Forum

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

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10
Send Topic Print
be heard on 18c and freedom of speech (Read 72708 times)
Mustapha_Khunt
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 82731
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #30 - Nov 28th, 2016 at 10:25am
 
freediver wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 10:04am:
Aussie are you actually suggesting we should not defend other people's rights unless we are personally and directly affected?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller


Good point, FD. First, you came for the Muslims...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #31 - Nov 28th, 2016 at 12:35pm
 
Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 8:23pm:
Grendel wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 8:13pm:
Oh and BTW after the decision the counsel for the plaintiffs conceded Bolt's writings [highlight]did not incite “racial vilification or racial hatred”[/highlight].

So 18C is flawed and the case should never have been brought...  18D also would exclude such a travesty.


You'll excuse me if I don't accept that blind.  Link please.

It's the truth...  not that you ever believe anyone...  not that you actually know anything and as usual you expect others who tell you the truth to do your researching for you so you can keep denying what they told you in the first place...

You have wasted far too much of my time on this already. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
juliar
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 22966
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #32 - Nov 28th, 2016 at 3:10pm
 
Daresay that Labor Polly and Triggsy would have a few words to say about the attempt to ban free speech Section 18c.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mustapha_Khunt
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 82731
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #33 - Nov 28th, 2016 at 4:01pm
 
I dare say the 2007 FD would have had something to say about 18C too.

Post-2007 FD wants the Freeeeedom to tell porkies about Boongs a la Bolt.

You know, first they came for the Boongs...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Its time
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Boot libs out

Posts: 25639
Gender: female
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #34 - Nov 29th, 2016 at 11:09am
 
Its odd you're championing free speech but wont let a minority comment on Feedback FD
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42837
At my desk.
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #35 - Nov 29th, 2016 at 6:35pm
 
I doubt Andrew Bolt will publish your views in The Australian either. You are still free to express them.
Back to top
 

All Fungi are edible. Some fungi are only edible once. (Terry Pratchett)
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Raven
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2970
Around
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #36 - Nov 30th, 2016 at 1:28pm
 
Here's the thing about free speech.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence, it just means you can not be prevented from saying it. And it also means others have a right of reply

Who remembers Barry Spurr? He was the poetry academic at the University of Sydney who resigned after private emails on his university account were exposed as containing derogatory language about Muslims, Aboriginal people and Chinese people.

His emails breeched the University's Policy on the Use of Information and Communications Technology Resources. Spurr would have agreed to be bound by the terms of this policy as a condition of his employment.

Once these emails were brought to public attention, he was suspended from the university, until he eventually resigned.

He is free to repeat these terms in private email or private conversations. By losing his job at the University of Sydney, he has not been silenced or censored. The university has simply said they don't want to be associated with his conduct.

His freedom of speech has not been violated.

Free speech, like many other human rights, is not absolute. It can be legitimately limited to protect against the serious harm that can flow from some speech such as sexual harassment, threats to kills, misleading and deceptive conduct and defamation.

After the Bolt case Tony Abbott responded to the decision by saying “we should never do anything that restricts the sacred principle of free speech.”

This from a man who successfully sued a book publisher for defamation over false and offensive remarks about him, receiving a significant compensation order in 1999 for damage to his reputation.

In regards to Bolt the court made it very clear that it’s not unlawful to publish articles that deal with racial identity or challenge the genuineness of someone’s racial identity.

To rely on the free speech exemptions, the offensive racial conduct must be done reasonably and in good faith.

Take Pauline Hanson's book The Truth that argued that Aboriginal people were unfairly favoured by social security policies. This was found to fall within the free speech safeguards as it was genuine political debate done reasonably and in good faith.

Bolt’s articles didn’t fall within the exemption because the court found that his articles contained multiple errors of material fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language. This meant that he could not rely on any of the free speech exemptions.

This extract from the court's decision provides an example

Quote:
Mr Bolt said of Wayne and Graham Atkinson that they were “Aboriginal because their Indian great-grandfather married a part-Aboriginal woman” (1A-33). In the second article Mr Bolt wrote of Graham Atkinson that “his right to call himself Aboriginal rests on little more than the fact that his Indian great-grandfather married a part-Aboriginal woman” (A2-28). The facts given by Mr Bolt and the comment made upon them are grossly incorrect. The Atkinsons’ parents are both Aboriginal as are all four of their grandparents and all of their great grandparents other than one who is the Indian great grandfather that Mr Bolt referred to in the article.


And Bolt, a so called free speech crusader, and his ilk have some of the strongest censorship of free speech. Try writing what ever you want on Bolt's blog and see how far it gets you.

Bolt made an arse of himself so don't cry "free speech" when people condemn him.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 30th, 2016 at 2:19pm by Raven »  

Quoth the Raven "Nevermore"

Raven would rather ask questions that may never be answered, then accept answers which must never be questioned.
 
IP Logged
 
Mustapha_Khunt
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 82731
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #37 - Nov 30th, 2016 at 2:13pm
 
Excellent post, Raven.

I think what Bolt, FD and some others are arguing for is the right to express hate speech. FD has often asked why Muslims should not be free to insult their own prophet.

They are, of course, but why don't more Muslims do it?

This is FD's sole reason for defending free speech: he wants to institutionalise hate speech against Muslims.

In the nicest possible way, of course.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42837
At my desk.
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #38 - Nov 30th, 2016 at 5:01pm
 
Quote:
Bolt’s articles didn’t fall within the exemption because the court found that his articles contained multiple errors of material fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language.


I don't think being wrong should be a factor as far as the law is concerned. For example, you could argue the guy who was jailed for denying the holocaust was wrong. In fact, this is exactly what should have happened, instead of putting him in jail. Likewise, Bolt's errors should have spurred public debate around his errors of fact, which should have undermined his reputation. Instead, the opposite happened. It became an issue of rights rather than facts, and Bolt is more popular than ever, despite being wrong.

Using "inflammatory or provocative" language should also be protected under freedom of speech, or at least, not a justification by themselves for legal recourse. Some of our most celebrated works are celebrated because they are provocative.
Back to top
 

All Fungi are edible. Some fungi are only edible once. (Terry Pratchett)
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33180
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #39 - Nov 30th, 2016 at 5:06pm
 
Quote:
For example, you could argue the guy who was jailed for denying the holocaust was wrong.


What guy.  Link?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42837
At my desk.
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #40 - Nov 30th, 2016 at 5:08pm
 
Don't be embarrassed Aussie. Everyone's memory fails them occasionally. See the lengthy discussion you participated in about this very topic, earlier in this very thread.

Here are some links:

Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 8:27pm:
Sorry, FD.  I'm not playing anymore.


Aussie wrote on Nov 27th, 2016 at 8:27pm:
No more from me.
Back to top
 

All Fungi are edible. Some fungi are only edible once. (Terry Pratchett)
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33180
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #41 - Nov 30th, 2016 at 5:08pm
 
Quote:
Using "inflammatory or provocative" language should also be protected under freedom of speech, or at least, not a justification by themselves for legal recourse. Some of our most celebrated works are celebrated because they are provocative.


And who was successfully prosecuted under 18C/D for their inflammatory or provocative work which became celebrated?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33180
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #42 - Nov 30th, 2016 at 5:10pm
 
freediver wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 5:08pm:
Don't be embarrassed Aussie. Everyone's memory fails them occasionally. See the lengthy discussion you participated in about this very topic, earlier in this very thread.


If you are referring to Tobin, he was jailed in Australia for defying a Court Order, and for nothing else.  The embarrassment is yours freediver.  You simply refuse to acknowledge the truth, as usual.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 33180
Gender: male
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #43 - Nov 30th, 2016 at 5:11pm
 
.....and as the Man said.....'No more from me.'  (Until I forget or change my mind.)
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42837
At my desk.
Re: be heard on 18c and freedom of speech
Reply #44 - Nov 30th, 2016 at 5:13pm
 
See you in 20 minutes then.
Back to top
 

All Fungi are edible. Some fungi are only edible once. (Terry Pratchett)
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10
Send Topic Print