|
MeisterEckhart
|
Setanta wrote Today at 7:14pm: MeisterEckhart wrote Today at 7:08pm: Setanta wrote Today at 7:01pm: MeisterEckhart wrote Today at 6:50pm: Setanta wrote Today at 6:44pm: MeisterEckhart wrote Today at 6:38pm: Setanta wrote Today at 6:27pm: MeisterEckhart wrote Today at 6:23pm: Setanta wrote Today at 6:07pm: MeisterEckhart wrote Today at 1:52pm: Setanta wrote Today 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 Today 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...  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.  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? Of course you took a shot... that's why you referred to him by an epithet in one of your responses to me... to get me on board, I'm guessing, that taking shots at him is kosher.
|
Forum
Pages: 
