Australian Politics Forum - 100% proof that we don't have free speech

Unforgiven

Gold Member

Offline

I have sinned

Posts: 8879
Gender: male

Re: 100% proof that we don't have free speech
Reply #75 - Aug 2^nd, 2018 at 7:40pm

Frank wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2018 at 7:33pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 11:18pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 9:41pm:

You fuggn tinted/blue looney!!!! Since when is a Sydney suburb the Mohammedans' 'own neighbourhood'? When was Lakemba declared a Mohammedan-only jurisdiction, dickheaddle??

The chip on the tinted races' shoulder is such that they would rather have oppressive Mohammedans than be thankful to he white man who dragged them, kicking and screaming, out of primitive barbarism. The tinted people, like unforgiven, would rather submit to some other tinted hegeamon than be free and independent and self-reliant, as proposed by whitey.

You tinted guys want an overlord but you just want an overlord you do not have to look up to, like you have to look up to whitey. You rather have a tinted, barbaric overlord like a Muslim because that way your inferiority is not clear cut but is due to brute force. You hate the white people because there is no contest between your own primitive and backward customs and the white man's.

It's all psychological. Your inferiority complex is all that rules your thinking.

Frank the bigot has come out to play.

The same Frank would become apoplectic if "tinted guys" came to Frank's neighborhood and got in his face.

Would Frank invite them in for a beer and a 'nice chat'? Fat chance.

The hierarchy of civilisation and cultures is clear to everyone. That cultures and races overlap is also clear to everyone.

Flapping your silly arms around doesn't alter any of that.

It would benefit you greatly if you accepted wwhat is before your very eyes and worked on the betterment of your own people, whatever their hue. Spending all your energy on parrotting the isdiotic lie of no cultural and corresponding racial differences between people is stupid.

Cultural differences are malleable. You can be a member of the House of Lords of the Australian Parliament, regardless of race. I doubt you can be an African chief if you are racially Chinese or European or Aborigines. They would see it as absurd.
But not so absurd to be in the House of Lords because that is about CIVILISATION that you can and invited to, enter and assimilate to.

I should not have asked "may I be frank".

Frank has evidently confused the silly arm flapping image in his mirror with denizen unforgiven.

There is no such thing as "House of Lords of the Australian Parliament".

Back to top

“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours” Bob Dylan

IP Logged

Raven

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2982
Around

Re: 100% proof that we don't have free speech
Reply #76 - Aug 2^nd, 2018 at 10:27pm

matty wrote on Jul 29^th, 2018 at 5:23pm:

Raven wrote on Jul 29^th, 2018 at 5:18pm:

The Australian Constitution does not protect Freedom of Speech.

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. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals.

And we have 18C. Australia simply does not have freedom of speech. It is as simple as that.

We also have defamation laws.

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

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 60773
Here
Gender: male

Re: 100% proof that we don't have free speech
Reply #77 - Aug 2^nd, 2018 at 10:38pm

Don't see how it relates to freedom of speech. She said what she wanted to say.

She seemed to be geographically limited.

She was asked to not go to the Mosque as her intention was to deliberately cause a disturbance of the peace.

It is questionable if she should have been allowed in the country, she has wasted way too much of our oxygen.

Back to top

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 26906 Canberra Gender:	Re: 100% proof that we don't have free speech Reply #78 - Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 11:57am 18C as far as I'm concerned doesn't inhibit free speech, it just attaches consequence to free speech before thinking. Which is fair and proper I belive.
Back to top	In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act. No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy) IP Logged

Raven

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2982
Around

Re: 100% proof that we don't have free speech
Reply #79 - Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 4:11pm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 11:57am:

18C as far as I'm concerned doesn't inhibit free speech, it just attaches consequence to free speech before thinking. Which is fair and proper I belive.

That's true, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

And 18c is tempered with 18d that provides a virtually bullet proof defense.

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

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 54358
Gender: male

Re: 100% proof that we don't have free speech
Reply #80 - Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 7:05pm

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2018 at 7:40pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2018 at 7:33pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 11:18pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 9:41pm:

You fuggn tinted/blue looney!!!! Since when is a Sydney suburb the Mohammedans' 'own neighbourhood'? When was Lakemba declared a Mohammedan-only jurisdiction, dickheaddle??

The chip on the tinted races' shoulder is such that they would rather have oppressive Mohammedans than be thankful to he white man who dragged them, kicking and screaming, out of primitive barbarism. The tinted people, like unforgiven, would rather submit to some other tinted hegeamon than be free and independent and self-reliant, as proposed by whitey.

You tinted guys want an overlord but you just want an overlord you do not have to look up to, like you have to look up to whitey. You rather have a tinted, barbaric overlord like a Muslim because that way your inferiority is not clear cut but is due to brute force. You hate the white people because there is no contest between your own primitive and backward customs and the white man's.

It's all psychological. Your inferiority complex is all that rules your thinking.

Frank the bigot has come out to play.

The same Frank would become apoplectic if "tinted guys" came to Frank's neighborhood and got in his face.

Would Frank invite them in for a beer and a 'nice chat'? Fat chance.

The hierarchy of civilisation and cultures is clear to everyone. That cultures and races overlap is also clear to everyone.

Flapping your silly arms around doesn't alter any of that.

It would benefit you greatly if you accepted wwhat is before your very eyes and worked on the betterment of your own people, whatever their hue. Spending all your energy on parrotting the isdiotic lie of no cultural and corresponding racial differences between people is stupid.

Cultural differences are malleable. You can be a member of the House or Lords of the Australian Parliament, regardless of race. I doubt you can be an African chief if you are racially Chinese or European or Aborigines. They would see it as absurd.g
But not so absurd to be in the House of Lords because that is about CIVILISATION that you can and invited to, enter and assimilate to.

I should not have asked "may I be frank".

Frank has evidently confused the silly arm flapping image in his mirror with denizen unforgiven.

There is no such thing as "House of Lords of the Australian Parliament".

OR the australian Parliament.

Attend to the point I made, mince, not to the typo/autocerrect.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

matty

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11055
East Sydney
Gender: male

Re: 100% proof that we don't have free speech
Reply #81 - Aug 4^th, 2018 at 11:27pm

Raven wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 4:11pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 11:57am:

18C as far as I'm concerned doesn't inhibit free speech, it just attaches consequence to free speech before thinking. Which is fair and proper I belive.

That's true, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

And 18c is tempered with 18d that provides a virtually bullet proof defense.

You have both just completely contradicted yourself. Freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want (except the fair case of defamation) without consequence. Consequences means that freedom of speech doesn't exist.

Back to top

BILL SHORTEN WILL NEVER BE PM!!!!

IP Logged

matty

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11055
East Sydney
Gender: male

Re: 100% proof that we don't have free speech
Reply #82 - Aug 4^th, 2018 at 11:29pm

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 30^th, 2018 at 10:21pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jul 30^th, 2018 at 9:52pm:

If you don't allow people to speak their mind you have no way of challenging their argument and risk driving them underground were they will preach to the converted....Freedom of speech is what preserves our democracy???

Huh

Freedom of speech does not entail confronting people and getting in their face.

People should not be confronted in their own neighborhood by a foreign instigator and provocateur of violence.

And again we have a deflection, as usual from the left. How has Lauren in any way been violent?

Back to top

BILL SHORTEN WILL NEVER BE PM!!!!

IP Logged

matty

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11055
East Sydney
Gender: male

Re: 100% proof that we don't have free speech
Reply #83 - Aug 4^th, 2018 at 11:31pm

Raven wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2018 at 10:27pm:

matty wrote on Jul 29^th, 2018 at 5:23pm:

Raven wrote on Jul 29^th, 2018 at 5:18pm:

The Australian Constitution does not protect Freedom of Speech.

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. It operates as a freedom from government restraint, rather than a right conferred directly on individuals.

And we have 18C. Australia simply does not have freedom of speech. It is as simple as that.

We also have defamation laws.

That's a fair exception IMO. Not fair for people to falsely slander someone else's reputation.

Back to top

BILL SHORTEN WILL NEVER BE PM!!!!

IP Logged

matty

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11055
East Sydney
Gender: male

Re: 100% proof that we don't have free speech
Reply #84 - Aug 4^th, 2018 at 11:33pm

rhino wrote on Jul 29^th, 2018 at 11:26pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 29^th, 2018 at 4:30pm:

Neither do people who work in detention centres ?

They go to prison for revealing anything about it.

The conservatives legislate against freedom of speech.

Do they? Can you name one person who has been jailed for revealing information about detention centres? Just one will do. Take your time, you will need it.

One week later and he hasn't been able to refute your point or mine, and back up his claims.

Back to top

BILL SHORTEN WILL NEVER BE PM!!!!

IP Logged

Raven

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2982
Around

Re: 100% proof that we don't have free speech
Reply #85 - Aug 5^th, 2018 at 6:47pm

matty wrote on Aug 4^th, 2018 at 11:27pm:

Raven wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 4:11pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 11:57am:

18C as far as I'm concerned doesn't inhibit free speech, it just attaches consequence to free speech before thinking. Which is fair and proper I belive.

That's true, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

And 18c is tempered with 18d that provides a virtually bullet proof defense.

You have both just completely contradicted yourself. Freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want (except the fair case of defamation) without consequence. Consequences means that freedom of speech doesn't exist.

Unfortunately you are incorrect. Freedom of speech simply means the government can not stop you from saying something. It does not mean you can not be held accountable for what you say.

A classic example is that it is illegal to yell "fire!" in a crowded place when there isn't one because someone may get hurt. You have the right to say it but be prepared to accept the consequences.

Even the Land of the Free has place limits on what constitutes free speech. It's why people can be fired from their job for what they say. Take Rosanne Barr, she exercised her right to free speech under the 1st Amendment in a tweet. And then she faced the consequences.

The 1st Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences. So if you lose your job, or you are boycotted, banned from an internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated. It's just that the people listening think you are an a.sshole and they are showing you door.

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

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 60773
Here
Gender: male

Re: 100% proof that we don't have free speech
Reply #86 - Aug 5^th, 2018 at 8:54pm

Frank wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 7:05pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2018 at 7:40pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2018 at 7:33pm:

Unforgiven wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 11:18pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 31^st, 2018 at 9:41pm:

You fuggn tinted/blue looney!!!! Since when is a Sydney suburb the Mohammedans' 'own neighbourhood'? When was Lakemba declared a Mohammedan-only jurisdiction, dickheaddle??

The chip on the tinted races' shoulder is such that they would rather have oppressive Mohammedans than be thankful to he white man who dragged them, kicking and screaming, out of primitive barbarism. The tinted people, like unforgiven, would rather submit to some other tinted hegeamon than be free and independent and self-reliant, as proposed by whitey.

You tinted guys want an overlord but you just want an overlord you do not have to look up to, like you have to look up to whitey. You rather have a tinted, barbaric overlord like a Muslim because that way your inferiority is not clear cut but is due to brute force. You hate the white people because there is no contest between your own primitive and backward customs and the white man's.

It's all psychological. Your inferiority complex is all that rules your thinking.

Frank the bigot has come out to play.

The same Frank would become apoplectic if "tinted guys" came to Frank's neighborhood and got in his face.

Would Frank invite them in for a beer and a 'nice chat'? Fat chance.

The hierarchy of civilisation and cultures is clear to everyone. That cultures and races overlap is also clear to everyone.

Flapping your silly arms around doesn't alter any of that.

It would benefit you greatly if you accepted wwhat is before your very eyes and worked on the betterment of your own people, whatever their hue. Spending all your energy on parrotting the isdiotic lie of no cultural and corresponding racial differences between people is stupid.

Cultural differences are malleable. You can be a member of the House or Lords of the Australian Parliament, regardless of race. I doubt you can be an African chief if you are racially Chinese or European or Aborigines. They would see it as absurd.g
But not so absurd to be in the House of Lords because that is about CIVILISATION that you can and invited to, enter and assimilate to.

I should not have asked "may I be frank".

Frank has evidently confused the silly arm flapping image in his mirror with denizen unforgiven.

There is no such thing as "House of Lords of the Australian Parliament".

OR the australian Parliament.

Attend to the point I made, mince, not to the typo/autocerrect.

I hate the auto correct - I often post what I didn't type when the browser turns auto correct back on.

Back to top

IP Logged

goldkam

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 292

Re: 100% proof that we don't have free speech
Reply #87 - Aug 5^th, 2018 at 9:05pm

matty wrote on Aug 4^th, 2018 at 11:27pm:

Raven wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 4:11pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 11:57am:

18C as far as I'm concerned doesn't inhibit free speech, it just attaches consequence to free speech before thinking. Which is fair and proper I belive.

That's true, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

And 18c is tempered with 18d that provides a virtually bullet proof defense.

You have both just completely contradicted yourself. Freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want (except the fair case of defamation) without consequence. Consequences means that freedom of speech doesn't exist.

That is incorrect. When it was first adopted and thus written into documents and legislation it always carried the implied notion....that it should remain within the laws of the nation. This is and always will be an underlying notion of free speech. That is fact, yours is merely opinion going against the basic origins of a privilege and right that we have.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 60773
Here
Gender: male

Re: 100% proof that we don't have free speech
Reply #88 - Aug 5^th, 2018 at 9:21pm

matty wrote on Aug 4^th, 2018 at 11:33pm:

rhino wrote on Jul 29^th, 2018 at 11:26pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jul 29^th, 2018 at 4:30pm:

Neither do people who work in detention centres ?

They go to prison for revealing anything about it.

The conservatives legislate against freedom of speech.

Do they? Can you name one person who has been jailed for revealing information about detention centres? Just one will do. Take your time, you will need it.

One week later and he hasn't been able to refute your point or mine, and back up his claims.

What point - saying something stupid does not require a response.

The legislation preventing people involved in detention centres from revealing anything is real.

Quote:

Under the Act, it is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment of up to two years, for any person working directly or indirectly for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to reveal to the media or any other person or organisation (the only exceptions being the Immigration Department and other Commonwealth agencies, police, coroners) anything that happens in detention centres like Nauru and Manus Island.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-28/barns-newhouse-detention-centre-secrecy-ju...

Link to the act:

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00354

Amendment on protected information.

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017A00115

Quote:

42 Secrecy

         (1) A person commits an offence if:

                  (a) the person is, or has been, an entrusted person; and

                  (b) the person makes a record of, or discloses, information; and

                  (c) the information is Immigration and Border Protection information.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

If you work in a detention centre the cost of free speech is 2 years, that's a fact.

Back to top

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: 100% proof that we don't have free speech
Reply #89 - Aug 5^th, 2018 at 9:22pm

matty wrote on Aug 4^th, 2018 at 11:27pm:

Raven wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 4:11pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 11:57am:

18C as far as I'm concerned doesn't inhibit free speech, it just attaches consequence to free speech before thinking. Which is fair and proper I belive.

That's true, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

And 18c is tempered with 18d that provides a virtually bullet proof defense.

You have both just completely contradicted yourself. Freedom of speech means that you can say whatever you want (except the fair case of defamation) without consequence. Consequences means that freedom of speech doesn't exist.

Then to be honest, I would prefer no free speech.

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged