Brandis: "People do have a right to be bigots, you know."

[Lester Burnham]

For those who think this is not some sort of sop to Bolt, it's instructive to mess around with the dates of your Google search and see how often 18c of the RDA is mentioned prior to 14/4/2009, the date of that article. The Adelaide Institute don't see that keen on it nor does Larry Pickering, there's the odd obscure court case, but there's sweet FA from the IPA or the Liberal Party on the subject.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=18c racial discrimination act&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=7iC&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBfficial&channel=sb&biw=1440&bih=777&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/1975,cd_max:14/4/2009&tbm=#q=18c racial discrimination act&safe=off&rls=org.mozilla:en-GBfficial&channel=sb&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/1/1975,cd_max:14/4/2009&start=0
It's almost as if they didn't know it existed.

I've corrected you on this before. The Liberal Party have been fully aware of 18c since before it was passed into law. John Howard led a vigorous debate in the lower house raising many of the same issues that were discussed during the Bolt case.

 

[Gough]

And yet it was passed in 1995 with bipartisan support.

 

[Power Raid]

And yet it was passed in 1995 with bipartisan support.

I wonder what dirty deal that was packaged up with

 

[pokerspiv]

I'm glad this is the most important act for us to focus on!

Who cares how low the 'hurdles' are for skipping the process of court with these new terrorism laws. 18C is the dark stain on Australia...

Use whatever talking points you have found. At the end of the day, the only people who care about the removal/reduction of 18c, are those that follow Bolt, or those who don't understand it.

And people who believe in the right to free speech.

 

[Gough]

And people who believe in the right to free speech.

What can't you say mate and how does this law impinge on your right to say it?

 

[pokerspiv]

What can't you say mate and how does this law impinge on your right to say it?

According to the law, you can't say anything that another person might find offensive. And part of the problem with that law is that what someone might find offensive is completely subjective.

 

[Gough]

I say plenty of offensive things from to time, I'm sure you do as well and I haven't end up in court, I doubt you have either. So tell me again, how are you being denied freedom of speech?

 

[Elroo]

According to the law, you can't say anything that another person might find offensive. And part of the problem with that law is that what someone might find offensive is completely subjective.

No it doesn't.

 

[pokerspiv]

I say plenty of offensive things from to time, I'm sure you do as well and I haven't end up in court, I doubt you have either. So tell me again, how are you being denied freedom of speech?

You and I aren't important enough for people to bother denying our freedom of speech.

The fact that you personally are yet to be prosecuted does not mean the law is fine.

You are again making the common left wing mistake of presuming that such laws could never be used against you.

 

[Floor Pie]

You and I aren't important enough for people to bother denying our freedom of speech.

The fact that you personally are yet to be prosecuted does not mean the law is fine.

So 18 c is only a problem for freedom of speech for important people?

Also, have you read 18d?

 

[Gough]

So you're not being denied freedom of speech then are you. This is going to come back Bolt again isn't it, name another "important" person who has run afoul of this law. His freedom of speech wasn't being denied either, he got a clip for writing an untrue and shitty article

 

[pokerspiv]

So 18 c is only a problem for freedom of speech for important people?

Important people are far more likely to be prosecuted, obviously.

There would be no point prosecuting you or me since we have no money or influence.

 

[pokerspiv]

So you're not being denied freedom of speech then are you. This is going to come back Bolt again isn't it, name another "important" person who has run afoul of this law. His freedom of speech wasn't being denied either, he got a clip for writing an untrue and shitty article

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/glan...8c-and-18d-racial-discrimination-act-1975-cth

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/27/interactive-race-discrimination-cases-brits-bolt

A list of a few other cases.

 

[Floor Pie]

Important people are far more likely to be prosecuted, obviously.

There would be no point prosecuting you or me since we have no money or influence.

Ok..
Before we get into this.
Have you read the racial discrimination act?

And, do you promise you won't end up saying that it doesn't do anything, so we should get rid of it?
You promise that you have looked into the RDA enough, to know for a fact that it impinges or your freedom of speech?

 

[pokerspiv]

Ok..
Before we get into this.
Have you read the racial discrimination act?

And, do you promise you won't end up saying that it doesn't do anything, so we should get rid of it?
You promise that you have looked into the RDA enough, to know for a fact that it impinges or your freedom of speech?

Honestly, what are you trying to achieve with posts like these?

 

[Floor Pie]

Honestly, what are you trying to achieve with posts like these?

Working out if it's worth my time...

I'm going to guess that it isn't, because of your reply.

So instead i'm just going to scroll through the forum, and requote posts I've made before.

 

[Gough]

You do realise unimportant people as you would call them have also been found to have been in breach of this law as well. You argument is crumbling before your eyes. First you're being denied freedom of speech, then your not, now you're suggesting only those with money and influence are being denied it (f***ing lol at that just quietly) which also not the case.
Anything else?

 

[Play by Numbers]

And people who believe in the right to free speech.

Certainly not the current government.

 

[Power Raid]

I say plenty of offensive things from to time, I'm sure you do as well and I haven't end up in court, I doubt you have either. So tell me again, how are you being denied freedom of speech?

Lol

What a terrible argument

Our laws should be drafted appropriately and in this case offensive is clearly too low a threshold

 

[Nikita Blue]

Its ok - just say its "whimsical in tone" and you will be fine.

The Government's national curriculum review is "tainted" after one of its contributing professors sent racist and sexually abusive emails.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-...sor-alleged-sent-racist-sexist-emails/5820220

What a charmer.

 

[Gough]

Lol

What a terrible argument

Our laws should be drafted appropriately and in this case offensive is clearly too low a threshold

Can you point to posts of yours calling for this law to be repealed prior to Bolt writing his article? If it's such a poorly worded law in your view, surely you must have been arguing for it's amendment for some time now.

 

[pokerspiv]

Can you point to posts of yours calling for this law to be repealed prior to Bolt writing his article? If it's such a poorly worded law in your view, surely you must have been arguing for it's amendment for some time now.

People have been arguing against this law since the Catch The Fire case in 2002.

 

[Gough]

Catch the Fire Ministries, Larry Pickering and The Adelaide Institute, see a common theme here?

 

[Malifice]

And people who believe in the right to free speech.

Such a right comes with responsibilities as well.

My right to freedom of movement doesn't let me enter your home at will now does it?

 

[pokerspiv]

Such a right comes with responsibilities as well.

My right to freedom of movement doesn't let me enter your home at will now does it?

You don't have a right to freedom of movement on other people's private property.

You do have a right to freedom of speech without recrimination from the government.