Australian Politics Forum - be heard on 18c and freedom of speech

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47364 At my desk.	Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech Reply #135 - Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 9:47pm Dnarever wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 7:27pm: The court had ruled that the article was a form of racial vilification that failed to contain any of the exceptions contained in 18D. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Why not? Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech?
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

John Smith Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 72209 Gender:	Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech Reply #136 - Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 10:18pm freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 9:47pm: Why not? Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech? do you believe in freedom of speech FD?
Back to top	Our esteemed leader: I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus. IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 37678 Gender:	Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech Reply #137 - Dec 24^th, 2016 at 12:56pm John Smith wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 10:18pm: freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 9:47pm: Why not? Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech? do you believe in freedom of speech FD? How can he believe in something he cannot even identify?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47364 At my desk.	Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech Reply #138 - Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:38am Dnarever wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 7:27pm: The court had ruled that the article was a form of racial vilification that failed to contain any of the exceptions contained in 18D. How do you know this? Are you just making it up as you go along?
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57150
Here
Gender: male

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #139 - Dec 25^th, 2016 at 8:27am

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 9:47pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 7:27pm:

The court had ruled that the article was a form of racial vilification that failed to contain any of the exceptions contained in 18D.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Why not? Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

I am saying that it is ok to ban racial vilification.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57150
Here
Gender: male

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #140 - Dec 25^th, 2016 at 8:30am

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:38am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 7:27pm:

The court had ruled that the article was a form of racial vilification that failed to contain any of the exceptions contained in 18D.

How do you know this? Are you just making it up as you go along?

It was an assumption that I found to be incorrect when I subsequently read the ruling. 18D was not considered because he never contested the case. He didn't claim any exemption or argue that his article wasn't racial vilification.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57150
Here
Gender: male

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #141 - Dec 25^th, 2016 at 8:33am

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:38am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 7:27pm:

The court had ruled that the article was a form of racial vilification that failed to contain any of the exceptions contained in 18D.

How do you know this? Are you just making it up as you go along?

You seem to have got to the point where you are supporting racial vilification as well as the right to ignore court orders and be allowed to act in contempt of court.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47364
At my desk.

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #142 - Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:46pm

Dnarever wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 8:27am:

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 9:47pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 7:27pm:

The court had ruled that the article was a form of racial vilification that failed to contain any of the exceptions contained in 18D.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Why not? Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

I am saying that it is ok to ban racial vilification.

Oh. It looked to me like you were making a statement about freedom of speech. I have highlighted the relevant bit for you. Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech? Or are you backpedaling?

Quote:

You seem to have got to the point where you are supporting racial vilification as well as the right to ignore court orders and be allowed to act in contempt of court.

John Smith came up with the idiotic idea that if we oppose people being jailed for their opinion, we should oppose contempt of court legislation rather than 18c. If you are saying that is stupid, we are in agreement. Let the backpedaling begin.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 72209
Gender: male

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #143 - Dec 25^th, 2016 at 7:38pm

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:46pm:

John Smith came up with the idiotic idea that if we oppose people being jailed for their opinion, we should oppose contempt of court legislation rather than 18c. If you are saying that is stupid, we are in agreement.

it is stupid. Just as stupid than opposing 18c because it restricts your 'free speech'. That's why I suggested it.

I was waiting for you to get that bit, but I gave up.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 57150
Here
Gender: male

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #144 - Dec 25^th, 2016 at 7:50pm

freediver wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 6:46pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 25^th, 2016 at 8:27am:

freediver wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 9:47pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2016 at 7:27pm:

The court had ruled that the article was a form of racial vilification that failed to contain any of the exceptions contained in 18D.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Why not? Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

I am saying that it is ok to ban racial vilification.

Oh. It looked to me like you were making a statement about freedom of speech. I have highlighted the relevant bit for you. Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech? Or are you backpedaling?

Quote:

You seem to have got to the point where you are supporting racial vilification as well as the right to ignore court orders and be allowed to act in contempt of court.

John Smith came up with the idiotic idea that if we oppose people being jailed for their opinion, we should oppose contempt of court legislation rather than 18c. If you are saying that is stupid, we are in agreement. Let the backpedaling begin.

Feel free to start back peddling any time you like.

Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

18 c has very little impact on freedom of speech. It is not unreasonable to take racial vilification off the table.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47364
At my desk.

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #145 - Dec 26^th, 2016 at 8:59am

Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

What, if not 18c, were you referring to when you said this has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

Quote:

Just as stupid than opposing 18c because it restricts your 'free speech'. That's why I suggested it.

Why is that stupid John? There are an aweful lot of people doing this. Are they all idiots?

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 92279
Gender: male

Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #146 - Dec 26^th, 2016 at 11:52am

freediver wrote on Dec 26^th, 2016 at 8:59am:

Are you saying 18c has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

What, if not 18c, were you referring to when you said this has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

Quote:

Just as stupid than opposing 18c because it restricts your 'free speech'. That's why I suggested it.

Why is that stupid John? There are an aweful lot of people doing this. Are they all idiots?

There are only a few far-right nutjobs shrieking about 18C, FD, and they do so for one reason and one reason only: to stand by Andrew Bolt and News Ltd.

You?

Back to top

IP Logged