matty wrote on Aug 4^th, 2018 at 11:33pm:
And now hes responded with a lie that he thought I wouldnt pick up on.

Raven wrote on Aug 5^th, 2018 at 6:47pm:


You seem to be confusing the issue of the literal ability to talk with freedom of speech. Look up the definitions on freedom of speech and an inherent part of it is that it is free from censorhip or punishment.

goldkam wrote on Aug 5^th, 2018 at 9:05pm:


As I said to Raven.

rhino wrote on Aug 5^th, 2018 at 9:39pm:


He's known for just spouting rubbish that he thinks others won't realise. Back in 2011 when Gillard broke the no carbon tax promise, he kept trying to equate it with Howard's backflip on the GST, despite the fact that when Howard did backflip, he took it straight to an election.

matty wrote on Aug 7^th, 2018 at 2:00pm:


According to dictionary.com freedom of speech is defined as:

noun
1. The right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion, etc.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 19 states:

"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". The version of Article 19 in the Internationl Covenant on Civil and Political Rights later amends this by stating 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".

Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.

Even the US has placed limitations on freedom of speech.

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Chaplin's v New Hampshire 1942

Chaplinsky, a Jehovah's Witness, had purportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching that he was "a damned racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested.

The US Supreme Court in a 9-0 decision upheld the arrest and found that:

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

It is naive to think a society can function properly if you are not held accountable for your actions or your words.

rhino wrote on Aug 5^th, 2018 at 9:35pm:


Do you think that this previous post means anything ?

The legislation is in place - employees are being intimidated into silence and employees would go to prison if they were to speak out. Employees have been effectively muzzled by legislation meant to deprive people of the freedom of speech.

This is absolutely disgraceful and it is also a fact.

matty wrote on Aug 4^th, 2018 at 11:31pm:


As far as I can tell there is virtually no meaningful distinction between defamation laws and the restrictions contained in 18C - particularly when its viewed alongside 18D. Case in point - the famous Bolt case could have easily been a defamation suit instead (in which case the claimants would have received a financial payout - thus putting lie to the claim that the claimants were motivated by self interest)