Australian Politics Forum - Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16397
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #45 - Yesterday at 7:18pm

Setanta wrote 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

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14903
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #46 - Yesterday at 9:44pm

MeisterEckhart wrote 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.

Anti "rights" philosophers have dispensed with that one:

Everyone desires to be happy, but an individual's desires aren't rights, and they sometimes compete.

Jefferson's addendum - "the pursuit of" - tries to avoid the above problem, but it becomes little more than a motherhood statement, like the 'right' to life and liberty, both of which can only be ahieved under rule of law, with sanctions against those who ignore the law.

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16397
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #47 - Yesterday at 10:00pm

thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 9:44pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote 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.

Anti "rights" philosophers have dispensed with that one:

Everyone desires to be happy, but an individual's desires aren't rights, and they sometimes compete.

Jefferson's addendum - "the pursuit of" - tries to avoid the above problem, but it becomes little more than a motherhood statement, like the 'right' to life and liberty, both of which can only be ahieved under rule of law, with sanctions against those who ignore the law.

Yep, well, the text of the Declaration of Independence was framed to be aspirational, upon which a constitution would be based that codified the relationship between government and the governed.

To define happiness in a 20th- or 21st-century context is generally to presume it refers to hedonism or hedonistic desire. Happiness in the late 18th-century context apparently referred to the contentment a person feels when they have achieved personal, economic and familial success, and good standing within their respective community.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14903
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #48 - Yesterday at 10:03pm

Bobby. wrote Yesterday at 5:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote Yesterday at 4:55pm:

As adults, I think we all have a pretty good idea of what would constitute hate speech and what wouldn't.

I've not seen any legislation that has an exact checklist of behaviours to describe dangerous driving, but I'm pretty sure I'd know if I was doing it or not.

Is this hate speech?

We have only 9 seconds of the 45 second video here:

Time stamp 21 - 30 seconds.

https://www.facebook.com/iwakeupwithtoday/videos/white-nationalist-brandan-kosch...

Brandan Koschel
Quote:

The hate speech laws were pushed by the Australian -
ahh the Jewish lobby groups
in Australia - they - they were behind it all - they were behind it all.

On the basis of that clip alone, I don't think it is (anti-semitic) "hate speech"; that section of the Jewish lobby, supported by the Murdoch press, which blindly promotes Israel's right to exist at the expense of Palestinians, doesn't speak for all fair-minded Jews.

And it's obvious the lobby got to Malinoukas.

Hence not "hate speach", but fact.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 14903
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #49 - Yesterday at 10:16pm

MeisterEckhart wrote Yesterday at 10:00pm:

thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 9:44pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote 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.

Anti "rights" philosophers have dispensed with that one:

Everyone desires to be happy, but an individual's desires aren't rights, and they sometimes compete.

Jefferson's addendum - "the pursuit of" - tries to avoid the above problem, but it becomes little more than a motherhood statement, like the 'right' to life and liberty, both of which can only be ahieved under rule of law, with sanctions against those who ignore the law.

Yep, well, the text of the Declaration of Independence was framed to be aspirational, upon which a constitution would be based that codified the relationship between government and the governed.

Yes, to dispense with the ancient Rule by Divine Right'/Mandate of Heaven.

But the question is ..."aspirational" for whom?

eg, "the general welfare" is one of the aspirations mentioned in the Preamble, but it is still to be realized even after 2 centuries...

Quote:

To define happiness in a 20th- or 21st-century context is generally to presume it refers to hedonism or hedonistic desire. Happiness in the late 18th-century context apparently referred to the contentment a person feels when they have achieved personal, economic and familial success, and good standing within their respective community.

Well, maybe those today who are blinded by the dictates of the modern 'consumer'/celebrity economy and society.

Otherwise the requirements for happiness you outlined above remain the same over the centuries.

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16397
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #50 - Yesterday at 10:18pm

thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 10:03pm:

Bobby. wrote Yesterday at 5:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote Yesterday at 4:55pm:

As adults, I think we all have a pretty good idea of what would constitute hate speech and what wouldn't.

I've not seen any legislation that has an exact checklist of behaviours to describe dangerous driving, but I'm pretty sure I'd know if I was doing it or not.

Is this hate speech?

We have only 9 seconds of the 45 second video here:

Time stamp 21 - 30 seconds.

https://www.facebook.com/iwakeupwithtoday/videos/white-nationalist-brandan-kosch...

Brandan Koschel
Quote:

The hate speech laws were pushed by the Australian -
ahh the Jewish lobby groups
in Australia - they - they were behind it all - they were behind it all.

On the basis of that clip alone, I don't think it is (anti-semitic) "hate speech"; that section of the Jewish lobby, supported by the Murdoch press, which blindly promotes Israel's right to exist at the expense of Palestinians, doesn't speak for all fair-minded Jews.

And it's obvious the lobby got to Malinoukas.

Hence not "hate speach", but fact.

At the risk of further advancing reductio ad Judeaum, those institutions that promote Israel's right to exist know they're lobbying for Israel. No nation has a right to exist. A nation exists because it is recognised as existing... in the modern world by the UN.

Otherwise, how would you curb recognition of every ethnicity/ religious group/ culture from formalising its claim of a right to exist in its own country?

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16397
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #51 - Yesterday at 10:22pm

thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 10:16pm:

Well, maybe those today who are blinded by the dictates of the modern 'consumer'/celebrity economy and society.

Otherwise the requirements for happiness you outlined above remain the same over the centuries.

It's hard to imagine many Americans, in particular, not equating happiness with gross affluence, hedonism and consumerism.

Watching a few episodes of the wildly popular 'Landman' will demonstrate that.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 116559
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #52 - Yesterday at 10:38pm

thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 10:03pm:

Bobby. wrote Yesterday at 5:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote Yesterday at 4:55pm:

As adults, I think we all have a pretty good idea of what would constitute hate speech and what wouldn't.

I've not seen any legislation that has an exact checklist of behaviours to describe dangerous driving, but I'm pretty sure I'd know if I was doing it or not.

Is this hate speech?

We have only 9 seconds of the 45 second video here:

Time stamp 21 - 30 seconds.

https://www.facebook.com/iwakeupwithtoday/videos/white-nationalist-brandan-kosch...

Brandan Koschel
Quote:

The hate speech laws were pushed by the Australian -
ahh the Jewish lobby groups
in Australia - they - they were behind it all - they were behind it all.

On the basis of that clip alone, I don't think it is (anti-semitic) "hate speech"; that section of the Jewish lobby, supported by the Murdoch press, which blindly promotes Israel's right to exist at the expense of Palestinians, doesn't speak for all fair-minded Jews.

And it's obvious the lobby got to Malinoukas.

Hence not "hate speech", but fact.

Be careful what you say - that was enough to get him locked up -
not given bail. Shocked

Back to top

IP Logged