Society/Culture Aussie forced to take down swastika flag
- Thread starter mantis
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #27
What I also find amusing is that we accept deadshit left wingers walking around in t-shirts with USSR symbology on them despite it being as brutal and longer lasting when compared to the nazis.
There's a massive difference. Nazi regalia is much quicker to associate with that regime than any other, and the principles it actually stood for (ie the white supremacist policies).
It's about the amount of offence and disquiet you can cause by promotion of those symbols. The reality is that the only time you see Nazi symbols is where the person using them is trying to provoke and offend people. Communist symbols don't have that same public prominence - and never did. They're not used for the same purposes.
What I find amusing (well not really) is the way that people defend offensive and insulting behaviour with the term "free speech". Where people abuse free speech by using it to insult everyone around them, it's worthless.
..And how does that work exactly?
Free speech is worthless if it applies to all beliefs/views is basically what you're saying? Can you please back that up with some form of logic and reason.
Are you kidding?
Surely you arent in favour of blasphemy laws as per Victoria?
Every time Bob Brown opens his mouth he insults the intelligence of Australians.
Should he be banned from speaking in public? Or do we arbitrarily pick and choose grades of insult?
- Moderator
- #32
Absolutely not.
No Im not in favour of those laws.
Look, like it or not our Government and Law makers in general can regulate all other forms of behavior and we don't blink an eye. From the age of sexual consent, laws regulating conscription, taxes, defense, speed limits, what you can publicly wear, treatment of animals etc etc
They can make rules to tell you:
a) What you can wear,
b) Who you can shag,
c) How fast you can move,
d) Where you can go,
e) Who you can visit
f) how much you pay,
g) what you can own,
etc, etc, etc
Whats so alien about also regulating what people say?
Some idiot next to me starts ranting about loving to **** little kids Im punching him in the mouth . Its not on, plain and simple. Kinda like ****ing little kids is not on, and there are rules against that.
Surely you believe in some censorship right? Kiddy pr0n? Snuff films? Race hate rallies?
Censorship is a necessary evil. Like all laws, it prohibits or restricts a basic freedom. That freedom is the freedom of expression.
The trick is knowing where to draw the line.
Absolutely. Using the same methods we use to determine when a minor is a minor or not, determine speed limits, figure out what constitutes a 'crime' and every other prohibition of freedom that exists in this country.
It amazes me that people don't seem to get this.
evo
Let's hit the f*ken road!
All in all in all its just another brick in the wall.
I'm convinced people learnt nothing from Aldous Huxley and George Orwell.
What is even more amazing is people who argue for ever more social restrictions then describe themselves as social liberals.
I don't believe people should have the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want. That has no value.
Free speech is valuable when it protects the right to dissent. It's worthless when it's protecting the right to abuse and incite. You can make a fair argument that this tosser has a right to show his opinions with his swastika flag - though the impact of that on those around him says that perhaps there are better ways of doing that. However, it's pretty hard to defend something like Encyclopadia Dramatica, which has, as it's whole purpose, to shock and offend.
An important part of what makes society function is standards, because they provide us with lines that we know we shouldn't cross. People, who by their speech undermine those standards should forfeit their right to speak. I don't care about blasphemy for instance, but if you stand outside a church - or mosque etc - and blaspheme against the religion, then you're deliberately being abusive to those who don't agree with you, and I don't believe you should have that right.
Where free speech is about debate, the right to dissent and to disagree, and argument in the right forum, then yes, it's precious. Where it's used as a shield to protect people who are just making a nuisance of themselves, well that's a different thing altogether. If you were an atheist and organised an atheism rally, then that's fine. If you then made a "there is no God" placard and stood outside KC07's church, then I'd call you a nuisance and say you deserved to be silenced in that scenario.
Yes and no. The left defend the rights of minorities and preach tolderance. Which the right would argue is in conflict with regulation and government intervention.
Having said that I do agree with you, i think. Or atleast you've raised some incredibly interesting points.
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Moderator
- #40
Not neccesarily true.
The Right tend to prefer non interventionalist governments. Let the dice fall where they may if you will. Also known as 'negative' liberty.
The Left tend toward the belief that regulation is neccisary and even required to even out the playing field and protect the individual. We come from the position that laws are needed to protect and regulate civil society.
Those laws will invariably restrict the freedoms of individuals to act as they may.
Ergo, the Left support higher taxes for the rich, tighter regulation of corporations, policies that protect minorities, gun control, universal health care, strong welfare systems and other examples of 'positive' liberty.
Its one of the reasons I dont support a Bill of Rights in this country notwithstanding I clearly ally myself with the political Left.
Look at the USA. The Bill of Rights creates more problems than its worth.
The 'Right' to bear arms (in a militia) has led to unprecedented levels of gun violence and the 'Right' to freedom of speech has led to a flourishing pr0n industry and the legalising and legitimising of the KKK and other race/ religious hate groups.
Also intrestingly is even both of those 'Rights' in the USA (Gun ownership and freedom of speech) can be (and are) regulated.
You still need a permit to own a firearm (even in the USA), and such a permit can be refused. What weapons you can own are also regulated (no nukes to use a flippant example). One cant become a pr0n star until one is 18 years old, and there are limits to your right to political affiliation (terrorist groups).
In other words, limits are placed on your right.
And fair enough too.
You don't believe? Why do you get to make the choice for what other people can say? What gives you the right to stop others from speaking?
As the previous poster said, defending ED is easy. Don't like it, don't look at it. Free speech/expression gives them the right to put forth a particular type of humour; because you don't find it funny doesn't give you the right to decide for others whats proper and whats not.
The guy wasn't being a nuisance? The flag was on his property.
And again, why do you get to draw an arbitrary line on what people can and can't say? Why do you get to decide whats 'proper' and whats not?
For starters, people blink an eye over all those things you said they don't blink an eye over.
Just because the government has the power to regulate what people say, doesn't mean they should regulate what people say.
The line should be coercion and physical force i.e. fraud and death threats.
Really pretty simple. The line shouldn't be something you simply disagree with.
And again, what gives you the right to decide for the rest of individuals what is proper and what is not?
- Feb 4, 2010
- 1,134
- 27
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Banned
- #44
Why?
What statute could force this action?
- Feb 4, 2010
- 1,134
- 27
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Banned
- #45
- Feb 4, 2010
- 1,134
- 27
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Banned
- #46
- Feb 4, 2010
- 1,134
- 27
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Grumpy Bum
Cancelled
Really?
What it used to mean, was well and truly laid to rest when the nazis took and used the symbol for their own twisted purposes, so YES, its now recognised as a symbol of hate.
The swastika has a longer relationship with the Jewish religion than most people realise.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Archaeology/eingedi.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Archaeology/eingedi.html
- Moderator
- #50
Yes, thats exactly what they should be doing. According to the Rule of Law. Thats what we put our Governements there to do in the first place isnt it?
Governments (via passing Laws) should regulate what people can say. And what they can do. And where they can go. And whom they can shag. And who they can associate with. And what gets them sent to jail. And how much taxes they pay. And a million and one other restrictions that they place on 'freedoms'.
Its part of the Social Contract. Its also what we pay them to do.
In other words freedom of speech should be regulated? You agree there should be censorship?
Glad we both agree on this.
Now youre totally missing the point. Where did I suggest I made the rules?
Our Government (and Law makers) make the rules.
My only opinion is that I agree with censorship. And I disagree with any US style 'Bill of Rights', Unlimited Freedom of Speech and other similar malarkey.
And Im Left Wing. Go figure.
