freediver wrote on Dec 14
th, 2016 at 7:18pm:
Quote:Seconded.
Raven and John, do you support Toben's right to say the things he said?
Yes. You can say what you like but be prepared to be held accountable for what you say
Do you think you should be able to say or do what you want without consequence?
Lets look at Freedom of Speech in Australia
A well established principle of Common Law is that Parliament is presumed not to have intended to limit fundamental rights, unless it indicates this intention in clear terms. This includes freedom of speech
The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. Free speech operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals.
Even the very champions of free speech, the USA, have a ton of things you are legally not allowed to say. The example that everyone is familiar with is you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded place. You can't incite people to violence, you can't slander (in speech) or libel (in writing) someone, and you can't say things that would make any reasonable person punch you in the face, because them's fightin' words.
Sometimes Raven loves how the Yanks say things.
The fighting words doctrine was established by the US Supreme Court by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.
Chaplinsky told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching that he was "a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest and wrote in its decision that
Quote:There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
All he did was call the bloke a few names and got arrested and the US Supreme Court held that there was a limit to free spech.
Your man Toben says one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century never happened and all he got was a court order telling him to take it off his website.