Forum

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

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 9
Send Topic Print
Why 18C doesn't limit free speech (Read 8383 times)
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Why 18C doesn't limit free speech
Dec 30th, 2016 at 4:53am
 
Section 18C states that a person can’t do something that is “reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people” and do it on the basis of another person’s “race, colour, national or ethnic origin”.

When read in isolation the law is expansive – if anyone could invoke the laws purely on the basis of being insulted, it would constrict much of the debate around race relations in the media, and swiftly lead to most of the right-wing media ending up in court cases.

Yet very few people have been found to have breached the law. People continue to spit out racist, vile commentary and cartoons every other day without heading to court.

People argue that 18C is bad because of the word offended. Politicians like Leyonhjelm loves to point out that “if you take offence, that’s your choice”.

He’s right. It’s up to you whether you get offended by something someone says. But the law doesn’t really give a s.hit if you’re personally offended.

Here’s how it works. The person who says they feel offended may bring the case to the Human Rights Commissioner but from that point on, your personal feelings are disregarded.

In reality, an objective test determines whether a “reasonable person” in the position of the person complaining would be offended, insulted or humiliated.

Objective not subjective.

It’s not up to you. The judge might take into account whether you were offended but ultimately it won’t change your case. The judge alone determines whether you had a right to be offended.

Even if you were found to have broken these laws, you’re not going to be hauled in by the police and locked in prison. You cannot be prosecuted or convicted under these laws. It is a civil law, not a criminal one. If someone believes the law has been broken, they approach the Human Rights Commissioner who then brings the two parties together to talk through the issues and attempt to resolve it. In 2014, of the 192 complaints made regarding the laws, just 5 ended up in court.

Let's not beat around the bush. This whole issue of 18c only became an issue after the darling of "conservatives" was  held to acoustic ntnt for blatant lies in his articles. Lies that don't just extend to so called "coloured" people. Much of his articles contain bias and factual errors.

For close to 40 years 18c had never been an issue in Australia, one wonders why it is an issue now.

Back to top
 

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Why 18C doesn't limit free speech
Reply #1 - Dec 30th, 2016 at 10:15am
 
Raven, these are all merely excuses, obfuscations, and efforts to minimise the perceived impact. You have not actually come up with a rational argument about why it does not limit free speech.

Quote:
Yet very few people have been found to have breached the law.


How many?

And how many would it take before our freedom of speech is restricted? The correct answer is 1.

Quote:
In reality, an objective test determines whether a “reasonable person” in the position of the person complaining would be offended, insulted or humiliated.


So it is only illegal to offend reasonable people? And you think that does not restrict freedom of speech?

Quote:
The judge alone determines whether you had a right to be offended.


Can you elaborate on this one?

Quote:
Even if you were found to have broken these laws, you’re not going to be hauled in by the police and locked in prison.


Does the extent of the immediate punishment change whether it restricts freedom of speech?

Quote:
Let's not beat around the bush. This whole issue of 18c only became an issue after the darling of "conservatives" was  held to acoustic ntnt for blatant lies in his articles. Lies that don't just extend to so called "coloured" people. Much of his articles contain bias and factual errors.


Not true. Gandalf has been complaining about the Jews using it for years.

Do you think freedom of speech does not extent to making factual errors?

Does the number of people complaining change whether it limits freedom of speech? Do you think freedom is a popularity contest?
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Why 18C doesn't limit free speech
Reply #2 - Dec 31st, 2016 at 10:24pm
 
Raven wrote on Dec 30th, 2016 at 4:53am:
Here’s how it works. The person who says they feel offended may bring the case to the Human Rights Commissioner but from that point on, your personal feelings are disregarded.

In reality, an objective test determines whether a “reasonable person” in the position of the person complaining would be offended, insulted or humiliated.

Objective not subjective.


I have no idea why you would think this point somehow validates your claim in the thread title.

What you are saying is that 18c absolutely can limit free speech - if the HRC considers your offence to be "reasonable".

I have a funny feeling that Lyenhelm et al's response to this point would simply be "well yeah, thats my point!"
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: Why 18C doesn't limit free speech
Reply #3 - Dec 31st, 2016 at 10:44pm
 
As you've pointed out, Raven, 18C is a civil law. It doesn't limit people's right to be bigots.

But it should.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Why 18C doesn't limit free speech
Reply #4 - Jan 1st, 2017 at 6:21pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 31st, 2016 at 10:44pm:
As you've pointed out, Raven, 18C is a civil law. It doesn't limit people's right to be bigots.

But it should.


How does that make a difference Karnal?
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: Why 18C doesn't limit free speech
Reply #5 - Jan 2nd, 2017 at 4:05pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2017 at 6:21pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 31st, 2016 at 10:44pm:
As you've pointed out, Raven, 18C is a civil law. It doesn't limit people's right to be bigots.

But it should.


How does that make a difference Karnal?


Let's see, being arrested by police and thrown into jail versus being sued or asked to explain yourself to the Human Rights Commission.

Questions questions.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Why 18C doesn't limit free speech
Reply #6 - Jan 2nd, 2017 at 4:08pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 4:05pm:
freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2017 at 6:21pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 31st, 2016 at 10:44pm:
As you've pointed out, Raven, 18C is a civil law. It doesn't limit people's right to be bigots.

But it should.


How does that make a difference Karnal?


Let's see, being arrested by police and thrown into jail versus being sued or asked to explain yourself to the Human Rights Commission.

Questions questions.


you think the expense and pain of funding a defence against HRC is somehow trivial?

The OP is ridiculous. 18C does curb free speech to some extent and the suggestion that it does not is beyond ridiculous.  The real question is if that restriction is worthwhile or reasonable.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: Why 18C doesn't limit free speech
Reply #7 - Jan 2nd, 2017 at 4:22pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 4:08pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 4:05pm:
freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2017 at 6:21pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 31st, 2016 at 10:44pm:
As you've pointed out, Raven, 18C is a civil law. It doesn't limit people's right to be bigots.

But it should.


How does that make a difference Karnal?


Let's see, being arrested by police and thrown into jail versus being sued or asked to explain yourself to the Human Rights Commission.

Questions questions.


you think the expense and pain of funding a defence against HRC is somehow trivial?

The OP is ridiculous. 18C does curb free speech to some extent and the suggestion that it does not is beyond ridiculous.  The real question is if that restriction is worthwhile or reasonable.


Agreed.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Why 18C doesn't limit free speech
Reply #8 - Jan 2nd, 2017 at 9:08pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 4:08pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 4:05pm:
freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2017 at 6:21pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 31st, 2016 at 10:44pm:
As you've pointed out, Raven, 18C is a civil law. It doesn't limit people's right to be bigots.

But it should.


How does that make a difference Karnal?


Let's see, being arrested by police and thrown into jail versus being sued or asked to explain yourself to the Human Rights Commission.

Questions questions.


you think the expense and pain of funding a defence against HRC is somehow trivial?

The OP is ridiculous. 18C does curb free speech to some extent and the suggestion that it does not is beyond ridiculous.  The real question is if that restriction is worthwhile or reasonable.


Reasonable and worthwhile but the process sucks.

Only a reasonable and tiny impact on freedom of speech.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 2nd, 2017 at 10:03pm by Dnarever »  
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 39921
Gender: male
Re: Why 18C doesn't limit free speech
Reply #9 - Jan 2nd, 2017 at 9:48pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 4:05pm:
freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2017 at 6:21pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 31st, 2016 at 10:44pm:
As you've pointed out, Raven, 18C is a civil law. It doesn't limit people's right to be bigots.

But it should.


How does that make a difference Karnal?


Let's see, being arrested by police and thrown into jail versus being sued or asked to explain yourself to the Human Rights Commission.

Questions questions.

You go to bed in time, then get up, wash, have breakfast and go to school - you will not be thrown in jail.

Loiter around until 4 am, be an arsehole while mum and dad (who he??) are pissed out their minds again and again and again - you will be chucked in jail because you are an arse'ole - black, white, whatever.
There is no 60,000 thousand years of 'kulture' that compels you to be a petrol sniffing arsehole at 3 am, no ancient kulture that says you should't wash, get breakfast, go to school, learn and behave.

And if that IS what your ancient kulture tell you, the sooner it's swept away the better.





Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91855
Gender: male
Re: Why 18C doesn't limit free speech
Reply #10 - Jan 2nd, 2017 at 9:56pm
 
Frank wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 9:48pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 4:05pm:
freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2017 at 6:21pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 31st, 2016 at 10:44pm:
As you've pointed out, Raven, 18C is a civil law. It doesn't limit people's right to be bigots.

But it should.


How does that make a difference Karnal?


Let's see, being arrested by police and thrown into jail versus being sued or asked to explain yourself to the Human Rights Commission.

Questions questions.

You go to bed in time, then get up, wash, have breakfast and go to school - you will not be thrown in jail.

Loiter around until 4 am, be an arsehole while mum and dad (who he??) are pissed out their minds again and again and again - you will be chucked in jail because you are an arse'ole - black, white, whatever.
There is no 60,000 thousand years of 'kulture' that compels you to be a petrol sniffing arsehole at 3 am, no ancient kulture that says you should't wash, get breakfast, go to school, learn and behave.

And if that IS what your ancient kulture tell you, the sooner it's swept away the better.







Lawyer, are you?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 39921
Gender: male
Re: Why 18C doesn't limit free speech
Reply #11 - Jan 2nd, 2017 at 10:28pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 9:56pm:
Frank wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 9:48pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 4:05pm:
freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2017 at 6:21pm:
Mattyfisk wrote on Dec 31st, 2016 at 10:44pm:
As you've pointed out, Raven, 18C is a civil law. It doesn't limit people's right to be bigots.

But it should.


How does that make a difference Karnal?


Let's see, being arrested by police and thrown into jail versus being sued or asked to explain yourself to the Human Rights Commission.

Questions questions.

You go to bed in time, then get up, wash, have breakfast and go to school - you will not be thrown in jail.

Loiter around until 4 am, be an arsehole while mum and dad (who he??) are pissed out their minds again and again and again - you will be chucked in jail because you are an arse'ole - black, white, whatever.
There is no 60,000 thousand years of 'kulture' that compels you to be a petrol sniffing arsehole at 3 am, no ancient kulture that says you should't wash, get breakfast, go to school, learn and behave.

And if that IS what your ancient kulture tell you, the sooner it's swept away the better.



Lawyer, are you?



Just sane.
Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39377
Re: Why 18C doesn't limit free speech
Reply #12 - Jan 3rd, 2017 at 12:04am
 
Frank wrote on Jan 2nd, 2017 at 10:28pm:
Just sane.


Really?  Sure could have fooled me...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2981
Around
Re: Why 18C doesn't limit free speech
Reply #13 - Jan 3rd, 2017 at 2:41am
 
In the two decades between 1990 and 2010, just 4000 formal complaints have been made, amounting to only 200 complaints a year. In comparison, police convict 12 000 people in NSW alone for using offensive language or conduct.

Cory Bernardi once said

Quote:
Sometimes, in politics and life, there are things so important that they need to be defended under any circumstances. For lovers of freedom and jousters in the battle of ideas, one of those principles is freedom of speech.


Fair point. It makes sense that he would be up in arms at every attack on free speech, fuming at the very thought that people aren’t able to speak openly. Yet where were the defenders of free speech when the Border Force Act made it possible for a doctor, welfare worker or an “entrusted person” to be imprisoned for 2 years if they speak out about abuses in detention – a blatant restriction of freedom of speech? Oh yeah they supported it.

If you want to have a conversation about real restrictions of freedom of speech, then let’s get bloody well started. Remember when an Australian Senator had been barred from entering Nauru to report on our own detention centres. Our laws literally enable us to chuck people in jail if they speak out about the sexual abuse of children in detention. That sounds distinctly more like George Orwell’s 1984 than logical laws protecting our citizens against racial discrimination.

Why can't we get angry that we can't racially abuse people in the streets without consequence?

This campaign to change 18C isn’t really about the universal right to a freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with it. It’s about privileged people whinging that they are being silenced in society. This isn’t the case. For the first time, certain privileged people are being held to account by the people who are affected by their words. They complain about their own freedom of speech being limited by others calling them out for racism or homophobia, but this is exactly the freedom of speech we all deserve.

These laws are simply being used as ammunition in a fight against “political correctness”. It’s not a coincidence that these laws have been around for over 20 years and it’s only now that people are outraged by them.

Freedom of speech is important. But literally all these laws do is stop people spewing racial abuse on the streets and stop media commentators from laying into people of other races without backing up their accusations with facts. Why the hell would you want to defend that? This isn’t a slippery slope. It’s a well-written law that is serving its purpose. If you want to have a civil discussion about race or criticise someone’s culture with facts, then go ahead – the law will protect you.


Back to top
 

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Online


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Why 18C doesn't limit free speech
Reply #14 - Jan 3rd, 2017 at 7:44am
 
Raven, these are all merely excuses, obfuscations, and efforts to minimise the perceived impact. You have not actually come up with a rational argument about why it does not limit free speech.

Quote:
Yet very few people have been found to have breached the law.


How many?

And how many would it take before our freedom of speech is restricted? The correct answer is 1.

Quote:
In reality, an objective test determines whether a “reasonable person” in the position of the person complaining would be offended, insulted or humiliated.


So it is only illegal to offend reasonable people? And you think that does not restrict freedom of speech?

Quote:
The judge alone determines whether you had a right to be offended.


Can you elaborate on this one?

Quote:
Even if you were found to have broken these laws, you’re not going to be hauled in by the police and locked in prison.


Does the extent of the immediate punishment change whether it restricts freedom of speech?

Quote:
Let's not beat around the bush. This whole issue of 18c only became an issue after the darling of "conservatives" was  held to acoustic ntnt for blatant lies in his articles. Lies that don't just extend to so called "coloured" people. Much of his articles contain bias and factual errors.


Not true. Gandalf has been complaining about the Jews using it for years.

Do you think freedom of speech does not extent to making factual errors?

Does the number of people complaining change whether it limits freedom of speech? Do you think freedom is a popularity contest?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 9
Send Topic Print