Home Articles Forum Wiki Poll Garden Contact

 
 
 
  
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
 
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

  Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › Federal Politics › Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
‹ No Topic | Next Topic ›
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech (Read 558 times)
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14393
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #30 - Yesterday at 6:23pm  
Probably deleting parliament and bringing in Bruce Trump from Augamathellabong as dictator won't get the go-ahead.

'In Australia, laws against insurrection are primarily covered under the Criminal Code Act 1995 as treason, treachery, or sedition, with penalties up to life imprisonment for acts aimed at overthrowing the Constitution or government through force.'
Such acts would include chatting to the guys to have a go.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16397
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #31 - Yesterday at 6:23pm  
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 1:22pm:
“To sustain a representative democracy embodying the principles prescribed by the Constitution, freedom of public discussion of political and economic matters is essential:  it would be a parody of democracy to confer on the people a power to choose their Parliament but to deny the freedom of public discussion from which the people derive their political judgments”.   


That is a long walk from what Americans recognise as free speech latitude, by which many Australians assume they're also covered.

The right to openly and publicly disagree with a politician (or anyone) on political or economic matters doesn't cut it in the minds of free speech absolutists.


So what? I was replying to this...

Brian Ross wrote Yesterday at 9:08am:
Despite what many here believe, Australia has never had Freedom of Speech. It has always been subject to Government and legal whim.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Not what you assume I was responding to or what others think.

Pedantic.

The essence of what Australians believe about free speech is not whether or not we're free to debate political or economic issues... It's being free to say what we really think on almost anything - a right we do not have, but something many (maybe most) of us think we have.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17222
Northern NSW
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #32 - Yesterday at 6:27pm  
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 6:23pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 1:22pm:
“To sustain a representative democracy embodying the principles prescribed by the Constitution, freedom of public discussion of political and economic matters is essential:  it would be a parody of democracy to confer on the people a power to choose their Parliament but to deny the freedom of public discussion from which the people derive their political judgments”.   


That is a long walk from what Americans recognise as free speech latitude, by which many Australians assume they're also covered.

The right to openly and publicly disagree with a politician (or anyone) on political or economic matters doesn't cut it in the minds of free speech absolutists.


So what? I was replying to this...

Brian Ross wrote Yesterday at 9:08am:
Despite what many here believe, Australia has never had Freedom of Speech. It has always been subject to Government and legal whim.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Not what you assume I was responding to or what others think.

Pedantic.

The essence of what Australians believe about free speech is not whether or not we're free to debate political or economic issues... It's being free to say what we really think on almost anything - a right we do not have, but something many (maybe most) of us think we have.


As I said, so what? I was responding to what Bwyawn said. It's not pedantic, it's correct.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14393
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #33 - Yesterday at 6:31pm  
They almost got the commies.
'High Court of Australia in 1951 declared the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 unconstitutional and invalid'. 
That was aimed at a specifically political organisation for all its policies. Nazi hate speech can be more identified with offender and victim.

Commie words were bad news.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/93332252
He was sentenced to three years' hard labour in October 1949, the maximum penalty for the offence.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16397
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #34 - Yesterday at 6:38pm  
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 6:27pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 6:23pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 1:22pm:
“To sustain a representative democracy embodying the principles prescribed by the Constitution, freedom of public discussion of political and economic matters is essential:  it would be a parody of democracy to confer on the people a power to choose their Parliament but to deny the freedom of public discussion from which the people derive their political judgments”.   


That is a long walk from what Americans recognise as free speech latitude, by which many Australians assume they're also covered.

The right to openly and publicly disagree with a politician (or anyone) on political or economic matters doesn't cut it in the minds of free speech absolutists.


So what? I was replying to this...

Brian Ross wrote Yesterday at 9:08am:
Despite what many here believe, Australia has never had Freedom of Speech. It has always been subject to Government and legal whim.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Not what you assume I was responding to or what others think.

Pedantic.

The essence of what Australians believe about free speech is not whether or not we're free to debate political or economic issues... It's being free to say what we really think on almost anything - a right we do not have, but something many (maybe most) of us think we have.


As I said, so what? I was responding to what Bwyawn said. It's not pedantic, it's correct.

Pedantic doesn't mean or imply untrue or incorrect.

Brian's comment refers to a greater, more important point: Australians do not have the right to free speech in any form that most, if not all, of us would consider to be free speech.

Those old farts on the bench covered their arses by being 'for' free speech by claiming we had a constitutional right to freely dissent on issues of politics and the economy. Gutless, devious apparatchiks. They highlight the core of the problem - the establishment will not tolerate true free speech.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14393
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #35 - Yesterday at 6:42pm  
Americans have BIG GUN RIGHTS BLESS AMERICA and FREEEEE SpEEEEEEECH. Also lots of laws to chop it all back to sensible dimensions.  But hey it's in the CONSTITOOOOOOTION.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17222
Northern NSW
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #36 - Yesterday at 6:44pm  
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 6:38pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 6:27pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 6:23pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 1:22pm:
“To sustain a representative democracy embodying the principles prescribed by the Constitution, freedom of public discussion of political and economic matters is essential:  it would be a parody of democracy to confer on the people a power to choose their Parliament but to deny the freedom of public discussion from which the people derive their political judgments”.   


That is a long walk from what Americans recognise as free speech latitude, by which many Australians assume they're also covered.

The right to openly and publicly disagree with a politician (or anyone) on political or economic matters doesn't cut it in the minds of free speech absolutists.


So what? I was replying to this...

Brian Ross wrote Yesterday at 9:08am:
Despite what many here believe, Australia has never had Freedom of Speech. It has always been subject to Government and legal whim.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Not what you assume I was responding to or what others think.

Pedantic.

The essence of what Australians believe about free speech is not whether or not we're free to debate political or economic issues... It's being free to say what we really think on almost anything - a right we do not have, but something many (maybe most) of us think we have.


As I said, so what? I was responding to what Bwyawn said. It's not pedantic, it's correct.

Pedantic doesn't mean or imply untrue or incorrect.

Brian's comment refers to a greater, more important point: Australians do not have the right to free speech in any form that most, if not all, of us would consider to be free speech.

Those old farts on the bench covered their arses by being 'for' free speech by claiming we had a constitutional right to freely dissent on issues of politics and the economy. Gutless, devious apparatchiks. They highlight the core of the problem - the establishment will not tolerate true free speech.



So you know what's in Bwyawn head now as well as "maybe most Australians".

Give it away. Brian was wrong as he so often is.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16397
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #37 - Yesterday at 6:46pm  
chimera wrote Yesterday at 6:42pm:
Americans have BIG GUN RIGHTS BLESS AMERICA and FREEEEE SpEEEEEEECH. Also lots of laws to chop it all back to sensible dimensions.  But hey it's in the CONSTITOOOOOOTION.

They went through a revolution, and the first ten amendments were a knee-jerk against British rule: to constitutionally guarantee certain freedoms as inalienable, those which were denied to colonists by the British.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16397
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #38 - Yesterday at 6:50pm  
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 6:44pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 6:38pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 6:27pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 6:23pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 1:22pm:
“To sustain a representative democracy embodying the principles prescribed by the Constitution, freedom of public discussion of political and economic matters is essential:  it would be a parody of democracy to confer on the people a power to choose their Parliament but to deny the freedom of public discussion from which the people derive their political judgments”.   


That is a long walk from what Americans recognise as free speech latitude, by which many Australians assume they're also covered.

The right to openly and publicly disagree with a politician (or anyone) on political or economic matters doesn't cut it in the minds of free speech absolutists.


So what? I was replying to this...

Brian Ross wrote Yesterday at 9:08am:
Despite what many here believe, Australia has never had Freedom of Speech. It has always been subject to Government and legal whim.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Not what you assume I was responding to or what others think.

Pedantic.

The essence of what Australians believe about free speech is not whether or not we're free to debate political or economic issues... It's being free to say what we really think on almost anything - a right we do not have, but something many (maybe most) of us think we have.


As I said, so what? I was responding to what Bwyawn said. It's not pedantic, it's correct.

Pedantic doesn't mean or imply untrue or incorrect.

Brian's comment refers to a greater, more important point: Australians do not have the right to free speech in any form that most, if not all, of us would consider to be free speech.

Those old farts on the bench covered their arses by being 'for' free speech by claiming we had a constitutional right to freely dissent on issues of politics and the economy. Gutless, devious apparatchiks. They highlight the core of the problem - the establishment will not tolerate true free speech.



So you know what's in Bwyawn head now as well as "maybe most Australians".

Give it away. Brian was wrong as he so often is.

More pendantry.

You're not spined enough to concede that you'd be unlikely to find any ordinary Australian who defines freedom of speech as restricted to matters of politics or the economy.... Only old farts in wigs speaking for the establishment would pretend to believe that.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17222
Northern NSW
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #39 - Yesterday at 7:01pm  
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 6:50pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 6:44pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 6:38pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 6:27pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 6:23pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 1:22pm:
“To sustain a representative democracy embodying the principles prescribed by the Constitution, freedom of public discussion of political and economic matters is essential:  it would be a parody of democracy to confer on the people a power to choose their Parliament but to deny the freedom of public discussion from which the people derive their political judgments”.   


That is a long walk from what Americans recognise as free speech latitude, by which many Australians assume they're also covered.

The right to openly and publicly disagree with a politician (or anyone) on political or economic matters doesn't cut it in the minds of free speech absolutists.


So what? I was replying to this...

Brian Ross wrote Yesterday at 9:08am:
Despite what many here believe, Australia has never had Freedom of Speech. It has always been subject to Government and legal whim.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Not what you assume I was responding to or what others think.

Pedantic.

The essence of what Australians believe about free speech is not whether or not we're free to debate political or economic issues... It's being free to say what we really think on almost anything - a right we do not have, but something many (maybe most) of us think we have.


As I said, so what? I was responding to what Bwyawn said. It's not pedantic, it's correct.

Pedantic doesn't mean or imply untrue or incorrect.

Brian's comment refers to a greater, more important point: Australians do not have the right to free speech in any form that most, if not all, of us would consider to be free speech.

Those old farts on the bench covered their arses by being 'for' free speech by claiming we had a constitutional right to freely dissent on issues of politics and the economy. Gutless, devious apparatchiks. They highlight the core of the problem - the establishment will not tolerate true free speech.



So you know what's in Bwyawn head now as well as "maybe most Australians".

Give it away. Brian was wrong as he so often is.

More pendantry.

You're not spined enough to concede that you'd be unlikely to find any ordinary Australian who defines freedom of speech as restricted to matters of politics or the economy.... Only old farts in wigs speaking for the establishment would pretend to believe that.



I have no need to concede anything, it is you who needs to concede that what I posted was correct. I must not be an ordinary Australian then, extraordinary perhaps? Don't project yourself onto everyone else in Australia. OK, I could be persuaded to concede you are a pigeon trying to play chess, the park is yours, I'm off.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14393
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #40 - Yesterday at 7:02pm  
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 6:46pm:
: to constitutionally guarantee certain freedoms as inalienable,

That was the opium and bourbon talking.  Happy is alienable too.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16397
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #41 - Yesterday at 7:08pm  
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 7:01pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 6:50pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 6:44pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 6:38pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 6:27pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 6:23pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 1:22pm:
“To sustain a representative democracy embodying the principles prescribed by the Constitution, freedom of public discussion of political and economic matters is essential:  it would be a parody of democracy to confer on the people a power to choose their Parliament but to deny the freedom of public discussion from which the people derive their political judgments”.   


That is a long walk from what Americans recognise as free speech latitude, by which many Australians assume they're also covered.

The right to openly and publicly disagree with a politician (or anyone) on political or economic matters doesn't cut it in the minds of free speech absolutists.


So what? I was replying to this...

Brian Ross wrote Yesterday at 9:08am:
Despite what many here believe, Australia has never had Freedom of Speech. It has always been subject to Government and legal whim.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Not what you assume I was responding to or what others think.

Pedantic.

The essence of what Australians believe about free speech is not whether or not we're free to debate political or economic issues... It's being free to say what we really think on almost anything - a right we do not have, but something many (maybe most) of us think we have.


As I said, so what? I was responding to what Bwyawn said. It's not pedantic, it's correct.

Pedantic doesn't mean or imply untrue or incorrect.

Brian's comment refers to a greater, more important point: Australians do not have the right to free speech in any form that most, if not all, of us would consider to be free speech.

Those old farts on the bench covered their arses by being 'for' free speech by claiming we had a constitutional right to freely dissent on issues of politics and the economy. Gutless, devious apparatchiks. They highlight the core of the problem - the establishment will not tolerate true free speech.



So you know what's in Bwyawn head now as well as "maybe most Australians".

Give it away. Brian was wrong as he so often is.

More pendantry.

You're not spined enough to concede that you'd be unlikely to find any ordinary Australian who defines freedom of speech as restricted to matters of politics or the economy.... Only old farts in wigs speaking for the establishment would pretend to believe that.



I have no need to concede anything, it is you who needs to concede that what I posted was correct. I must not be an ordinary Australian then, extraordinary perhaps? Don't project yourself onto everyone else in Australia. OK, I could be persuaded to concede you are a pigeon trying to play chess, the park is yours, I'm off.

I didn't say you were incorrect, I said you were pedantic.

Given your epithet for Brian, I'm guessing your response is emotional, which would explain why you leapt to pedantry.

It's not hard to imagine that people from an expressive culture would likely have an opinion about freedom of speech that extends beyond matters of politics and the economy.

You're off, eh! 'Storming' out to avoid conceding... Of course you're off. You're a coward who took a shot at a poster you don't like, not expecting pushback.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16397
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #42 - Yesterday at 7:09pm  
chimera wrote Yesterday at 7:02pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 6:46pm:
: to constitutionally guarantee certain freedoms as inalienable,

That was the opium and bourbon talking.  Happy is alienable too.

That'd be the pursuit of happiness. Not happiness.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 14393
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #43 - Yesterday at 7:12pm  
That gets so whoofy you can't explain it.
Hey buddy, stop pursuing happiness'
Who says?
I'm the Speech Sheriff. Stop pursuing'.

Most Oz think freedom means political when you get down to it.
They don't believe they can stand at someone's doorstep and shout unlimited lies and slander about him to the neighbours.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17222
Northern NSW
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #44 - Yesterday at 7:14pm  
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 7:08pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 7:01pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 6:50pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 6:44pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 6:38pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 6:27pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 6:23pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote Yesterday at 1:22pm:
“To sustain a representative democracy embodying the principles prescribed by the Constitution, freedom of public discussion of political and economic matters is essential:  it would be a parody of democracy to confer on the people a power to choose their Parliament but to deny the freedom of public discussion from which the people derive their political judgments”.   


That is a long walk from what Americans recognise as free speech latitude, by which many Australians assume they're also covered.

The right to openly and publicly disagree with a politician (or anyone) on political or economic matters doesn't cut it in the minds of free speech absolutists.


So what? I was replying to this...

Brian Ross wrote Yesterday at 9:08am:
Despite what many here believe, Australia has never had Freedom of Speech. It has always been subject to Government and legal whim.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Not what you assume I was responding to or what others think.

Pedantic.

The essence of what Australians believe about free speech is not whether or not we're free to debate political or economic issues... It's being free to say what we really think on almost anything - a right we do not have, but something many (maybe most) of us think we have.


As I said, so what? I was responding to what Bwyawn said. It's not pedantic, it's correct.

Pedantic doesn't mean or imply untrue or incorrect.

Brian's comment refers to a greater, more important point: Australians do not have the right to free speech in any form that most, if not all, of us would consider to be free speech.

Those old farts on the bench covered their arses by being 'for' free speech by claiming we had a constitutional right to freely dissent on issues of politics and the economy. Gutless, devious apparatchiks. They highlight the core of the problem - the establishment will not tolerate true free speech.



So you know what's in Bwyawn head now as well as "maybe most Australians".

Give it away. Brian was wrong as he so often is.

More pendantry.

You're not spined enough to concede that you'd be unlikely to find any ordinary Australian who defines freedom of speech as restricted to matters of politics or the economy.... Only old farts in wigs speaking for the establishment would pretend to believe that.



I have no need to concede anything, it is you who needs to concede that what I posted was correct. I must not be an ordinary Australian then, extraordinary perhaps? Don't project yourself onto everyone else in Australia. OK, I could be persuaded to concede you are a pigeon trying to play chess, the park is yours, I'm off.

I didn't say you were incorrect, I said you were pedantic.

Given your epithet for Brian, I'm guessing your response is emotional, which would explain why you leapt to pedantry.

It's not hard to imagine that people from an expressive culture would likely have an opinion about freedom of speech that extends beyond matters of politics and the economy.

You're off, eh! 'Storming' out to avoid conceding... Of course you're off. You're a coward who took a shot at a poster you don't like, not expecting pushback.



Grin You're a joke.
I corrected him, I didn't "take a shot" at him. I've done that. No need to stay and watch you crap everywhere any longer. Are you another Dunning-Kruger like Brian?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
‹ No Topic | Next Topic ›
 
 

  « Forum ‹ Board Top of this page

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge