonist, placards of "behead those that insult islam".
Christians support freedom of speech and maintain our own freedom of speech to object.

We do have the right of free speech, albeit a common law one, but it has served us well enough and I see no reason to change it.

Far more threatening is the 'fatwa' of the PC indoctrination brigade who would rid us of the right to express ourselves.

My point was that to dismiss an opinion by labelling/branding the orator is a subtle but personal tactic of intimidation.

Which is protected by freedom of speech.

For example, one may make a comment that one thinks that the ALP's policies are good. One could that then be attacked as 1) a union sympathiser, 2) a socialist, 3) a left-wing radical, 4) a commie and even 5) a red (the lastest catch-phrase is of course the re-hash "reds under the beds").

If they made such a vague comment, what else could they expect?

This a lower form of stifling free speech and is probably 3-5 steps away from beating someone up for voicing differing opinion.

Freedom of speech is freeom of speech. There is no high and low form, only a low form. You cannot protect free speech by atempting to restrict what people say. Freedom of speech is a form of anarchy. When I try to stop members of this forum from personally attacking each other, it is not to protect free speech, but to try to overcome some of the problems inherent to free speech. It is a tradeoff between freedom of speech and quality of discourse (for want of a better term).

But ,should they speak out for whatever reason only to be shouted down and branded with preconceived or ill-conceived generalisation IS kerbing free speech.

No it isn't. Expecting to be able to prevent others from speaking so you can be heard is kerbing free speech. Free speech is not polite.

Slander laws are another example of restrictions on freedom of speech, as are restrictions on racism. However trying to enforce people to be polite in public in all circumstances as you appear to suggest is actually dangerous. It would do far more to stifle dissent than calling people names. In fact it is elected politicians that people hold ot far higher standards than their critics. Howard for example could not get away with the juvenile stunts of the Chaser team or the vitriol hurled at him by lunatics.

It's about respecting the opposing view, agreeing to disagree

I never quite got the whole 'agreeing to disagree' thing. To me this is like saying that a topic is now taboo and you will not discuss it any more to protect a relationship.

I agree with a lot of the problems you have dientified which is why I try to prevent some of those things here, it's just wrong to claim it is a way to protect free speech. In practice it almost always turns into an excuse to silence your opposition. Every time I am censored unjustly on other forums there is an attempt to justify it along these lines. I often feel that I am walking a very fine line in moderating this forum.

The right to verbally abuse someone is also technically true but it fundamentally goes against the preamble of freedom.

There is no one principle of freedom. There are different, conflicting freedoms and no way to protect them all.

People are just too lazy or complacent to educate themselves on the issues; and yet they consider themselves as experts on the subjects.

Isn't this the exact thing you were criticising?

I agree to agree with much of what you say freediver except the 'agreeing to disagree' concept being difficult to understand.  In interchanges people inevitably make up their mind or have already done so and no amount of circling each other will change that.   In that event it's OK to agree to disagree, to respect their right to have a different viewpoint and agree to leave it at that.

That's OK surely?

If they can get to the bottom of it. Often they don't. Often there is a misunderstanding of a technical matter, or a failure to acknowledge different values. They pull away because emotion is preventing them from following a topic to it's conclusion.

freediver wrote on Oct 21^st, 2007 at 6:29pm:

If they can get to the bottom of it. Often they don't. Often there is a misunderstanding of a technical matter, or a failure to acknowledge different values. They pull away because emotion is preventing them from following a topic to it's conclusion.

Agreed, but the refuge for most people on the net seems to be abuse.  Agreeing to disagree seems to me to be a better outcome.  I have never understood the need to be insulting yet many have that need, perhaps because of other stuff in their lives - I don't know.  

Far better to see the possibility of it turning bad and getting out intact.

I will certainly continue to discuss an issue with a willing participant and I am immune to abuse as it says more about the abuser than the abused, but it's pretty boring to read for others so if the opponent has a dummy spit it's better to extract yourself from the path of the spittle.

deepthought - adults can agree to disagree.

i don't answer abuse. that only seems to encourage and support it


"The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart.
For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks."

Luke 6:45

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Free-speech-being-whittled-away-report/2007/11/05/1194117927878.html

Free speech in Australia is being whittled away by legal restrictions and a secretive culture among public officials, according to a new report on press freedom.

Author of the report, former NSW ombudsman Irene Moss, says there are grounds for concern about the state of free speech in Australia.

Her audit, commissioned by a coalition of major media groups, says there are 500 pieces of legislation and at least 1,000 court suppression orders still in force that restrict media reporting in Australia.

"The audit would broadly conclude that free speech and media freedom are being whittled away by gradual and sometimes almost imperceptible degrees," she said.

Ms Moss, also a former chair of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), said:"What the audit can observe is that many of the mechanisms that are vital to a well-functioning democracy are beginning to wear thin.

"Many important institutions - government, business, churches, military, courts, health services, schools and universities - employ procedures which are more about reducing media risk than about fulfilling obligations of accountability."

Ms Moss said freedom of information laws did not always help, and sometimes even hindered, the flow of information.

Ms Moss also criticised the "non-existent or flawed" institutional support for whistleblowers exposing corruption and maladministration.

Shield laws protecting journalists were also inadequate, she said.

"The Moss report shows that the slide into censorship and secrecy is evident at all levels of government and among political parties," he said.

Two weeks ago Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd released the ALP's FoI policy, which pledged to improve journalistic privilege, whistleblower protection and privacy laws.

"I cannot think of a better moment for some me-too policies from the coalition," Mr Kirk said.

Rudd pushes for stronger FOI laws
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1173068900/378#378

Anna Bligh plans to shred veil of secrecy through FOI law reform
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23844881-601,00.html

A HISTORIC attempt to overcome government secrecy by opening confidential files and strengthening the long-eroded Freedom of Information Act has been launched in Queensland and could be the precursor for reforms across the nation.

Having succeeded Peter Beattie last year with a promise of greater transparency, Queensland Premier Anna Bligh yesterday gave broad support for the 141 recommendations from an FOI review conducted by former barrister and journalist David Solomon. Dr Solomon is also on the advisory committee for a federal review of FOI laws, ordered by Kevin Rudd and being conducted by the Australian Law Reform Commission, and will argue for his reform model to be introduced nationally.

His report, The Right to Information, comes a year after media organisations - including News Limited, publisher of The Australian - joined forces to run the Australia's Right to Know campaign to protest against government secrecy.

Not content to wait for the outcome of the federal review, Ms Bligh wants state cabinet to respond to the Solomon report within eight weeks, allowing for public consultation at the end of the year and legislation to be debated in parliament early next year.

She had repeatedly conceded that the broad cabinet exemptions, heavily criticised by Dr Solomon for allowing documents to be withheld from release under FOI, had been misused and should be overhauled.

But Dr Solomon has gone much further, recommending broad-ranging reforms that would effectively make FOI - to be renamed Right To Information - less relevant.

Not only would all cabinet documents be released after 10 years, instead of 30 years as is currently the case in Queensland, but after every cabinet meeting, the premier would have to decide what not to make public and release an edited cabinet agenda along with any non-confidential documents.

RTI applications - which would be expedited by government, and be less costly to applicants - would face fewer obstacles and be bolstered by a prevailing public interest test.

Personal information could also be accessed outside RTI under a process administered by a state privacy commissioner.

Dr Solomon wants the culture of government to change from allowing the release of information only after the "pull" of the media or others, to actually "push" information into the public arena.

He has recommended new information technology systems be used to record, track and release documents throughout government, and favours a similar culture of transparency in third-party organisations that receive taxpayer funds, such as parliament, courts, government-owned corporations and private schools.
While Ms Bligh vowed to consult widely with third parties who might be affected by such reforms, she said "by and large the other recommendations, in my view, have merit and the Government will ultimately pick them up".

Ms Bligh said she was "comfortable" with the recommended changes to cabinet exemptions, which in theory would allow the release of more documents, and with the broad direction taken by Dr Solomon.

"What has been delivered to government is a plan that, I think, finds the right balance between the legitimate privacy of our citizens, the public interest, and effective government," Ms Bligh told reporters.

While Ms Bligh declared it possible the new model could be introduced before the next election, due late next year, it remains to be seen whether the release of cabinet documents would advantage the Opposition.

Dr Solomon said he expected the move from a 30-year cabinet rule to a 10-year rule would be made progressively, releasing several years of historic documents at a time until the system was up to date.

While Queensland Labor celebrates 10 years in power this week, the cabinet documents of the former Coalition government would be released first.

Ms Bligh, who has sought to differentiate herself from Mr Beattie, could also benefit from the release of documents pertaining to Labor's early years in government.