Australian Politics Forum - Does freedom of speech give us the right to offen

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Does freedom of speech give us the right to offen
Reply #75 - Mar 7^th, 2017 at 10:14am

Oh dear....
Oops.... oh dearie dearie me... tsk, tsk, tsk...

Runaway, runaway bwian... oh wait now I'm confusing you with 2 Monty Python movies.

The Lies of Bwian and The Holier than Thou.....

Oh well...

We all know 18C is a crock...
And we all know its not so much about freedom of speech but common-sense right?

So here's something from someone you may have looked up to in the past...

Quote:

18C pioneer Irene Moss says law must change to block trivial complaints
• Chris Merritt
• The Australian
• 12:00AM March 6, 2017
• Chris Merritt
Legal Affairs Editor

The head of the inquiry that led to the introduction of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act says the law needs to be changed to avoid the risk of trivial complaints and confusion.

Former race discrimination commissioner Irene Moss, whose 1991 report on racial violence led the Keating government to introduce section 18C, said the law went beyond her report’s recommendations.

It had “ignored the inquiry’s warnings that an offence which was drafted too broadly could lead to trivial complaints and confusion”. “The current controversy with respect to section 18C was predictable,” she said.

Ms Moss has outlined a reform plan that is broadly in line with that of former human rights commissioner Sev Ozdowski and Liberal senator James Patterson.

Her call for change puts her at odds with Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs, who told the ABC last week that options for reforming section 18C amounted to “solutions to a problem that doesn’t exist; we really don’t have a problem with 18C”.
Ms Moss’s intervention is also set to complicate the position of Tim Soutphommasane, her successor as Race Discrimination Commissioner.

At the moment, this provision makes it unlawful to do anything that causes others to feel offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated because of their race, colour or national or ethic background.

Ms Moss favours dropping the terms “offend”, “insult” and “humiliate” and ensuring the law focuses on “objective harm”.
“In 1991, the report of the national inquiry into racist violence recommended that the legislation should not be about hurt feelings or injured sensibilities but should focus on incitement to racial hostility,” she said.

“I continue to believe that that … was essentially correct.”

Presently, conduct that complies with the objective standards of the Australian community can be branded racist under section 18C. Judges are required to give priority to the objective standards of the racial or ethnic group that complains, not those of the general community.

Ms Moss, who conducted an audit of restrictions on freedom of speech for the Right to Know coalition of media organisations, said it was incorrect to view the debate over section 18C as a contest between freedom of speech and the need to fight racism.

Rather, it should properly be viewed as a debate about how to make the law clear and effective.

Ms Moss, also a former magistrate, NSW ombudsman and commissioner of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption, said: “In my experience in all four of those offices, it is crucial to the effectiveness of provisions defining offences that the provisions should be focused and clear. If the offences as defined in the legislation are too broad or too subjective, the decisions made by the statutory authorities entrusted with (its) administration … will very likely be inconsistent, unpredictable and subject to criticism. ”

Oh dear bwian whatever will you do?
Stop making vexatious claims about everybody perhaps?

Back to top

IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Does freedom of speech give us the right to offen
Reply #76 - Mar 7^th, 2017 at 10:48am

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6^th, 2017 at 5:30pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2017 at 6:23am:

Raven wrote on Mar 5^th, 2017 at 8:30pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 5^th, 2017 at 4:28pm:

Raven wrote on Mar 5^th, 2017 at 3:22pm:

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

It just means the government can't stop you from saying it.

Say what you want be be prepared to be held accountable for what you say.

So long it is true there should be not a single thing stopping you from saying, even if it hurts someone's feelings

The victim industry might not be happy but fkk 'em

That's the thing there is.nothing stopping you from saying something but there are consequences for what you say.

What should be the consequences for 'hurting someones feelings'?

Because the law allows it, Bigol64. Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

You have no capacity to read, comprehend and correctly answer the question as it is written, do you?

How the fkk did you ever pass university? Granted it was a bullsh1t subject, but still.

So do what to try again?

Back to top

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 44327

Re: Does freedom of speech give us the right to offen
Reply #77 - Mar 7^th, 2017 at 9:44pm

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2017 at 10:48am:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 6^th, 2017 at 5:30pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2017 at 6:23am:

Raven wrote on Mar 5^th, 2017 at 8:30pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 5^th, 2017 at 4:28pm:

Raven wrote on Mar 5^th, 2017 at 3:22pm:

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

It just means the government can't stop you from saying it.

Say what you want be be prepared to be held accountable for what you say.

So long it is true there should be not a single thing stopping you from saying, even if it hurts someone's feelings

The victim industry might not be happy but fkk 'em

That's the thing there is.nothing stopping you from saying something but there are consequences for what you say.

What should be the consequences for 'hurting someones feelings'?

Because the law allows it, Bigol64. Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

You have no capacity to read, comprehend and correctly answer the question as it is written, do you?

How the fkk did you ever pass university? Granted it was a bullsh1t subject, but still.

So do what to try again?

Nope. My answer stands, Bigol64. Until you address that fact, your argument goes no where. The law allows it. QED. Roll Eyes

Oh, and what University qualification do you hold again? Mmmm? Roll Eyes

Back to top

It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Does freedom of speech give us the right to offen Reply #78 - Mar 8^th, 2017 at 8:20am Bwian... best you avoid the hard stuff bwian...
Back to top	IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Does freedom of speech give us the right to offen
Reply #79 - Mar 8^th, 2017 at 12:51pm

Freedom of speech gives the right to offend, even in the case of these 'protesters.'

I use the example from the American Supreme Court in determining the limits of free speech: "there needs to be a reasonable threat of imminent violence as a result of the speaker." If there is no such threat, then the speech is permissible.

So, as much as I hate to say it, these protesters have the right to protest with those placards; just as neo-Nazis have the right to protest with placards....

There's only an issue when the police and/or authorities treat two different groups differently. For e.g. they allow the Muslims to protest, but not the neo-Nazis.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 44327

Re: Does freedom of speech give us the right to offen
Reply #80 - Mar 8^th, 2017 at 5:39pm

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:

Freedom of speech gives the right to offend, even in the case of these 'protesters.'

I use the example from the American Supreme Court in determining the limits of free speech: "there needs to be a reasonable threat of imminent violence as a result of the speaker." If there is no such threat, then the speech is permissible.

So, as much as I hate to say it, these protesters have the right to protest with those placards; just as neo-Nazis have the right to protest with placards....

There's only an issue when the police and/or authorities treat two different groups differently. For e.g. they allow the Muslims to protest, but not the neo-Nazis.

We are not yet the 51st state, thankfully. What the American SCOTUS says or does is immaterial to how the Australia laws are acted upon. Why do you waste our time with reference to the SCOTUS? Tsk, tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

Back to top

It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Does freedom of speech give us the right to offen
Reply #81 - Mar 8^th, 2017 at 7:45pm

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8^th, 2017 at 5:39pm:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:

Freedom of speech gives the right to offend, even in the case of these 'protesters.'

I use the example from the American Supreme Court in determining the limits of free speech: "there needs to be a reasonable threat of imminent violence as a result of the speaker." If there is no such threat, then the speech is permissible.

So, as much as I hate to say it, these protesters have the right to protest with those placards; just as neo-Nazis have the right to protest with placards....

There's only an issue when the police and/or authorities treat two different groups differently. For e.g. they allow the Muslims to protest, but not the neo-Nazis.

We are not yet the 51st state, thankfully. What the American SCOTUS says or does is immaterial to how the Australia laws are acted upon. Why do you waste our time with reference to the SCOTUS? Tsk, tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

I know that it doesn't have anything to do with Australian laws. I was merely using it as a reference point to identify one interpretation of the limits of free speech, in my view. Ultimately, if the law determines that something is unlawful, then it's unlawful.

What I'm talking about here is the difference between civic duty and law. I personally believe we all have a civic duty to call out bigots; but I don't think the government should use its coercive power to stifle free speech or imprison people for bigotry.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 22246
A cat with a view

Re: Does freedom of speech give us the right to offen
Reply #82 - Mar 9^th, 2017 at 9:56am

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:

Freedom of speech gives the right to offend, even in the case of these 'protesters.'

I use the example from the American Supreme Court in determining the limits of free speech: "there needs to be a reasonable threat of imminent violence as a result of the speaker." If there is no such threat, then the speech is permissible.

So, as much as I hate to say it, these protesters have the right to protest with those placards; just as neo-Nazis have the right to protest with placards....

There's only an issue when the police and/or authorities treat two different groups differently. For e.g. they allow the Muslims to protest, but not the neo-Nazis.

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2017 at 7:45pm:

......I was merely using it as a reference point to identify one interpretation of the limits of free speech, in my view. Ultimately, if the law determines that something is unlawful, then it's unlawful.

What I'm talking about here is the difference between civic duty and law.

I personally believe we all have a civic duty to call out bigots; but I don't think the government should use its coercive power to stifle free speech or imprison people for bigotry.

Dictionary;
bigot = = a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.

[i.e. a person who would prefer it,    if those who do not share his own opinion/worldview, would just shut up!]

Dictionary;
prejudice = = preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.    unjust behaviour formed on such a basis.

[e.g. prejudice, would be, a personal judgement taken/made by someone, without a basis in knowledge about an issue.]

In a public forum, in any public debate,    anyone can ignorantly express an opinion on a particular issue.

But i would argue, that such expressed [ignorant] opinions which cannot be substantiated, are revealed to all, to be worthless [invalid].

In any public debate, on any issue,          if an argument is indeed valid/sound, then it always needs to be presented with some evidences and/or reasoning, and/or proofs [which could be challenged].

But time and again, in any important public debate today, we can see bigots [attacking others with personal denigration and slurs against their character] trying to shut down debate,       in order to try to silence anyone who does not share their own opinion/worldview.

Bigots, are antithetical to the concept of free and open public debate.

Bigots, are those who want to silence and shut down, free and open public debate [on issues that they 'have an interest in'].

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 9^th, 2017 at 10:04am by Yadda »

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

kemal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 606
Gender: male

Re: Does freedom of speech give us the right to offen
Reply #83 - Mar 9^th, 2017 at 10:40am

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 7^th, 2017 at 9:44pm:

University qualification

Brians university degree cost him $32.95 from the "Universal Life Church Ministries". He obtained his Doctorate of Divinity unframed as he could not afford the extra expense.

Lol more ad hom tut smiley face Roll Eyes

https://www.themonastery.org/catalog/drofdivinitycertificatedd-p-68.html

Back to top

Brian Ross on why Muslims kill Quote:-" It appears to be a cultural thing, rather than something they have learnt from their religion, despite what you appear to believe."

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: Does freedom of speech give us the right to offen
Reply #84 - Mar 9^th, 2017 at 12:28pm

Yadda wrote on Mar 9^th, 2017 at 9:56am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:

Freedom of speech gives the right to offend, even in the case of these 'protesters.'

I use the example from the American Supreme Court in determining the limits of free speech: "there needs to be a reasonable threat of imminent violence as a result of the speaker." If there is no such threat, then the speech is permissible.

So, as much as I hate to say it, these protesters have the right to protest with those placards; just as neo-Nazis have the right to protest with placards....

There's only an issue when the police and/or authorities treat two different groups differently. For e.g. they allow the Muslims to protest, but not the neo-Nazis.

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2017 at 7:45pm:

......I was merely using it as a reference point to identify one interpretation of the limits of free speech, in my view. Ultimately, if the law determines that something is unlawful, then it's unlawful.

What I'm talking about here is the difference between civic duty and law.

I personally believe we all have a civic duty to call out bigots; but I don't think the government should use its coercive power to stifle free speech or imprison people for bigotry.

Dictionary;
bigot = = a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.

[i.e. a person who would prefer it,    if those who do not share his own opinion/worldview, would just shut up!]

Dictionary;
prejudice = = preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.    unjust behaviour formed on such a basis.

[e.g. prejudice, would be, a personal judgement taken/made by someone, without a basis in knowledge about an issue.]

In a public forum, in any public debate,    anyone can ignorantly express an opinion on a particular issue.

But i would argue, that such expressed [ignorant] opinions which cannot be substantiated, are revealed to all, to be worthless [invalid].

In any public debate, on any issue,          if an argument is indeed valid/sound, then it always needs to be presented with some evidences and/or reasoning, and/or proofs [which could be challenged].

But time and again, in any important public debate today, we can see bigots [attacking others with personal denigration and slurs against their character] trying to shut down debate,       in order to try to silence anyone who does not share their own opinion/worldview.

Bigots, are antithetical to the concept of free and open public debate.

Bigots, are those who want to silence and shut down, free and open public debate [on issues that they 'have an interest in'].

I wasn't referring to you or to anyone else on this forum as a 'Bigot.' I was merely using the term to illustrate the point. I don't think you're a Bigot.

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Does freedom of speech give us the right to offen
Reply #85 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:00am

Auggie wrote on Mar 9^th, 2017 at 12:28pm:

Yadda wrote on Mar 9^th, 2017 at 9:56am:

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2017 at 12:51pm:

Freedom of speech gives the right to offend, even in the case of these 'protesters.'

I use the example from the American Supreme Court in determining the limits of free speech: "there needs to be a reasonable threat of imminent violence as a result of the speaker." If there is no such threat, then the speech is permissible.

So, as much as I hate to say it, these protesters have the right to protest with those placards; just as neo-Nazis have the right to protest with placards....

There's only an issue when the police and/or authorities treat two different groups differently. For e.g. they allow the Muslims to protest, but not the neo-Nazis.

Auggie wrote on Mar 8^th, 2017 at 7:45pm:

......I was merely using it as a reference point to identify one interpretation of the limits of free speech, in my view. Ultimately, if the law determines that something is unlawful, then it's unlawful.

What I'm talking about here is the difference between civic duty and law.

I personally believe we all have a civic duty to call out bigots; but I don't think the government should use its coercive power to stifle free speech or imprison people for bigotry.

Dictionary;
bigot = = a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.

[i.e. a person who would prefer it,    if those who do not share his own opinion/worldview, would just shut up!]

Dictionary;
prejudice = = preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.    unjust behaviour formed on such a basis.

[e.g. prejudice, would be, a personal judgement taken/made by someone, without a basis in knowledge about an issue.]

In a public forum, in any public debate,    anyone can ignorantly express an opinion on a particular issue.

But i would argue, that such expressed [ignorant] opinions which cannot be substantiated, are revealed to all, to be worthless [invalid].

In any public debate, on any issue,          if an argument is indeed valid/sound, then it always needs to be presented with some evidences and/or reasoning, and/or proofs [which could be challenged].

But time and again, in any important public debate today, we can see bigots [attacking others with personal denigration and slurs against their character] trying to shut down debate,       in order to try to silence anyone who does not share their own opinion/worldview.

Bigots, are antithetical to the concept of free and open public debate.

Bigots, are those who want to silence and shut down, free and open public debate [on issues that they 'have an interest in'].

I wasn't referring to you or to anyone else on this forum as a 'Bigot.' I was merely using the term to illustrate the point. I don't think you're a Bigot.

Sounds and awful lot like bwian to me.

Want me to repost bwian you seem to have missed my last post, you know how your opinion is always welcomed.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Does freedom of speech give us the right to offen
Reply #86 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 9:01am

One more time for bwian...
Grendel wrote on Mar 7^th, 2017 at 10:14am:

Oh dear....
Oops.... oh dearie dearie me... tsk, tsk, tsk...

Runaway, runaway bwian... oh wait now I'm confusing you with 2 Monty Python movies.

The Lies of Bwian and The Holier than Thou.....

Oh well...

We all know 18C is a crock...
And we all know its not so much about freedom of speech but common-sense right?

So here's something from someone you may have looked up to in the past...

Quote:

18C pioneer Irene Moss says law must change to block trivial complaints
• Chris Merritt
• The Australian
• 12:00AM March 6, 2017
• Chris Merritt
Legal Affairs Editor

The head of the inquiry that led to the introduction of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act says the law needs to be changed to avoid the risk of trivial complaints and confusion.

Former race discrimination commissioner Irene Moss, whose 1991 report on racial violence led the Keating government to introduce section 18C, said the law went beyond her report’s recommendations.

It had “ignored the inquiry’s warnings that an offence which was drafted too broadly could lead to trivial complaints and confusion”. “The current controversy with respect to section 18C was predictable,” she said.

Ms Moss has outlined a reform plan that is broadly in line with that of former human rights commissioner Sev Ozdowski and Liberal senator James Patterson.

Her call for change puts her at odds with Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs, who told the ABC last week that options for reforming section 18C amounted to “solutions to a problem that doesn’t exist; we really don’t have a problem with 18C”.
Ms Moss’s intervention is also set to complicate the position of Tim Soutphommasane, her successor as Race Discrimination Commissioner.

At the moment, this provision makes it unlawful to do anything that causes others to feel offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated because of their race, colour or national or ethic background.

Ms Moss favours dropping the terms “offend”, “insult” and “humiliate” and ensuring the law focuses on “objective harm”.
“In 1991, the report of the national inquiry into racist violence recommended that the legislation should not be about hurt feelings or injured sensibilities but should focus on incitement to racial hostility,” she said.

“I continue to believe that that … was essentially correct.”

Presently, conduct that complies with the objective standards of the Australian community can be branded racist under section 18C. Judges are required to give priority to the objective standards of the racial or ethnic group that complains, not those of the general community.

Ms Moss, who conducted an audit of restrictions on freedom of speech for the Right to Know coalition of media organisations, said it was incorrect to view the debate over section 18C as a contest between freedom of speech and the need to fight racism.

Rather, it should properly be viewed as a debate about how to make the law clear and effective.

Ms Moss, also a former magistrate, NSW ombudsman and commissioner of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption, said: “In my experience in all four of those offices, it is crucial to the effectiveness of provisions defining offences that the provisions should be focused and clear. If the offences as defined in the legislation are too broad or too subjective, the decisions made by the statutory authorities entrusted with (its) administration … will very likely be inconsistent, unpredictable and subject to criticism. ”

Oh dear bwian whatever will you do?
Stop making vexatious claims about everybody perhaps?

Oh and bwian... DOES FREEDOM OF SPEECH GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO OFFEND?

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 51444
Gender: male

Re: Does freedom of speech give us the right to offen
Reply #87 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 1:00pm

kemal wrote on Mar 9^th, 2017 at 10:40am:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 7^th, 2017 at 9:44pm:

University qualification

Brians university degree cost him $32.95 from the "Universal Life Church Ministries". He obtained his Doctorate of Divinity unframed as he could not afford the extra expense.

Lol more ad hom tut smiley face Roll Eyes

https://www.themonastery.org/catalog/drofdivinitycertificatedd-p-68.html

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 7^th, 2017 at 9:44pm:

Oh, and what University qualification do you hold again? Mmmm? Roll Eyes

The pompous buffoon.

"Oh, and....... Mmmm? Roll Eyes

Oh!!

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Does freedom of speech give us the right to offen Reply #88 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 4:37pm Bwian the holier than thou Dr of Divinity has always been an Academic Snob.... always... right bwian. One of his pet hates about hanson is her ignorance apparently if you don't go to Uni you are ignorant in his eyes. Right bwian.
Back to top	IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 44327

Re: Does freedom of speech give us the right to offen
Reply #89 - Mar 12^th, 2017 at 4:54pm

Frank wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 1:00pm:

kemal wrote on Mar 9^th, 2017 at 10:40am:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 7^th, 2017 at 9:44pm:

University qualification

Brians university degree cost him $32.95 from the "Universal Life Church Ministries". He obtained his Doctorate of Divinity unframed as he could not afford the extra expense.

Lol more ad hom tut smiley face Roll Eyes

https://www.themonastery.org/catalog/drofdivinitycertificatedd-p-68.html

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 7^th, 2017 at 9:44pm:

Oh, and what University qualification do you hold again? Mmmm? Roll Eyes

The pompous buffoon.

"Oh, and....... Mmmm? Roll Eyes

Oh!!

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Resorting to ad hominem debate again, Soren? Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

Back to top

It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged