Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Dual Standard Over Freedom of Speech (Read 8057 times)
Acid Monkey
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Goth Father

Posts: 1064
EU
Gender: male
Dual Standard Over Freedom of Speech
Oct 20th, 2007 at 1:09am
 
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

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Classic Liberal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 769
sydney
Gender: male
Re: Dual Standard Over Freedom of Speech
Reply #1 - Oct 20th, 2007 at 1:28pm
 
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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Acid Monkey
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Goth Father

Posts: 1064
EU
Gender: male
Re: Dual Standard Over Freedom of Speech
Reply #2 - Oct 20th, 2007 at 2:16pm
 
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.....  Wink

Cheers!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Dual Standard Over Freedom of Speech
Reply #3 - Oct 20th, 2007 at 3:00pm
 
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.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Acid Monkey
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Goth Father

Posts: 1064
EU
Gender: male
Re: Dual Standard Over Freedom of Speech
Reply #4 - Oct 20th, 2007 at 8:56pm
 
freediver wrote on Oct 20th, 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.  Lips Sealed
Or maybe, I'm too much of an idealist to want a civil discourse when discussing sensitive topics.  Roll Eyes

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.  Roll Eyes 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 Angry

Cheers!

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
IQSRLOW
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1618
Re: Dual Standard Over Freedom of Speech
Reply #5 - Oct 20th, 2007 at 9:16pm
 
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
Back to top
 

Political Animal has little moderation. It is the forum for free speech and free thinkers to converse passionately without the threat of being banned. It is a forum for adults.
 
IP Logged
 
Acid Monkey
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Goth Father

Posts: 1064
EU
Gender: male
Re: Dual Standard Over Freedom of Speech
Reply #6 - Oct 20th, 2007 at 10:00pm
 
IQSRLOW wrote on Oct 20th, 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. Wink

Cheers!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
IQSRLOW
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1618
Re: Dual Standard Over Freedom of Speech
Reply #7 - Oct 20th, 2007 at 10:18pm
 
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
Back to top
 

Political Animal has little moderation. It is the forum for free speech and free thinkers to converse passionately without the threat of being banned. It is a forum for adults.
 
IP Logged
 
Acid Monkey
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Goth Father

Posts: 1064
EU
Gender: male
Re: Dual Standard Over Freedom of Speech
Reply #8 - Oct 20th, 2007 at 10:56pm
 
IQSRLOW wrote on Oct 20th, 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.  Smiley

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.  Smiley

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. Roll Eyes

Cheers!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 39428
Gender: male
Re: Dual Standard Over Freedom of Speech
Reply #9 - Oct 20th, 2007 at 11:02pm
 
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
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
IQSRLOW
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1618
Re: Dual Standard Over Freedom of Speech
Reply #10 - Oct 20th, 2007 at 11:07pm
 
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
Back to top
 

Political Animal has little moderation. It is the forum for free speech and free thinkers to converse passionately without the threat of being banned. It is a forum for adults.
 
IP Logged
 
Acid Monkey
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Goth Father

Posts: 1064
EU
Gender: male
Re: Dual Standard Over Freedom of Speech
Reply #11 - Oct 20th, 2007 at 11:31pm
 
Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 20th, 2007 at 11:02pm:
have we got a little off the topic ?



Lol. Yes we have. Grin

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 20th, 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!


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 39428
Gender: male
Re: Dual Standard Over Freedom of Speech
Reply #12 - Oct 21st, 2007 at 1:07am
 
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.

Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
deepthought
Gold Member
*****
Offline


In Defence Of Liberty

Posts: 2869
Re: Dual Standard Over Freedom of Speech
Reply #13 - Oct 21st, 2007 at 4:33pm
 
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.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Dual Standard Over Freedom of Speech
Reply #14 - Oct 21st, 2007 at 6:02pm
 
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?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print