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

[Floor Pie]

Care to explain how they are not a restriction of speech.

Well, it reads like a question... but it's written like a statement... Not sure how to respond...

I guess I'll ask you a question!
How does the RDA restrict your speech motty?

Give me an example!



Also, by responding to my previous post, you accepted the deal!
So state now, that you are wrong, to get out of the deal, or proceed with the full knowledge that you have accepted the entire terms of my deal!
Any lack of response means you forfeit, and I win. And any response means that you accept that you've already accepted the deal.

The only way out, as of this moment, is to admit you're wrong, and don't know what you're talking about. And I will let you go free.


Just to clarify, here is the deal again:
Want to make a deal? We will continue until one of us turns into an idiot*, or we accept the other person is correct? Or the person starts saying that the law should be gone, because it does nothing?


*You're already an idiot, but I mean that it's even more noticeable, or you accept that you're an idiot.
Deal?

Basically, if one of us changes how we think, or it is evident that we are being too stubborn or stupid, we lose!

Deeeeeaaaallll?


Winner chooses the punishment!

Are you in, or are you a coward?

 

[Maggie5]

Well, it reads like a question... but it's written like a statement... Not sure how to respond...

I guess I'll ask you a question!
How does the RDA restrict your speech motty?

Give me an example!



Also, by responding to my previous post, you accepted the deal!
So state now, that you are wrong, to get out of the deal, or proceed with the full knowledge that you have accepted the entire terms of my deal!
Any lack of response means you forfeit, and I win. And any response means that you accept that you've already accepted the deal.

The only way out, as of this moment, is to admit you're wrong, and don't know what you're talking about. And I will let you go free.


Just to clarify, here is the deal again:
Want to make a deal? We will continue until one of us turns into an idiot*, or we accept the other person is correct? Or the person starts saying that the law should be gone, because it does nothing?


*You're already an idiot, but I mean that it's even more noticeable, or you accept that you're an idiot.
Deal?

Basically, if one of us changes how we think, or it is evident that we are being too stubborn or stupid, we lose!

Deeeeeaaaallll?


Winner chooses the punishment!

Are you in, or are you a coward?

You are SO patient.

 

[mottrain]

Well, it reads like a question... but it's written like a statement... Not sure how to respond...

I guess I'll ask you a question!
How does the RDA restrict your speech motty?

Give me an example!



Also, by responding to my previous post, you accepted the deal!
So state now, that you are wrong, to get out of the deal, or proceed with the full knowledge that you have accepted the entire terms of my deal!
Any lack of response means you forfeit, and I win. And any response means that you accept that you've already accepted the deal.

The only way out, as of this moment, is to admit you're wrong, and don't know what you're talking about. And I will let you go free.


Just to clarify, here is the deal again:
Want to make a deal? We will continue until one of us turns into an idiot*, or we accept the other person is correct? Or the person starts saying that the law should be gone, because it does nothing?


*You're already an idiot, but I mean that it's even more noticeable, or you accept that you're an idiot.
Deal?

Basically, if one of us changes how we think, or it is evident that we are being too stubborn or stupid, we lose!

Deeeeeaaaallll?


Winner chooses the punishment!

Are you in, or are you a coward?

Go have a look at cases like Bolt and get back to me. The fact that you cannot comprehend the fact that it is a restriction of speech is one of two things. You are either

1. An idiot.

2. Deliberately deflecting because you know it is and don't want to have to admit so.

As for the deal bit I didn't accept as I did not respond to the question with a direct answer . Nice desperate try.

Funny how many other bodies including the current commissioner of human rights for the Commonwealth of Australia agree 18c restricts speech. Seems I am not the one who doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

[Floor Pie]

Go have a look at cases like Bolt and get back to me. The fact that you cannot comprehend the fact that it is a restriction of speech is one of two things. You are either

1. An idiot.

2. Deliberately deflecting because you know it is and don't want to have to admit so.

As for the deal bit I didn't accept as I did not respond to the question with a direct answer . Nice desperate try.

Funny how many other bodies including the current commissioner of human rights for the Commonwealth of Australia agree 18c restricts speech. Seems I am not the one who doesn't know what they are talking about.

First.... HAHAHAHA Tim Wilson?
Motty, you never know what you're talking about.



Also, you accepted the deal as per instructions in what you just quoted:
"Also, by responding to my previous post, you accepted the deal!
So state now, that you are wrong, to get out of the deal, or proceed with the full knowledge that you have accepted the entire terms of my deal!
Any lack of response means you forfeit, and I win. And any response means that you accept that you've already accepted the deal."

So, sure of yourself, but desperate to avoid the deal? Too late, deal is on!


What happened to Bolt, motty?
What was the huge repercussion for him?
What happened?

Who else is having their freedom of speech restricted?
What does the RDA do, that usual slander laws don't?

What's the worse thing thing that could happen to me if I wrote on Bigfooty, or created my own blog, and wrote a ton of deliberately racist and hateful s**t? (apart from you bookmarking it to read as often as you could).


I'll cut to the end? Because I know you will either not answer, or you will deflect.

Nothing will happen to me. Nothing...

My freedom of speech has not been restricted in anyway, due to 18c. It never has and it never will.



But it is interesting that you made a thread about banning the burka in Australia. Banning some clothing... in Australia.... Banned...
But you are fighting for the right to be deliberately racist...

#PeoplesChampion

 

[mottrain]

First.... HAHAHAHA Tim Wilson?
Motty, you never know what you're talking about.



Also, you accepted the deal as per instructions in what you just quoted:
"Also, by responding to my previous post, you accepted the deal!
So state now, that you are wrong, to get out of the deal, or proceed with the full knowledge that you have accepted the entire terms of my deal!
Any lack of response means you forfeit, and I win. And any response means that you accept that you've already accepted the deal."

So, sure of yourself, but desperate to avoid the deal? Too late, deal is on!


What happened to Bolt, motty?
What was the huge repercussion for him?
What happened?

Who else is having their freedom of speech restricted?
What does the RDA do, that usual slander laws don't?

What's the worse thing thing that could happen to me if I wrote on Bigfooty, or created my own blog, and wrote a ton of deliberately racist and hateful s**t? (apart from you bookmarking it to read as often as you could).


I'll cut to the end? Because I know you will either not answer, or you will deflect.

Nothing will happen to me. Nothing...

My freedom of speech has not been restricted in anyway, due to 18c. It never has and it never will.



But it is interesting that you made a thread about banning the burka in Australia. Banning some clothing... in Australia.... Banned...
But you are fighting for the right to be deliberately racist...

#PeoplesChampion

Unfortunately I did not. I cannot accept agreements that effectively ambush people into doing so by simply engaging in actions.

As for your comment about 18c. Nice way to deflect the issue. Even if it has not affected your free speech does not mean that it has affected other people's speech. There is evidence to say it has and therefore it is a restriction of free speech. So care to tell me again how 18c is not a restriction of free speech or are you going to keep trying to skirt and deflect answering?

 

[Floor Pie]

Unfortunately I did not. I cannot accept agreements that effectively ambush people into doing so by simply engaging in actions.

As for your comment about 18c. Nice way to deflect the issue. Even if it has not affected your free speech does not mean that it has affected other people's speech. There is evidence to say it has and therefore it is a restriction of free speech. So care to tell me again how 18c is not a restriction of free speech or are you going to keep trying to skirt and deflect answering?

Nope, you accepted the deal. Look at you trying to weasel out already!

Who's free speech has it affected?
Bolt can write the same article again... Unless someone actually takes it to a judge... nothing will happen to him...

Now. Do you want to answer any of my questions?
Nope? Surprise...

Ok, here is your response "But it is still a restriction on free speech"
Me:Tisn't
you:tis

 

[mottrain]

Nope, you accepted the deal. Look at you trying to weasel out already!

Who's free speech has it affected?
Bolt can write the same article again... Unless someone actually takes it to a judge... nothing will happen to him...

Now. Do you want to answer any of my questions?
Nope? Surprise...

Ok, here is your response "But it is still a restriction on free speech"
Me:Tisn't
you:tis

No free speech means without risk of sanction. Therefore this law prevents Bolt from writing articles of this nature as he may get sanctioned. So care to explain how 18c doesn't restrict free speech.

 

[Floor Pie]

No free speech means without risk of sanction. Therefore this law prevents Bolt from writing articles of this nature as he may get sanctioned. So care to explain how 18c doesn't restrict free speech.

Ok, give me an example?

Or anything?

The Bolt case? What did the RDA do to him? What was his ...sanction?
What did the RDA do, that couldn't already be done with existing laws?

What can the RDA do, to restrict free speech, that doesn't already exist?

 

[mottrain]

Ok, give me an example?

Or anything?

The Bolt case? What did the RDA do to him? What was his ...sanction?
What did the RDA do, that couldn't already be done with existing laws?

What can the RDA do, to restrict free speech, that doesn't already exist?

So if the RDA is so useless then why are you and others so keen to avoid it getting repealed? The difference under 18c is a complaint can be made for generic not specific comments which do not target anyone in particular.

 

[Floor Pie]

So if the RDA is so useless then why are you and others so keen to avoid it getting repealed? The difference under 18c is a complaint can be made for generic not specific comments which do not target anyone in particular.

It is useless.
I'm arguing against the reasons people give to get rid of it.
Because they don't know why they should get rid of it, just that have been told it's a dark stain on Australia.

Breach the RDA, what happens to you?
Nothing... and you know nothing happens, which is why you avoid it.
Bolt had to retract his statement. Shock... newspaper prints the wrong information, has to retract... poor Bolta!

Again... why are you so interested in racist freedoms, but you want to ban an item of clothing??

 

[Riseupaustralia]

Tommy demands free speech for all.

Mashes the report button on BF like no other.

 

[Malifice]

In an anarchic society the property owner might have other ideas on where you can and cannot go.

Just like in an anarchic society people might have other ideas when you walk up to them and racially abuse them.

Again, this is why we have the State. To protect liberty.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Who's free speech has it affected?

Bolt can write the same article again... Unless someone actually takes it to a judge... nothing will happen to him...

Everyone's free speech has been affected!

Bolt was instructed not publish similar articles. But the real damage is done to free speech when people are afraid to express their opinion in case they are dragged through the courts.

 

[Floor Pie]

Everyone's free speech has been affected!

Bolt was instructed not publish similar articles. But the real damage is done to free speech when people are afraid to express their opinion in case they are dragged through the courts.

Yeah... real damage ...

Are you afraid to express your opinion?
No you're not. I'm not either.
No one is so scared of the RDA, that they can't express their opinion.

If they intentionally say racist things, that they know are not true they are told to apologise.
Woah...

 

[Lester Burnham]

Yeah... real damage ...

Are you afraid to express your opinion?
No you're not. I'm not either.
No one is so scared of the RDA, that they can't express their opinion.

If they intentionally say racist things, that they know are not true they are told to apologise.
Woah...

Try asking questions then not answering them lol

 

[Floor Pie]

Try asking questions then not answering them lol

Well, I knew the answers, and I knew you wouldn't answer them.

So, problem solved!

 

[Riseupaustralia]

Everyone's free speech has been affected!

Bolt was instructed not publish similar articles. But the real damage is done to free speech when people are afraid to express their opinion in case they are dragged through the courts.

Bolt was instructed not to lie.

And, just as you find this concept difficult to deal with, you could do well to accept the fact.

lying is bad.....mmmmmmkay.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Well, I knew the answers, and I knew you wouldn't answer them.

So, problem solved!

So you weren't really asking questions at all, just stating your views.

Anyhoo let's move on. Hypotheticals

- can we discuss Adam Goodes being made Australian of the Year? Yes.
- can we discuss if Adam Goodes being made Australian of the Year was because he is Aborigine? Yes.
- can we discuss if Adam Goodes is really Aborigine? No ******* way! Our laws and public service are racist in that they treat Aborigines as a biological race and apply differing policies to them. Yet anyone wishing to discuss these issues openly risks being dragged before the courts to be part of a protracted and expensive action.

 

[Riseupaustralia]

So you weren't really asking questions at all, just stating your views.

Anyhoo let's move on. Hypotheticals

- can we discuss Adam Goodes being made Australian of the Year? Yes.
- can we discuss if Adam Goodes being made Australian of the Year was because he is Aborigine? Yes.
- can we discuss if Adam Goodes is really Aborigine? No ******* way! Our laws and public service are racist in that they treat Aborigines as a biological race and apply differing policies to them. Yet anyone wishing to discuss these issues openly risks being dragged before the courts to be part of a protracted and expensive action.

Instructive.

 

[Floor Pie]

So you weren't really asking questions at all, just stating your views.

Nope, knew you wouldn't answer the questions, so I skipped a heap of back and forth bullshit, trying to get you to answer, by just answering for you.
You still haven't answered... or tried to correct me.

Anyhoo let's move on. Hypotheticals

Yes, please lets.

- can we discuss Adam Goodes being made Australian of the Year? Yes.

Yep, so far you're doing swell!

- can we discuss if Adam Goodes being made Australian of the Year was because he is Aborigine? Yes.

You sure can. Wow, you're nailing this!

- can we discuss if Adam Goodes is really Aborigine?

Yes you can. Don't worry, but you got this one wrong... not sure how... but there's always next year.

You can discuss if he is really Aboriginal.

Ready?

Hey, does anyone know if Goodes is really Aboriginal? I've not seen any evidence that has shown me, conclusively, that Goodes "is really Aborigine".


OH s**t!! RDA... just kidding.. I'm fine.

You missed a question;
- Can I state that Goodes is faking that he is Aboriginal, just to take advantage of us poor white folk?
Well.. Yeah you can... But if he finds out, he will probably take you to court for slander, and sue the s**t out of you.
Or, if he doesn't have the money, he can take the matter to court, and the judge can tell you to apologise, unless you can show any evidence to support your statement...

No ******* way! Our laws and public service are racist in that they treat Aborigines as a biological race and apply differing policies to them. Yet anyone wishing to discuss these issues openly risks being dragged before the courts to be part of a protracted and expensive action.

Lewl

 

[Riseupaustralia]

the whole Kevin Spacey lookin lovinly at what he shouldn't be has always freaked me out


cancat....you are more than a little different

 

[Lester Burnham]

Nope, knew you wouldn't answer the questions, so I skipped a heap of back and forth bullshit, trying to get you to answer, by just answering for you.
You still haven't answered... or tried to correct me.



Yes, please lets.

Yep, so far you're doing swell!

You sure can. Wow, you're nailing this!

Yes you can. Don't worry, but you got this one wrong... not sure how... but there's always next year.

You can discuss if he is really Aboriginal.

Ready?

Hey, does anyone know if Goodes is really Aboriginal? I've not seen any evidence that has shown me, conclusively, that Goodes "is really Aborigine".


OH s**t!! RDA... just kidding.. I'm fine.

You missed a question;
- Can I state that Goodes is faking that he is Aboriginal, just to take advantage of us poor white folk?
Well.. Yeah you can... But if he finds out, he will probably take you to court for slander, and sue the s**t out of you.
Or, if he doesn't have the money, he can take the matter to court, and the judge can tell you to apologise, unless you can show any evidence to support your statement...



Lewl

You wrote a lot of words to say nothing at all. Was I supposed to pick out the bits where you were trying to make a serious point from those where you were trolling?

 

[Malifice]

Our laws and public service are racist in that they treat Aborigines as a biological race and apply differing policies to them.

No, they dont. Australian Law makes no special rules for biological decent, and does not define Aboriginal as a biological race. One can be 'Aboriginal' at Australian law and utterly lack any biological 'Aboriginality'.

Yet anyone wishing to discuss these issues openly risks being dragged before the courts to be part of a protracted and expensive action.

And yet here both you and I are doing just that, and neither you nor I have been dragged of to the courts.

So.. youre wrong.

 

[mottrain]

It is useless.
I'm arguing against the reasons people give to get rid of it.
Because they don't know why they should get rid of it, just that have been told it's a dark stain on Australia.

Breach the RDA, what happens to you?
Nothing... and you know nothing happens, which is why you avoid it.
Bolt had to retract his statement. Shock... newspaper prints the wrong information, has to retract... poor Bolta!

Again... why are you so interested in racist freedoms, but you want to ban an item of clothing??

so care to explain how it's not restriction of speech cause from what you're posting here you think it is.

 

[Floor Pie]

so care to explain how it's not restriction of speech cause from what you're posting here you think it is.

Christ... just keep repeating that it is...

Your turn. How is it a restriction of speech? Who is it restricting?

Who does the RDA restrict in a way that doesn't already exist?

What does the RDA restrict?