Forum

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

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 
Send Topic Print
Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People (Read 31450 times)
Mustapha_Khunt
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 81607
Gender: male
Re: Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People
Reply #135 - Aug 8th, 2017 at 8:52pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 7th, 2017 at 9:53am:
freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 12:29pm:
You are missing the point. Whether you are free to do something does not depend on a piece of paper saying you are. It depends on your willingness to defend that freedom.


Good point. Just like a "piece of paper", lets call it "18c" that says people aren't allowed to offend people based on their race means nothing when people routinely go around offending others on the base of their race - and never get punished for it.


FD's rules say all that too, G, but do you know?

My right to not to not be offended takes precedence over my right to be a dirty, tinted Pakistani Bastard.

Superior kulture, innit.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Mustapha_Khunt
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 81607
Gender: male
Re: Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People
Reply #136 - Aug 8th, 2017 at 8:54pm
 
BigOl64 wrote on Aug 7th, 2017 at 10:22am:
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 7th, 2017 at 9:53am:
freediver wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 12:29pm:
You are missing the point. Whether you are free to do something does not depend on a piece of paper saying you are. It depends on your willingness to defend that freedom.


Good point. Just like a "piece of paper", lets call it "18c" that says people aren't allowed to offend people based on their race means nothing when people routinely go around offending others on the base of their race - and never get punished for it.





Yeah very true, I've been called a "white cvvnt" many times, but what are ya gonna do?




That was when the Balinese hotel staff called you sir, dear.

An easy mishtake to make.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 8th, 2017 at 9:01pm by Mustapha_Khunt »  
 
IP Logged
 
Mustapha_Khunt
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 81607
Gender: male
Re: Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People
Reply #137 - Aug 8th, 2017 at 8:59pm
 
Moriaty wrote on Aug 8th, 2017 at 7:37pm:
36727 times he wasted valuable parts of his life, when he could have been out planting roses.

And why?

Because he confuses freedom of speech with the right to hate.


Freeeeedom, innit.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Moriaty
Full Member
***
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 209
Gender: male
Re: Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People
Reply #138 - Aug 8th, 2017 at 9:28pm
 
Its freedom when he does it, or other racists, but not ok when those who champion true liberties take a turn.

Sad. Very low energy this current version of Freediver. I remember when he was more energetic, and less racist.
Back to top
 

Defend Free-speech. Say no to censorship on this forum! Defend the freedoms our soldiers fought for against the Fascist-racist forces of evil!
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 41789
At my desk.
Re: Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People
Reply #139 - Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:27am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 8th, 2017 at 7:48pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 8th, 2017 at 7:27pm:
Toben was put in jail Gandalf. Not sure how you managed to confuse that with "a piece of paper".


So you now think 'pieces of paper' are significant in determining our freedoms?


They can be, but only if people act on them. Like when Toben was put in jail for having the wrong opinion.

The right to bear arms in the US constitution does not stop the government infringing that right. It is only relevant to the extent that Americans use the constitution as a basis to defend the right. If they ignored it, the government would take it away overnight, despite the constitution. The constitution itself guarantees nothing, and the presence or absence of a reference to freedom of speech in the Australian constitution does not tell us whether we have it. Toben being put in jail for his opinion does tell us something. If it wasn't for you complaining about wealthy Jews using 18c against Toben I probably wouldn't be as concerned either.

Not sure why this is so complicated for you Gandalf.

Putting a reference to freedom of speech in the constitution would only help to protect our freedom to the extent that it made people value their freedom more. Some people do seem more concerned with whether we have a codified right than a real right.

Quote:
Would you agree that Toben's gaoling had less to do with that 'piece of paper', and more to do with people's unwillingness to stand up for him, and to stand up for the right to holocaust denial in general?


I doubt that protesting would have affected the judge's decision. I would find it even more troubling if it did. It obviously should affect the politics behind the law, and Toben's unpopularity no doubt contributed to the fact that 18c was barely on the public radar until more influential people got caught up in it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 8th, 2017 at 7:58pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 8th, 2017 at 7:27pm:
So Toben's freedom of speech was not limited by putting him in jail for denying the holocaust?


Toben was gaoled for contempt of court. The point I was making was that the underlying legislation that drove that particular court order was not over and beyond what would undoubtedly have happened in any defamation case. Since I believe Toben could have successfully been sued for defaming jewish people (he labelled jews who he considered exaggerated the holocaust as fraudsters and extortionists) - in which case he would have faced the same order to take down his offending material. And if he had refused, then he would have been held in contempt - in which case you could argue with the same logic you are using now that he was having his freedom taken away for holocaust denial.


Who do you think could have sued him for defamation? What financial loss would they attribute to him?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:38am by freediver »  

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 19779
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People
Reply #140 - Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:25pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 12:27am:
Who do you think could have sued him for defamation? What financial loss would they attribute to him?


Grin Oh thats right, I almost forgot you (apparently still) believe that a defamation case has to involve an actual financial loss to the plaintiff. Newsflash FD - it does not. You merely have to demonstrate your reputation has suffered because of defaming material published about you.

I could imagine it would have been quite easy for just about any jew who genuinely believed in the holocaust to demonstrate that their reputation had suffered because of Toben and his organisation labelling them as liars and con-artists. 

Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 41789
At my desk.
Re: Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People
Reply #141 - Aug 10th, 2017 at 6:02pm
 
Whose reputation suffered because of what Toben said on the internet?

Quote:
I could imagine it would have been quite easy for just about any jew who genuinely believed in the holocaust to demonstrate that their reputation had suffered because of Toben and his organisation labelling them as liars and con-artists.
 

So Toben has legally slandered every single Jew, except the ones who don't believe the the holocaust?

And you support putting someone in jail for having the wrong opinion because of this delusion that they are guilty of something else that they have never stood trial for?
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 81607
Gender: male
Re: Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People
Reply #142 - Aug 11th, 2017 at 12:07am
 
The_Barnacle wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 12:15pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 30th, 2017 at 12:11pm:
Calling for her to be sacked is not an attack on her freedom of speech.


So you think that mounting a campaign to sack someone isn't an attack on their freedom of speech?

You seem to have a highly flexible attitude to freedom of speech




FD calls it Freeeeedom (TM).
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Ye Grappler
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 61786
Mid-North Coast NSW
Gender: male
Re: Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People
Reply #143 - Aug 11th, 2017 at 1:04am
 
I'll say it again - I thought that Freedom of speech was so that Unpopular People could get their say in.... otherwise nobody would listen...  Cool
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Ye Grappler
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 61786
Mid-North Coast NSW
Gender: male
Re: Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People
Reply #144 - Aug 11th, 2017 at 1:11am
 
Not quite correct - the issue is whether or not the label/libel would cause that person loss of reputation when that reputation is part of their stock in trade...

Look at Joe Hockey - Treasurer for Sale...... he won the technical victory, lost the war.....

Defamation laws have always been the last refuge of the rogues in society who quite simply can say their value in society has been diminished by negative comment, even when the comments made are true....

A 'public figure' relies on reputation.. after all - how would Bill Shorten be elected again is he was found to have sold out his Union members for thirty pieces of silver?  How would Tony Abbott be elected if it was made clear that he bashed a wall and frightened a girl at Uni?  How would John Howard walk the streets and not be in prison if it was plain knowledge that his 'weapons of mass destruction' and 'children thrown overboard' did not exist?

Dearie me - what would happen to society if the ruling class was held up to question over their every move and statement.... and every riff-raff could point the finger of truth at them??   Undecided
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 41789
At my desk.
Re: Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People
Reply #145 - Aug 11th, 2017 at 1:01pm
 
Still not sure why it is even relevant that they might have been sued under other legislation. 18c still denies everyone freedom of speech. Toben was not jailed for slander. He was jailed for having the wrong opinion on the holocaust.
Back to top
 

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


Australian Politics

Posts: 19779
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People
Reply #146 - Aug 11th, 2017 at 4:20pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 6:02pm:
So Toben has legally slandered every single Jew, except the ones who don't believe the the holocaust?


Probably.

If you look at the original Federal Court ruling, the judge made specific mention to two "insulting imputations" published by Toben - which was central to determining whether jewish people could reasonably be considered to have been insulted, offended, humiliated or intimidated. They were:

Quote:
(c)      Jewish people who are offended by and challenge Holocaust denial are of limited intelligence; and

(d)      some Jewish people, for improper purposes, including financial gain, have exaggerated the number of Jews killed during World War II and the circumstances in which they were killed.


http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/1150.html?query...

Which I imagine would be a pretty open-shut case of defamation against any holocaust-believing jew that could be bothered to bring before a court.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 19779
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People
Reply #147 - Aug 11th, 2017 at 4:41pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 1:01pm:
Still not sure why it is even relevant that they might have been sued under other legislation. 18c still denies everyone freedom of speech. Toben was not jailed for slander. He was jailed for having the wrong opinion on the holocaust.


In the one case in which someone has been gaoled over 18c, the judge went out of her way to find actual instances of slander. I think this is interesting, and significant.

So that gives 2 precedents (including the Bolt case), in which the court has ordered the defendant to remove published material that specifically defamed people on the basis of race. I don't know of any other case that breaks this mould.

The point here is, no one has been gaoled or ordered to be silenced for making academic arguments about holocaust denial. The evidence as I see it, tells me that mere denial of the holocaust cannot be deemed to be a violation of 18c - despite what Brandis said a couple of years ago. To be a violation, I would need to literally slander people along racial grounds (eg jews) - according to the two precedents that we have.

Is that a case for removing 18c on the basis of it being redundant? Quite possible - though I reiterate my previous point about 18c reinforcing desirable cultural norms (and which incidentally is basically the argument everyone else who defends it uses). But irrespective of that, any notion that 18c is a recipe for some dangerous slippery slope vis having our freedoms taken away from us is clearly unfounded. The law has been in place for over 40 years, and to my knowledge it has not caused anyone to have their freedom of speech removed over and beyond what any defamation case would have done.
Back to top
 

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:
Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.
 
IP Logged
 
LearJet
Full Member
***
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 170
Gender: male
Re: Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People
Reply #148 - Aug 11th, 2017 at 4:52pm
 
Control free speech, & you control the minds of those you disagree with.
Back to top
 

What does "it" mean in the sentence,  "What time is it?"?
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 41789
At my desk.
Re: Freedom of Speech for Unpopular People
Reply #149 - Aug 11th, 2017 at 5:57pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 4:41pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 1:01pm:
Still not sure why it is even relevant that they might have been sued under other legislation. 18c still denies everyone freedom of speech. Toben was not jailed for slander. He was jailed for having the wrong opinion on the holocaust.


In the one case in which someone has been gaoled over 18c, the judge went out of her way to find actual instances of slander. I think this is interesting, and significant.


Sounds to me like the judge also has a principled objection to 18c.

Was Toben actually found guilty of slander?

Quote:
So that gives 2 precedents (including the Bolt case), in which the court has ordered the defendant to remove published material that specifically defamed people on the basis of race. I don't know of any other case that breaks this mould.


Are you suggesting that 18c would not be enforced in the absence of a violation of some other law? Or is this just a limp wristed way of supporting a law you know to be wrong?

Quote:
The point here is, no one has been gaoled or ordered to be silenced for making academic arguments about holocaust denial.


Are you saying it is not a restriction on free speech if people are only jailed for making "non-academic" arguments?

Quote:
The evidence as I see it, tells me that mere denial of the holocaust cannot be deemed to be a violation of 18c - despite what Brandis said a couple of years ago. To be a violation, I would need to literally slander people along racial grounds (eg jews) - according to the two precedents that we have.


Toben was not found guilty of slander. The verdict actually proves this. You claim that the people who went after Bolt and Toben did so to prove a point, but the point seems to have eluded you. The slander allegations have not been tested in court. The point they proved is that holocaust denial, and whatever Bolt was found guilty for, is by itself illegal.

Quote:
Is that a case for removing 18c on the basis of it being redundant?


You miss the point Gandalf. They did not prove that it is the same as slander. The guilty verdicts prove that it is a separate crime.

Quote:
Quite possible - though I reiterate my previous point about 18c reinforcing desirable cultural norms (and which incidentally is basically the argument everyone else who defends it uses).


Is this a limp wristed excuse for denying people freedom of speech? Do you actually think people should be put in jail for not conforming to "desirable cultural norms"? What other norms would you have the government impose on people?

Quote:
But irrespective of that, any notion that 18c is a recipe for some dangerous slippery slope vis having our freedoms taken away from us is clearly unfounded. The law has been in place for over 40 years, and to my knowledge it has not caused anyone to have their freedom of speech removed over and beyond what any defamation case would have done.
 

Yes it has. Toben was ordered to cease denying the holocaust. No slader verdict would have restricted his freedom of speech in this manner. You acknowledge but at the same time miss the point of convicting him under 18c rather than slander legislation. It was to prove that holocaust denial is by itself illegal.
Back to top
 

All Fungi are edible. Some fungi are only edible once. (Terry Pratchett)
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 
Send Topic Print