Dnarever wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 8:11pm:


Perhaps the most enlightened post in all of these free speech threads.

We live under an illusion that we rights. We don't, we have privileges.

To quote George Carlin if you think we have rights Google "Japanese American citizens 1942-1945"

Or Google "German and Japanese internment in Australia"

Rights are a myth, we only have privileges. Privileges that can be taken away at anytime.

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2017 at 10:13pm:


Good point, FD. We all misunderstood the simple concept of your free speech definition.

It said that libel and vilification laws do not curtail the basic human right to free speech.

Maybe we should ask Wikipedia a few questions, eh?

I showed you my definition, remember? Right after you showed me yours. You never did thank me Aussie.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2017 at 10:07am:



Save me the trouble of looking back....at what Post # did you do that FD?

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2017 at 10:18am:


No I can't be bothered.
I am interested in seeing what your definition of freedom of speech is though

The_Barnacle wrote on Jan 8^th, 2017 at 10:45am:


John Stuart Mill explained it all and outlined four distinct grounds for it in Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion in his book On Liberty (1869).

Since it is too long for the likes of you, here's the gist for you:
We have now recognised the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.
  First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.
  Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.
  Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.



You could also do yourself a huge service by reading through The Areopagitica by John Milton. It will take about 10 minutes.

This is the essentially the definition of free speech in Australia

Quote:


Freedom of speech does not mean you get to say whatever you want without consequences. It simply means the government can't stop you from saying it.

Not only in Australia, lets look at the very champions of free speech, the USA and the so called "fighting words" doctrine.

The fighting words doctrine is Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.

Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, 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:


Unlike Chaplinsky we have 18d which is a free pass.