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

[Lebbo73]

What nonsense!
We could be in Israel where they airbrush women from newspaper photos. Murdoch Press would go bankrupt if this happened.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...er-hamevaser-merkel-women-charlie-hebdo-rally

And when it reaches that stage you will be the first to complain about how we let it get so far!

 

[AM]

Dangerous? Bahahahaha!

No reactionary would have the capacity to see it.

 

[Maggie5]

And when it reaches that stage you will be the first to complain about how we let it get so far!

I don't think that we have ever met.
How do you know what I will do?

 

[Gough]

Je suis Charlie

 

[Maggie5]

Je suis Charlie

Even the cat didn't stir, heard it all before.

 

[Play by Numbers]

What a load of utter tosh. Murdoch has long argued for free speech (unlike the shameful Quisling efforts of the ABC and Farifax).

Murdoch has long argued to limit his papers legal liability, he couldn't give a stuff about free speech.

 

[Play by Numbers]

We can't, it would be ILLEGAL to do so. That's the whole point of the law.

No it wouldn't.

 

[Lebbo73]

I don't think that we have ever met.
How do you know what I will do?

You are right. You probably wouldn't mind at all.

 

[Qsaint]

Interesting article about Freedom of Speech:
http://theaimn.com/freedom-well-us-anyway/
"When ten aid workers from Save the Children staff at the Nauru detention centre raised concerns of sexual abuse and self harm of children in detention they were suspended. If people want to be political activists, that’s their choice. But they don’t get to do it on the taxpayer’s dollar,” the minister said."

Officers were told that a failure to take part in the process or getting an adverse ruling would result in employees losing their jobs, or at least being transferred to another public service department.

Could you imagine our politicians submitting to similar rules?

In 2012, when addressing the IPA, Tony Abbott said

“There is no case, none, to limit debate about the performance of national leaders. The more powerful people are, the more important the presumption must be that less powerful people should be able to say exactly what they think of them.”

Unless it is critical of him apparently.

Yes I think Politicians and nearly all employees would especially those covered by various commonwealth acts. Hardly about freedom of speech

TEN aid workers have been suspended on full pay ahead of an investigation into claims Save the Children staff fabricated Nauru detention centre abuse stories and coached asylum seekers into self harm.

THE federal government has appointed former integrity commissioner Philip Moss to head an independent inquiry into the claims, as well as sexual misconduct allegations aired earlier this week.

Accusations relating to the misuse of official information have also been referred to the Australian Federal Police.


Save the Children has denied any wrongdoing.


Immigration Minister Scott Morrison says, while sexual abuse claims shouldn't be taken lightly, he is concerned they have been used as a political tactic of people who oppose offshore processing.


"If people want to be political activists, that's their choice. But they don't get to do it on the taxpayer's dollar," the minister said on Thursday.


The minister has received intelligence reports that service provider staff were engaged in a broader campaign with external advocates to cast doubt on border protection policies.


This included allegedly doctoring official reports and orchestrating protests.

 

[Malifice]

Doesn't matter to me. But whats the point of special grants and scholarships for aboriginals if people can identify as aboriginal being only 1/30th caste etc. Seems mightly unfair.

What? We don't give scholarships because of skin color you fool. We give them (largely) to combat entrenched disadvantage.

Its fair to say Aboriginal people (as a whole) struggle. Literacy rates, crime rates (both as victims and perpetrators), lifespan, employment rates, etc etc etc.

And if you think this is due to simply 'people picking on them because they have black skin' you have serious problems with with reality.

 

[Malifice]

Wrong again

Under the bolt finding 18C you have to be polite.

Polite wasn't the words used. I believe it was 'truthful'.

 

[Lebbo73]

Yes I think Politicians and nearly all employees would especially those covered by various commonwealth acts. Hardly about freedom of speech

TEN aid workers have been suspended on full pay ahead of an investigation into claims Save the Children staff fabricated Nauru detention centre abuse stories and coached asylum seekers into self harm.

THE federal government has appointed former integrity commissioner Philip Moss to head an independent inquiry into the claims, as well as sexual misconduct allegations aired earlier this week.

Accusations relating to the misuse of official information have also been referred to the Australian Federal Police.


Save the Children has denied any wrongdoing.


Immigration Minister Scott Morrison says, while sexual abuse claims shouldn't be taken lightly, he is concerned they have been used as a political tactic of people who oppose offshore processing.


"If people want to be political activists, that's their choice. But they don't get to do it on the taxpayer's dollar," the minister said on Thursday.


The minister has received intelligence reports that service provider staff were engaged in a broader campaign with external advocates to cast doubt on border protection policies.


This included allegedly doctoring official reports and orchestrating protests.

Surprise, surprise. Did the ABC report this?

 

[Maggie5]

You are right. You probably wouldn't mind at all.

You have no idea what you are talking about and neither do I.

 

[telsor]

No it wouldn't.

It's not designed to intimidate people into playing safe with things that might offend?

Or are you saying that a Human Rights commissioner saying it'd be banned isn't sufficient cause for concern?

 

[Play by Numbers]

It's not designed to intimidate people into playing safe with things that might offend?

Or are you saying that a Human Rights commissioner saying it'd be banned isn't sufficient cause for concern?

Tim Wilson should be ignored.

Also, intimidated, which is subjective, is different to illegal. There was a of of parsing of words, though in short, the paper could be sold in Australia and the cartoons in question, would not break any laws. It was a small proportion of mostly old content that might face complaint

Historically the paper has printed satire that was borderline racist and may be more problematic. Given exceptions in 18 d, these individual pictures may have been subject to complaint or challenge, though there is no guarantee it would be a success.

However, you were wrong about them not being able to be posted to this site. Unless moderators disagreed, it is American owned, hosted outside Australia and many posters do not live in Aus.

 

[telsor]

Tim Wilson should be ignored.

Why? Because he doesn't come from the left? Yes, I can see why a diversity of opinion would be objectionable. Human rights is all about a single orthodoxy after all.

Also, intimidated, which is subjective, is different to illegal. There was a of of parsing of words, though in short, the paper could be sold in Australia and the cartoons in question, would not break any laws. It was a small proportion of mostly old content that might face complaint

Historically the paper has printed satire that was borderline racist and may be more problematic. Given exceptions in 18 d, these individual pictures may have been subject to complaint or challenge, though there is no guarantee it would be a success.

However, you were wrong about them not being able to be posted to this site. Unless moderators disagreed, it is American owned, hosted outside Australia and many posters do not live in Aus.

Amazing how these exemptions only seem to apply to things you favor.

As for ownership/hosting, juristiction of content is an interesting and little explored area of the internet.

 

[medusala]

Murdoch has long argued to limit his papers legal liability, he couldn't give a stuff about free speech.

He does but blind hatred combined with clouds rational thinking for too many to realise.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Why? Because he doesn't come from the left? Yes, I can see why a diversity of opinion would be objectionable. Human rights is all about a single orthodoxy after all.



Amazing how these exemptions only seem to apply to things you favor.

As for ownership/hosting, juristiction of content is an interesting and little explored area of the internet.

No, he simply is not ethically consistent when it comes to human rights. The man is a trojan horse, with a one track agenda.

What things do I favor? The exemptions apply to work of artistic merit. That would include most satire.

Your last point is moot, 18 c would not prevent the posting or hosting of the cartoons

 

[telsor]

No, he simply is not ethically consistent when it comes to human rights. The man is a trojan horse, with a one track agenda.

What things do I favor? The exemptions apply to work of artistic merit. That would include most satire.

Your last point is moot, 18 c would not prevent the posting or hosting of the cartoons

Except according to the opinion of a human rights commissioner, who, your opinion notwithstanding, would, by most, be considered an expert in the field.

He's hardly the only politically driven hack on that commission, but you seem to accept the verdict of the others.

 

[Play by Numbers]

He does but blind hatred combined with clouds rational thinking for too many to realise.

No, it has never been an issue vs commercial interest, when trying to grab greater market share. See his puffery aimed at Western audiences re Star China.

The party went after the network over symbolic defiance, yet post takedown, they never really had major ructions with censors. PR spin for the greater public, but commercially they complied with onerous Chinese demands till they no longer deemed their stake viable

 

[Play by Numbers]

Except according to the opinion of a human rights commissioner, who, your opinion notwithstanding, would, by most, be considered an expert in the field.

He's hardly the only politically driven hack on that commission, but you seem to accept the verdict of the others.

He isn't an expert, it is a partisan appointment, one in which he was not qualified for. And ideologically opposed to, till he received a paycheck.

He is a fraud and neither does he have a history of human rights advocacy, nor of human rights law.

 

[romeoh]

Yes I think Politicians and nearly all employees would especially those covered by various commonwealth acts. Hardly about freedom of speech

TEN aid workers have been suspended on full pay ahead of an investigation into claims Save the Children staff fabricated Nauru detention centre abuse stories and coached asylum seekers into self harm.

THE federal government has appointed former integrity commissioner Philip Moss to head an independent inquiry into the claims, as well as sexual misconduct allegations aired earlier this week.

Accusations relating to the misuse of official information have also been referred to the Australian Federal Police.


Save the Children has denied any wrongdoing.


Immigration Minister Scott Morrison says, while sexual abuse claims shouldn't be taken lightly, he is concerned they have been used as a political tactic of people who oppose offshore processing.


"If people want to be political activists, that's their choice. But they don't get to do it on the taxpayer's dollar," the minister said on Thursday.


The minister has received intelligence reports that service provider staff were engaged in a broader campaign with external advocates to cast doubt on border protection policies.


This included allegedly doctoring official reports and orchestrating protests.

But that report is months old-do you know what came of it?

 

[medusala]

I'm not insulting you because you (selectively) believe in free speech, I'm calling you out as a cheerleader who does not understand the issue but blindly goes in to bat for Bolt because you share a mutual dislike for anything you might consider 'progressive'.

Meh, it has been explained to you numerous times and with reference to the failed ALP candidates ruling.

As for selectively believing in free speech, that is entirely consistent with the notion of property laws ie defamation, incitement to murder etc.

.

I say this for the obvious reason that the article would have been totally different. It's not clear the article would have caused offence and it's likely that the imputations would have been different..

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...lt-trifled-with-the-facts-20110928-1kxba.html

For reasons best known to its lawyers, the Herald Sun chose to argue that Bolt's columns weren't likely to offend anybody and/or that if they did it wasn't on the grounds of their race, colour etc. Both are self-evidently absurd propositions. As I've argued before, the act sets a disturbingly low bar. It's very easy to cause offence, and quite plainly Bolt's columns were likely to do so; and they were all about race, colour and ethnicity.

But despite the heading, the wording of the act doesn't mention racial hatred. And the courts have found that its intention is far broader than its heading states. As Justice Bromberg puts it (par 334): "In seeking to promote tolerance and protect against intolerance in a multicultural society, the Racial Discrimination Act must be taken to include in its objective tolerance for and acceptance of racial and ethnic diversity."
It appears to follow that any publication which discourages tolerance for racial diversity, for example by mocking particular people's 'choices' of ethnic diversity, and which in the process causes offence or humiliation, is unlawful.

 

[telsor]

He isn't an expert, it is a partisan appointment, one in which he was not qualified for. And ideologically opposed to, till he received a paycheck.

He is a fraud and neither does he have a history of human rights advocacy, nor of human rights law.

Yeah, but nobody else there is a dodgy partisan appointment, right?

e.g. Tim Soutphommasane, who has been an ALP member since he was 15, and worked for Bob Carr and Kevin Rudd, before being appointed to the HRC ~2 weeks before the election by the same Kevin Rudd he'd worked for while he was supposedly in caretaker mode and thus shouldn't have made appointments.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Yeah, but nobody else there is a dodgy partisan appointment, right?

e.g. Tim Soutphommasane, who has been an ALP member since he was 15, and worked for Bob Carr and Kevin Rudd, before being appointed to the HRC ~2 weeks before the election by the same Kevin Rudd he'd worked for while he was supposedly in caretaker mode and thus shouldn't have made appointments.

I am sure there are, but we are talking Wilson and the validity of his opinion.