The Slow Death Of Free Speech

[silverfaun]

A scroller but intensely interesting to anybody who cares about our rights and freedom.

How the Left, here and abroad, is trying to shut down debate —  from Islam and Israel to global warming and gay marriage

April 2014

These days, pretty much every story is really the same story:

• In Galway, at the National University of Ireland, a speaker who attempts to argue against the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) programme against Israel is shouted down with cries of  effing Zionist, effing  pr…..… Get the eff  off our campus.’

• In California, Mozilla’s chief executive is forced to resign because he once made a political donation in support of the pre-revisionist definition of marriage.

• At Westminster, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee declares that the BBC should seek ‘special clearance’ before it interviews climate sceptics, such as fringe wacko extremists like former Chancellor Nigel Lawson.

• In Massachusetts, Brandeis University withdraws its offer of an honorary degree to a black feminist atheist human rights campaigner from Somalia.

• In London, a multitude of liberal journalists and artists responsible for everything from Monty Python to Downton Abbey sign an open letter in favour of the first state restraints on the British press in three and a quarter centuries.

• And in Canberra the government is planning to repeal Section 18C — whoa, don’t worry, not all of it, just three or four adjectives; or maybe only two, or whatever it’s down to by now, after what Gay Alcorn in the Age described as the ongoing debate about ‘where to strike the balance between free speech in a democracy and protection against racial abuse in a multicultural society’

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9187741/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-2/?

[tall_bearded]

What you seem to be confused about is the distinction freedom of speech and freedom of information, with your post being a means of using the first to complain about this Government’s refusal to provide you with access to the second.

[i-need-a-martini]

Ahhh. I see.

So Freedom of Speech we DO want under any circumstances. But Freedom of Information is NOT acceptable to the Liberal Party and their supporters? 

So if you want me to be more specific, then you mean the kind of free speech that allows Liberal politicians to speak to the press, issue their own media releases, contribute to their own social media accounts, discuss their policies with the media WITHOUT having to have all of their communication vetoed first by the Chief of Staff?

And you mean that when we repeal our laws so that "people can be free to be bigots" then it will be OK for rogue journalists to express their opinions on race and religion without any infringements? And of course, the same will be Ok when some Sheik delivers a sermon where he gives urges young muslims to kill infidel nonbelievers?

[tall_bearded]

Oh I see, you are an advocate for freedom of speech, but only with respect to those opinions you agree with.

[icyfroth]

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@boris1gary wrote:

no it isn't  "free speech" at all and in fact in this state (NSW) the Libs recently passed a new law with $500 fines for swearing.

---

so you think it's not against common decency for people be able to incorporate foul language in their speech. How would you like to here the F and C word used in mainstream media and general language, for instance.

It already is on some programs. I won't mention names but their initials are ABC.

---

What has common decency got to do with it? The argument here is about free speech -whether we should have the the right to say whatever we like, whenever we like, regardless of whom it might offend. It is possible to be incredibly offensive without using either the f or c word and and conversely it is also possible to use them without being particularty offensive 

---

I meant to get back to you last night, She-el, but OH made me get off the computer and come sit with him on the lounge to watch telly.

"What has common decency got to do with it?

Well, a lot really, it's what keeps communities together. If, as Boris has posted, the government is contemplating laws to fine people using offensive language against the public, I'm all for it.

Condoning offensive language in public is not what free speech is all about, though really, is it?

Free speech is about having the right to speak out on matters  of politics, race, religion, creed, for eg - without fear of persecution or of condemnation.

I believe this is what the OP is about.

It's increasingly difficult in Australia to discuss a topic contrary to the mainstream of media and govenment-fed public opinion.

Hence why has David Irving not received permission to speak in Australia re his holocaust denial theories while Muslim speakers have freedom to speak all sorts of hatred against our culture?

Geert Wilders, while allowed into was not given a platform on which to speak on his anti-muslim opinions and was effectively silenced.

I agree both speakers are highly offensive to many, still they should have the right to speak to people who want to hear what they say. Do Australians not pride ourselves on our free speech culture? 

Apparently it's only for select topics.

Like we can call our government a "stinking" government and speak obscenites against our leaders. Yeah that's real free speech.

The argument here is about free speech -whether we should have the the right to say whatever we like, whenever we like, regardless of whom it might offend.

agree, see above.

It is possible to be incredibly offensive without using either the f or c word and and conversely it is also possible to use them without being particularty offensive.

agree, see above

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@tall_bearded wrote:

Oh I see, you are an advocate for freedom of speech, but only with respect to those opinions you agree with.

---

Ahh. No.

It seems to me that you just described current Liberal policy. 

[i-need-a-martini]

And in case you haven't noticed, we DO have freedom of speech in Australia.

What we don't have (and rightly so) is freedom to racially vilify and incite race hatred.

[icyfroth]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

And in case you haven't noticed, we DO have freedom of speech in Australia.

What we don't have (and rightly so) is freedom to racially vilify and incite race hatred.

---

It seems we do:

An Adelaide Islamic preacher is under police investigation after he was filmed calling for all Buddhists and Hindus to be killed.

Detectives are examining the sermon given by Sheikh Sharif Hussein, who has previously been visited by the intelligence services, in which he described Australian soldiers as "Crusader pigs”.

In the video clip, published online this week by the US-based Middle East Media Research Institute, the preacher attacked Jews, former Prime Minister John Howard and US President Barack Obama.

Click Through To Rest Of Article And Video

[silverfaun]

Indeed we are subjected to threads like the 100 days of lies and broken promises and the other equally offensive lying Stinking Govt thread.

We have a virulent few posters with their every post is filled with hate and disappointment but they are allowed to continue.

All this is subjective criticism based on the lefts view of our government and their disappointment that Labor lost the last election.

There is no restrictions against this type of hatred and lies, it is not illegal, there is no criminality attached to it.

Freedom of speech is the most precious thing we can have and the eg. of thefilthy lying threads put up here are there to be refuted and so it should be but it is not against the law.

FIRST they came for the Catholics and climate sceptics. Beware: the true bigots will next reach for your throat, too.

Attorney-General George Brandis, raised a Catholic, was right last week: “The Left has embraced a new authoritarianism.”

They have given us a “new and illiberal climate of anti-intellectualism” so that “rather than winning the argument (they) exclude their antagonists from the argument”.

Brandis said he first realised this when Senator Penny Wong, Labor’s former climate change minister, falsely claimed the debate on global was over because “the science is settled”.

She wasn’t alone. The only time the ABC ran a documentary questioning global warming extremists, its own staff, led by Science Show presenter Robyn Williams, revolted. Warmists such as Professor Tim Flannery now refuse out of principle to debate sceptics.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/the-new-church-of-bigotry-is-enticing-worshippers/story-fni...

[silverfaun]

---

@tall_bearded wrote:

What you seem to be confused about is the distinction freedom of speech and freedom of information, with your post being a means of using the first to complain about this Government’s refusal to provide you with access to the second.

---

Exactly,  but they never let truthful debate get in the way leftist dogma.

[spotweldersfriend]

They're not sceptics.They're 'fragrant' liars