So the police can secretly search your home now. No worries :drunk:

[Play by Numbers]

Yep. Amusing to see the plastic libertarians getting outraged over this in between calling opponents of 18c racist.

Yet you are not outraged?

 

[Floor Pie]

Yep. Amusing to see the plastic libertarians getting outraged over this in between calling opponents of 18c racist.

Amusing that you are outraged about 18c in between ignoring this.

You called 18c "a very dark stain on Australia"...

 

[Richard Pryor]

Yep. Amusing to see the plastic libertarians getting outraged over this in between calling opponents of 18c racist.

I'd think that the partisan hacks picking and choosing what to be outraged at are in the minimum.

 

[medusala]

Yet you are not outraged?

Sure I am. Its nonsense. Stupid attacks on freedom all because we ran and continue to run a moronic immigration policy.

Amusing that you are outraged about 18c in between ignoring this.
You called 18c "a very dark stain on Australia"...

Hardly ignoring it.

Not liking this. Not liking 18c. Consistent

Attacking this, defending 18c. Hypocrite / misologist.

 

[Floor Pie]

Sure I am. Its nonsense. Stupid attacks on freedom all because we ran and continue to run a moronic immigration policy.



Hardly ignoring it.

Not liking this. Not liking 18c. Consistent

Attacking this, defending 18c. Hypocrite / misologist.

Yeah? What was your first post in this thread?
Compared to calling section 18 a dark stain on Australia.
Consistent...

And you conflated two very different issues.

18c doesn't do a thing to your freedom of speech. You can say whatever the hell you want, and nothing will happen.

If you really think the two issues are similar, can you explain to me how they are? As in actually explain it.

 

[medusala]

Yeah? What was your first post in this thread?

Agreeing with Evo. See my previous posts re Blair and suspension of habeus corpus. Always been against crxp like this.

.

And you conflated two very different issues..

Hardly. Both are an attack on freedom. Really, its not hard to grasp.

18c doesn't do a thing to your freedom of speech. ..

???????

 

[Floor Pie]

Agreeing with Evo. See my previous posts re Blair and suspension of habeus corpus. Always been against crxp like this.

.

Hardly. Both are an attack on freedom. Really, its not hard to grasp.



???????

So you can't explain how they are similar?

How does section 18 of the RDA an attack on your freedom of speech?
Let alone a "dark stain on Australia"

Notice how you keep being so vague? It's because you know you are talking s**t.

 

[medusala]

How does section 18 of the RDA an attack on your freedom of speech?

It is VERY, VERY simple. By offending someone you can be in breach of an act. That is an attack on freedom of speech. Even the Conversation concedes and the usual suspects concede that. If I for example point out that Mohammed was a paedophile which he undoubtedly was, I would probably be in breach because some extremist muslim gets upset (or one of the panoply of apologists that float about). All for stating an undisputed fact. Pathetic. Yet you defend such muppetry. Speaks volumes.

http://theconversation.com/section-18c-and-unravelling-the-governments-freedom-agenda-25021

It is remarkable that the Abbott government has singled out one law, Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, as stifling free expression, but has remained silent on other more draconian laws that limit speech in Australia

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/glan...8c-and-18d-racial-discrimination-act-1975-cth
While many laws restrict freedom of speech, such as laws applying to defamation, advertising and national security, section 18C fills an important gap in legal protections for those affected by racial hatred and vilification.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16576

With the exception for arguments made in good faith in the public interest, freedom from discrimination should prevail over freedom of speech

 

[Floor Pie]

It is VERY, VERY simple. By offending someone you can be in breach of an act. That is an attack on freedom of speech. Even the Conversation concedes and the usual suspects concede that. If I for example point out that Mohammed was a paedophile which he undoubtedly was, I would probably be in breach because some extremist muslim gets upset (or one of the panoply of apologists that float about). All for stating an undisputed fact. Pathetic. Yet you defend such muppetry. Speaks volumes.

More emotive language and rhetoric...
Amazing that you looked up all of those opinion pieces, but couldn't look up the act itself.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18d.html

Exemptions
Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

Did you read that last one??...
It is VERY, VERY simple.
Exemption cii states that section 18c does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith, in making or publishing an expression of genuine belief held by the person making the comment.


So again, Meds, I say BULLSHIT!

It is VERY, VERY simple. By offending someone you can be in breach of an act. That is an attack on freedom of speech.

You cannot be in breach of the act, just for offending someone. It isn't an attack on freedom of speech.

If I for example point out that Mohammed was a paedophile which he undoubtedly was, I would probably be in breach because some extremist muslim gets upset (or one of the panoply of apologists that float about). All for stating an undisputed fact.

Your own example points out how wrong you are...

See how you actually did just say that Mohammaed was a paedophile?
Wow... how did you manage to say that? And nothing has happened to you?

But I thought your freedom of speech was under attack by this "dark stain on Australia"...
Yet you've said it, but nothing has, and nothing ever will happen to you, in relation to section 18 of the RDA.




You know what does speak volumes, Meds? That there are all sorts of laws that curtail free speech in Australia. But the only act people are fighting against, is one that they think will hinder racism...

 

[clogged]

Sure I am.

Wouldn't seem so. Seems you'd rather bring up a different argument you're more interested in pursuing.

Always amusing that when actual police state policies are brushed off as "it has ever been thus" while hysterical "nanny state" outrage is generated by supposed libertarians when something as innocuous as alcopop taxes are introduced.