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:


How many?

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

Quote:


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

Quote:


Can you elaborate on this one?

Quote:


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

Quote:


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?

As you've pointed out, Raven, 18C is a civil law. It doesn't limit people's right to be bigots.

But it should.

freediver wrote on Jan 1^st, 2017 at 6:21pm:


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.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 4:08pm:


Agreed.

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 4:05pm:

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.

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2017 at 9:56pm:



Just sane.

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:


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.

Quote:


It does not make a difference to whether it limits your freedom of speech. Both limit it. Changing the extent of the punishment makes no difference in that regard.

Quote:


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

Quote:


This is your thread Raven. You made it about 18c. Don't you want to talk about it any more? Are you admitting you were wrong to claim it doesn't limit free speech?

Quote:


18c goes well beyond both racism and discrimination.

Quote:


Silenced eh? Is that why it has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

Quote:


18c does not merely "call out" people. You don't need a law for that, you only need freedom of speech.

Quote:


Gandalf had been complaining about them for years. He was upset that the Jews got in on the act and used it to effectively crminalise holocaust denial.

Quote:


Incorrect.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2017 at 7:48am:


That's the thing about you numpties, sanity appears foolish to you.

freediver wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2017 at 7:44am:


Freediver you personally either limit or allow free speech to be limited on a regular basis. Why is it suddenly wrong for free speech to have limitations when race is brought into it?

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 8:37am:



that's bullsh1t ... this isn't a book or a thesis where you choose the topic, this is an internet forum that is open to the public  to comment on whatever topics they like, whenever they like.

I liken your argument to someone arguing that they own the mailbox therefore they get to decide what goes in it.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 9:27am:



can't stop people putting things into it.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 12:40pm:


no you can't ... not if you want to continue to receive mail. I've got 3 'no junk mail' signs up and I still fill up with junk mail.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 12:48pm:



yes you can stop everyone posting here, but that would make it more a private blog where only your opinions are allowed, than a public forum. Just as a mail box with no slot is just a box.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 12:53pm:


yes ... but you can't have it both ways, you can't have a mail box and lock it, otherwise it defeats the purpose

just as you can't cry about free speech elsewhere while restricting it on your website.

Quote:


It is my site. I can have it any way I want. Both ways. Sideways. Back to front. The only thing I cannot do is force you to post here, just as you cannot force to to accept what you post.

Quote:


Sure I can.

Quote:


Again, it is my choice to defeat the purpose. Not yours. Freedom includes the right to be irrational.

Quote:


Again, entirely my choice. Not yours. I am free to make it and change it on a whim. Nothing I did here would restrict your freedom of speech.

Quote:


Actually I can be held responsible in some circumstances, precisely because I do publish it.

Quote:


Are you trying to say I am right?

Quote:


Which is entire my right to choose, and to defeat the purpose of. It is simply not possible for me to restrict your freedom with this site, because your freedom invokes no rights at all on my site.

Quote:


No I would not. And yes I do. There are people who are banned permanently. I have plenty of guidelines beyond swearing regarding what is allowed. A free for all kills a forum just as fast over moderation.

Quote:


If they made a right to post here part of their freedom, yes it would. But that is not going to happen because freedom of speech invokes no rights for others on this site. It would not make any sense.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 12:40pm:


Seems to have moved on to the freedom to not listen to someone's free speech.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 1:28pm:



fd is only worried about freedom of speech when it restricts his ability to have a shot at muslims

Quote:


That is legally incorrect.  I had to look into this some years ago and there is compulsion that you have a box that Australia Post can put your mail into.

I can't be arsed looking for the basis for that, but it exists.

Google it Aussie. As this discussion demonstrates, there is infinite scope for people to misunderstand it, and I expect someone like you to test every one.

Also, what you often attempt to build into a definition of freedom of speech is actually the conflict between freedom of speech and our other rights and freedoms. There is no simple way to put this into a "definition". The closest to an attempt to do this is people's efforts to write freedom into constitutions, which is fraught with danger.

Let me google that for you Aussie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction.[1][2][3][4] The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 additionally states that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[5][6]
Freedom of speech and expression are not absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[7]

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 5:46pm:


Is that YOUR definition, FD?

Aussie wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 5:48pm:


I copied it and pasted it from wikipedia Aussie. But feel free to demonstrate your infinite ability to misunderstand using that definition instead of mine.

You will have to wait until I write it down Aussie. Be patient.

Aussie have you ever used a word without first writing down the definition?

Aussie wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 5:55pm:


I see no reason why you could not weld a block of metal across the opening, rivet sheet metal or nail a bit of wood ?

It does seem to be technically feasible.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 5:46pm:


Have you read your definition, FD?

It provides an exception for laws exactly like 18C.

I'm curious. Do you agree or disagree with your own definition?

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 6:09pm:


Bugger......that is exactly why I was trying to corner FD on whether it was his definition....he quickly realised the problem, and said that it was not, and that he is yet to write his down.

'Cunning, no?'

Aussie wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 6:07pm:


I copied and pasted a definition from wikipedia.

Can you please provide a definition of "the" for me.

Quote:


No it does not.

Quote:


Freedom of speech is about what those consequences are. Jailing someone for denying the holocaust is the antithesis of freedom of speech. Just consequences are people thinking you are in idiot of you say stupid things. Unjust conseuquences are being put in jail because people think your opinion is not reasonable. Everything has consequences. This is an inescapable law of nature. But you are confusing that with being jailed for your opinion.

Quote:


Now you are getting the hang of it John. I can, however, expect not to be punished for saying something you think is wrong.

Quote:


This is a particularly idiotic thing to say John, but you keep repeating it. That consequence means he was not free. You claimed above that freedom means freedom from consequences. You are contradicting yourself.

Aussie wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 6:11pm:


Yes Aussie. You nearly trapped me with your cunning plan.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 5:28pm:

That's the worst definition ever Aussie. Why do you use a word if you think it means nothing?

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 6:54pm:


Convention....sentence/communication structure.  It is a word we could simple stop using and nothing would be lost, really.

No more question to me, FD.  Your turn to produce.  You can always just say that you have no decided concept/definition what you think freedom of speech means, and nobody here will think any less of you.

Aussie wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 7:07pm:


So why use it if it has no meaning Aussie? You told me you would provide a definition of any word you use, yet here we are, stuck on the very first word, insisting it has no meaning and you might as well stop using it. Perhaps you would like to take back your vow to provide any definition on request?

FD, your definition is still posted here for all to see. This is dangerous. It could lead to people thinking 18C does not take away their freedom of speech at all.

I'm sorry, you'll need to take it down immediately.

Can't you just self-censor like you usually do?

Mattyfisk wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 8:51pm:


I'd love to nail it on him karnal, but he will not own the Wiki definition.  He did post it......and then said it was not his.  What can we do?  "He's that good?"

OK Aussie, maybe that one was too tough for you. I'll give you an easier one. Please define "definition".

Aussie wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 9:25pm:


No need Aussie. That is an excellent definition.

Here is mine: freedom means liberty.

Thanks for playing.

You got me there Aussie, no flies on you. Can I have another try?

Freedom of speech means liberty of speech.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 9:34pm:


there's no such thing.

Aussie wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 9:48pm:


I don't think FD likes answers, Aussie.

Gee, this could get interesting.

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 9:27am:


Ohhhh... So your freedom is more important than someone else's? It\s ok to limit free speech if it conflicts with what you want?

freediver wrote on Jan 6^th, 2017 at 5:56pm:


No worries, FD. We'll move forward, shall we?

Aussie wrote on Jan 5^th, 2017 at 9:30pm:

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


Wow, that is even better. How about we let Aussie judge which is the best definition? Then he can use it to demonstrate his infinite capacity for misunderstanding simple concepts.

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.

Aussie wrote on Jan 8^th, 2017 at 11:41am:


Kunning, no?

FD is such a smarty he won't define the very thing he rails on about daily.

The question I have is why. Why do you think FD refuses to say?