Freedom Of Speech - Rights And Responsibilities

[the_great_she_elephant]

If we, as a society, accept the concept of freedom of speech, should we also accept the concept that there is a line which must not be crossed, and if so, where do we draw that line?

[aps1080]

2106

We are a Police Nanny state / country nowadays.

[2106greencat]

Oh

[aps1080]

You knew that

[olivervcdad]

---

@2106greencat wrote:

Freedom of Speech

Try going into a crowded area, standing on a wooden box and swearing at the top of your voice about the Government, or any issue you want, you will soon find yourself arrested.

Free Speech has about as much meaning as the term Free Country these days.

---

Whilst we have laws regulating offensive language (and rightly so), you would not be arrested in Australia for standing on a wooden box and slagging off the government.

A good example of this is Speakers Corner in Sydneys Domain. 

[aps1080]

Is that Speakers corner still there ?

[idlewhile]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Freedom of the press and freedom of speech is just that, freedom to say or publish whatever without defaming or libel.

Libel is fairly easy to define. It involves printing something which is known to be untrue, but who defines defamation? There is an infamous cartoon  (probably one of Der Sturmer's) which cirdulated in Nazi Germany depicting Jews as rats swarming out of a sewer. Would this be considered defamatory if it were published in a newspaper today or would it merely be the cartoonist exercising his right to freedom of speech? Given the recent events in France,  would it be considered defamatory if it were published today depicting Muslims rather than Jews as the rats?

---

You're right, I'm always doing that, stupidly defending free expression for people I might not agree with. I must learn that free speech only applies to nice people saying nice things.

There are laws against hate speech, racial discrimination, libel, defamatory laws, laws against offending, humiliating.

We have numerous  laws on speech and print and they are rigorously applied to anyone who breaks them, see Bolt and Carlton.

Bolt because the judge didn't like his "tone" so he was convicted for that, Carlton because he told readers to eff off because  his constant anti Semitic and racial vilification rants and cartoons,  he wasn't prosecuted for it and he should have been if the same criteria applies to all.

So even if we spout freedom of speech and freedom of the press we really don't enjoy that freedom in Australia.

France did have freedom of the press and they got murdered for it. did that shut them up? no it didn't and it shouldn't.

As soon as we bow down to murdering ideology driven terrorists we lose all, as soon as we find that we are constantly being asked to self censor and auto correct in case we offend some lunatic ideology the war is over, the battle for freedom has been lost.

Sure we don't deliberately go about to upset people but we should be fighting for the basic democratic western foundation stone of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

[aps1080]

Idle

Where are the laws against humiliating ?


Secondly, yes, we have laws covering the other areas but they are not applied evenly to all.
Aborigines and Muslims are two groups who get cut slack in this country, although the tide
S at last turning on the radical muslims.

[idlewhile]

---

@aps1080 wrote:
Idle

Where are the laws against humiliating ?


Secondly, yes, we have laws covering the other areas but they are not applied evenly to all.
Aborigines and Muslims are two groups who get cut slack in this country, although the tide
S at last turning on the radical muslims.

---

Humiliating is in 18c and please don't anybody c&p  the whole 18c as we already know about it and don't need a lecture.

[gleee58]

---

@idlewhile wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Freedom of the press and freedom of speech is just that, freedom to say or publish whatever without defaming or libel.

Libel is fairly easy to define. It involves printing something which is known to be untrue, but who defines defamation? There is an infamous cartoon  (probably one of Der Sturmer's) which cirdulated in Nazi Germany depicting Jews as rats swarming out of a sewer. Would this be considered defamatory if it were published in a newspaper today or would it merely be the cartoonist exercising his right to freedom of speech? Given the recent events in France,  would it be considered defamatory if it were published today depicting Muslims rather than Jews as the rats?

---

You're right, I'm always doing that, stupidly defending free expression for people I might not agree with. I must learn that free speech only applies to nice people saying nice things.

There are laws against hate speech, racial discrimination, libel, defamatory laws, laws against offending, humiliating.

We have numerous  laws on speech and print and they are rigorously applied to anyone who breaks them, see Bolt and Carlton.

Bolt because the judge didn't like his "tone" so he was convicted for that, Carlton because he told readers to eff off because  his constant anti Semitic and racial vilification rants and cartoons,  he wasn't prosecuted for it and he should have been if the same criteria applies to all.

So even if we spout freedom of speech and freedom of the press we really don't enjoy that freedom in Australia.

France did have freedom of the press and they got murdered for it. did that shut them up? no it didn't and it shouldn't.

As soon as we bow down to murdering ideology driven terrorists we lose all, as soon as we find that we are constantly being asked to self censor and auto correct in case we offend some lunatic ideology the war is over, the battle for freedom has been lost.

Sure we don't deliberately go about to upset people but we should be fighting for the basic democratic western foundation stone of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

---

France don't only have freedom of press they also have tough anti-hate laws.

Carlton is not a cartoonist. The laws you speak of are not applied rigorously to any who breaks them.  There were huge differences between the Bolt and Carlton issues.

[***super_nova***]

---

@idlewhile wrote:

---

We have numerous  laws on speech and print and they are rigorously applied to anyone who breaks them, see Bolt and Carlton.

Bolt because the judge didn't like his "tone" so he was convicted for that,

---

BS!  Bolt was convicted becuase what he was spouting was hate motivated lies. 

---

@idlewhile wrote:

---

 Carlton because he told readers to eff off because  his constant anti Semitic and racial vilification rants and cartoons,  he wasn't prosecuted for it and he should have been if the same criteria applies to all.

---

Carlton commented on true events supported by evidence and  photos (Israelis cheering as Gaza is  bombed and thousands of people being killed).  He was being bombarded by vicious messages by people who do not like anybody to criticise Israel.  Israeli apologists tried to use the 18c, but found they cannot, as simple criticism of true event is not against the law.  Carlton resigned because he was angry that The Sydney Morning Herald did not stand by him, as they should have.

These 2 examples show that the 18c is working as intended and does not stop freedom of speech.