Free speech in Australia.

[Pneumonica]

Unless, as in the case of child pornography, the act of perceiving the article victimizes someone, there is no reason or right to ban something from being distributed or disseminated by any means those who are performing the distribution have available to them. Nor does anything mandate the viewing by others. When you restrict freedom of speech, you are literally declaring some cluster of knowledge to be illegal to know, be that knowledge trivial or considerable. Any reasonable person can rightfully claim that the government's right to restrain the simple knowledge they possess is limited to things that the mere knowing injures, and that is true of very little. Certain state secrets, such as active troop movements, are included in this, because if the knowledge were to be freely disseminated it would be hazardous to the lives of the troops. Freedom of speech is freedom of knowledge, and every restriction on the freedom of speech is a restriction on the knowledge base of those who are being restricted. Althouh Australians have no stated right to freedom of knowledge in any variation, freedom of knowledge is a basic human right as far as I am concerned.

[Makkabee]

No right is absolute. There are some reasonable limits on free speech that should be enforced. Speech that causes physical harm (the old shouting "fire" in a crowded theater and setting off a stampede trope) is one exception. Libel/slander is another. Advocacy of criminal behavior is also a reasonable exception. Saying "Slovenians suck" should be protected free speech, but saying "burn the Slovenians' houses, take their stuff, and drive them from our midst" should not.

There is a right to free speech and it must be protected, but it must also be balanced against other rights. Yes, we must guard against unreasonable restrictions on free speech (punishing students for a "bong hits 4 Jesus" banner was stupid and unncecessary even if one accepts the notion that marijuana use should be illegal), but we shouldn't let fear of a slippery slope prevent us from enforcing those restrictions necessary to protect our other rights.

I absolutely disagree, for the reasons already stated. And right here we see why free speech much be absolute. You want some things banned. I don't. If you had your way, I'd be silenced. So no thanks.

Damn straight I want some things banned! If you're in favor of permitting libel, slander, and criminal intimidation in the name of free speech you are my enemy.

"If you had your way, I'd be silenced"

If you're advocating murder, arson, or theft, if you're deliberately trying to destroy people's lives through lies, intimidation, or the threat of violence, then yes. I'm quite happy to silence you if you pull any of that crap.

Otherwise, I don't advocate banning speech just because it's moronic, so you're safe.

[Scaramouche]

No right is absolute. There are some reasonable limits on free speech that should be enforced. Speech that causes physical harm (the old shouting "fire" in a crowded theater and setting off a stampede trope) is one exception. Libel/slander is another. Advocacy of criminal behavior is also a reasonable exception. Saying "Slovenians suck" should be protected free speech, but saying "burn the Slovenians' houses, take their stuff, and drive them from our midst" should not.

There is a right to free speech and it must be protected, but it must also be balanced against other rights. Yes, we must guard against unreasonable restrictions on free speech (punishing students for a "bong hits 4 Jesus" banner was stupid and unncecessary even if one accepts the notion that marijuana use should be illegal), but we shouldn't let fear of a slippery slope prevent us from enforcing those restrictions necessary to protect our other rights.

I absolutely disagree, for the reasons already stated. And right here we see why free speech much be absolute. You want some things banned. I don't. If you had your way, I'd be silenced. So no thanks.

Damn straight I want some things banned! If you're in favor of permitting libel, slander, and criminal intimidation in the name of free speech you are my enemy.

"If you had your way, I'd be silenced"

If you're advocating murder, arson, or theft, if you're deliberately trying to destroy people's lives through lies, intimidation, or the threat of violence, then yes. I'm quite happy to silence you if you pull any of that crap.

Otherwise, I don't advocate banning speech just because it's moronic, so you're safe.

Whatever words you would ban, I would shout at the top of my lungs, for the very reason that you would deny me the right to do so.

And for some thoughts on this matter from people far more eloquent than myself: http://www.quotegarden.com/censorship.html

I know that even after reading that webpage, you probably won't get it. Some people can't.

[Scaramouche]

Never could stomach book-burners.

[Makkabee]

Okay, you think that I want to censor your speech. That could be for several reasons.

1: You use libel, slander, or calls for the violent suppression of groups you don't care for (those being the things I said I was in favor of censoring), and think that's just fine, in which case you're a sociopath.

2: You don't understand the difference between calls for some specific restrictions and widespread blanket censorship, in which case you're an idiot.

3: You assume that specifically stated exceptions to free speech will inevitably lead to blanket censorship, in which case you're a paranoid loon.

4: You assume that because I'm willing to call for specific restrictions on free speech in order to balance free speech rights with other rights I'm lying and actually want blanket censorship, in which case you're a paranoid loon.

5: You know #4 isn't really the case but are trying to twist things in that direction because you'd rather libel me than actually answer my arguments, in which case you're just plain scum.

Every way we slice it you come out a loser.

Now, since you have no sensible arguments in favor of libel, incitement to riot, etc. to offer, I suggest you try a few more paranoid rants about book burning. Play to your strengths.

[Don Alexander]

[...] in which case you're a sociopath. [...] in which case you're an idiot. [...] in which case you're a paranoid loon. [...] in which case you're a paranoid loon. [...] in which case you're just plain scum. [...] you come out a loser.

*basks in flames of war* :twisted:

Well, Makkabee, I'd say you can consider me a sociopath, an idiot, a paranoid loon and just plain scum. All in all: A loser.

Because I'm with Scaramouche here.

[Arantor]

I guess I am too. I live in a country that claims to be a democracy, but is shoving through litigation hand-over-fist that is about exactly the kinds of freedom-eroding in discussion here.

They find a convenient reason, shove in litigation to cover the specific issue, crowbar in a ton of other stuff, then pat themselves on the backs for a job well done.

Today in a newspaper, legislation designed to combat terrorism, to spy on people has been invoked by a county council... to spy on whether some people are putting their bins out on the wrong day.

[Scaramouche]

Okay, you think that I want to censor your speech. That could be for several reasons.

1: You use libel, slander, or calls for the violent suppression of groups you don't care for (those being the things I said I was in favor of censoring), and think that's just fine, in which case you're a sociopath.

2: You don't understand the difference between calls for some specific restrictions and widespread blanket censorship, in which case you're an idiot.

3: You assume that specifically stated exceptions to free speech will inevitably lead to blanket censorship, in which case you're a paranoid loon.

4: You assume that because I'm willing to call for specific restrictions on free speech in order to balance free speech rights with other rights I'm lying and actually want blanket censorship, in which case you're a paranoid loon.

5: You know #4 isn't really the case but are trying to twist things in that direction because you'd rather libel me than actually answer my arguments, in which case you're just plain scum.

Every way we slice it you come out a loser.

Now, since you have no sensible arguments in favor of libel, incitement to riot, etc. to offer, I suggest you try a few more paranoid rants about book burning. Play to your strengths.

http://www.quotegarden.com/censorship.html

Read that.

Think about the simple fact that even here ni this discussion, we disagree about what should or should not be allowed. I say there's no restriction. You would restrict free speech. Therefore people have different ideas about what should be allowed. Obviously any legislation about it will be ok with you, and not ok with other people. So why would one person get to decide it for everyone else? Why does one person's idea of acceptable trump anyone else's?

But go and read those quotes. They say it better than I do.

[Scaramouche]

I do think, however, that when it comes to private premises, "My house, my rules" applies.

[Asaryu]

I also agree. I'm an Australian studying to be a librarian, an information enabler. It is entirely against my living ethos to deny someone the right to say what they wish. When does something become unacceptable? Who and what defines it as unacceptable and what gives me the right to do so? When do political views come under the blanket of censorship? Have we all forgotten about the McCarthy era? I mean, we can pat ourselves on the back and say we've learned our lesson as much as we like, but if we're thinking of censoring what people are allowed to communicate with each other in any medium, then we obviously haven't been paying enough attention.

Call me a paranoid loon if you like, but I was a lefty student in 2005 when John Howard rushed through his anti-sedition laws. Certainly, it all sounds fair on the surface. Don't urge violence or violent disruption to lawful processes. However: one definition of sedition in Australian law is to "to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt; to excite disaffection against the Government or Constitution of the Commonwealth or against either House of the Parliament of the Commonwealth" The definition goes further, and for that you can research yourself, but in this case, a peaceful protest could be considered sedition because you would be exciting dissatisfaction with the government of the time. Isn't that just a little bit messed up?

You don't have to be a terrorist or a child pornographer to be censored, but they are a good political target if you want to get it passed. I mean, what are a few civil liberties when we're talking about protecting the children? Any censorship hat has been introduced invariably gets abused. Thats not paranoid, thats just the way people are. I'm all for protecting children, but there's got to be a better way. And besides, ignorance breeds complacency. You don't know something is there, you don't know how to protect yourself from it. It's one thing to make people paranoid, and it's quite another to advocate sticking your head in the sand as a compulsory national activity.

I believe in prevention through education, not through censorship. Cultural change, not a quick fix.

[midgetshrimp]

I believe in common sense. Some things are appropriate to say in their respective settings, and some things aren't. If something is said outside of its appropriate setting, I don't believe it should be censored. Instead, it's important that if someone thinks in a certain way the rest of us know that. The issue of child pornography comes up. Is it appropriate in any setting? I don't see where it is (opinion), and I may not want to hear anything about it, ever... but to know that the issue is there is comforting in the sense that I can decide how to react to it, and if I decide to take action or not against the issue at hand, I can do so with at least some partial knowledge of what it is I am or am not taking a stand against. I guess the point is this: covering something is not going to remove it. In the case of censorship, quieting or hiding the views of any does not make those views go away, or alter them in a more positive manner. Instead, the views stay, linger, fester, and boil at those who keep it repressed. Like a dutch oven. It's better to know it's there, and deal with it in the appropriate manner than pretend it's not and face the subsequent consequences. Open a window.

[Scaramouche]

I believe in prevention through education, not through censorship. Cultural change, not a quick fix.

Even then, it's not always a good thing. The federal government is looking at introducing a national curriculum for, among othenr things, history. You can bet your arse the history they teach will be politically correct and thoroughly sanitised.

[Asaryu]

These things are always going to be sticky issues. Where does education end and propaganda begin? There's a great deal of conflict between children's rights, parents rights, the social contract and the political climate at any given time. in my opinion, a nationalised curriculum has the potential to be very useful in the current political climate of reconciliation. Rudd has said Sorry, so perhaps this nationalised curriculum will place more emphasis on the genocide of the Aborigines that occurred over the first 150 years or more of colonisation. I am an optimist still with the Rudd Government, though my faith is being eroded a little bit each day. The Sorry was a big step that we tool too long to make.

I remember that the small amount I did learn about Australian History (and i fell through the cracks in high school on local history) was enough to make me deeply ashamed to be Australian. When you look a tiny bit deeper than the larrikin, 'fair-go' varnish, we're a nation of racists, bigots, xenophobes and self-deluders. We're better than some, but it's this utter denial of the past, and its effects on the present, that gets me. My current boyfriend grew up in Alice Springs and Darwin and we bonded largely because of our shared disgust at the way Australia clings to false constructions of itself in order to keep this absurd sense of national pride. Instead of acknowledging that yes, we are a young country, and yes, we made some stupid mistakes, and yes, we've got a bloody lot to answer for so that we can move on to better, more equitable things. We pat ourselves on the back for being the nation of the fair-go, while Aboriginal towns don't even have any running water, and they live together 12 people to a 3-room house. There's no work for them, then they get a bad wrap as dole 'dole-bludgers' and alcoholics. If I had nothing to do with my time, I'd turn to drink as well!

Sorry...that's a perpetual rant I have stored up. but yes, it depends on how the curriculum is handled. I think some of the fat, complacent states may get something good out of learning how the original inhabitants of this land are still slowly being killed off. They may learn a little bit of perspective. But I suspect that hope is optimistic to the point of delusion.

[Scaramouche]

Rudd has said Sorry, so perhaps this nationalised curriculum will place more emphasis on the genocide of the Aborigines that occurred over the first 150 years or more of colonisation. I am an optimist still with the Rudd Government, though my faith is being eroded a little bit each day. The Sorry was a big step that we tool too long to make.

This is what I mean. A lot of history isn't actually based on history, but on unwarranted feelings of guilt in those who are the product of the last few decades of political correctness. The sad fact is, the common ideas about what happened after the Europeans arrived in Australia tend to lack supporting evidence, but are still taught as gospel.

http://www.sydneyline.com/Massacres%20Part%20One.htm
http://www.sydneyline.com/Massacres%20Part%20Two.htm
http://www.sydneyline.com/Massacres%20Part%20Three.htm
http://www.hyperhistory.org/index.php?o ... 64&op=page
http://www.hyperhistory.org/index.php?o ... 84&op=page

World War Two gives us another example. Kids are taught the evils of Germany and Germans, and all the awful things they did. But they are rarely taught that the Allied forces in WW2 did many of the same things. Or that the NAZIs actually learned some of their tricks from the Allies in the first place.

[Harlock_the_Bard]

World War Two gives us another example. Kids are taught the evils of Germany and Germans, and all the awful things they did. But they are rarely taught that the Allied forces in WW2 did many of the same things. Or that the NAZIs actually learned some of their tricks from the Allies in the first place.

Umm... F'rinstance? I don't remember seeing anything about the Allies building concentration camps. Yes, detainment camps for the Japanese-Americans were horrible, but they weren't deliberately given starvation rations and then worked like rented mules, nor were they shoved into mass cremation chambers. Maybe somewhere in Russia, but then you're painting with a rather broad brush, here. Russia was an Ally strictly by convenience: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thing. Look how quickly we started rattling sabers at each other after WW2 ended, if you don't believe me. OK, yeah, the firebombing of Dresden was more than a bit over the top, but still it antedated the London Blitz, which had the same basic goal of undermining morale by mass slaughter of civilians. Not that I'm trying to pretty either event up. As Sherman said: "War is hell, boys."

What I'm wondering about in this particular case is just which evils you're saying the Nazis imported from the Allies. Well, that and I'm thinking back on my own school days and trying to think of why we labeled the Nazis as evil other than the horrors of the Holocaust. And, frankly, I'm coming up blank for the most part. Yeah, book burning and censorship and all that, but most of that sprang from the same well that poured forth the Holocaust: hypernationalism and the search for a scapegoat.