The Law Freedom of Speech

Remove this Banner Ad

Soft Downhill Skier said:
Ideological or political 'point scoring' protests should be banned?
Click to expand...
Starting with antifa.

Rent a hall, bring your banners, say a few words, post on facebook. Why can't you lot just do that?

Protesting the dates of public holidays and gay provocateurs is no longer acceptable. Especially if the event requires a large police presence.

The nonsense shite that is deemed protest worthy by the left would have Martin Luther King Jr rolling in his grave. RIP
 
EasternTiger said:
Starting with antifa.

Rent a hall, bring your banners, say a few words, post on facebook. Why can't you lot just do that?

Protesting the dates of public holidays and gay provocateurs is no longer acceptable. Especially if the event requires a large police presence.

The nonsense shite that is deemed protest worthy by the left would have Martin Luther King Jr rolling in his grave. RIP
Click to expand...
Lol!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

EasternTiger said:
Starting with antifa.

Rent a hall, bring your banners, say a few words, post on facebook. Why can't you lot just do that?

Protesting the dates of public holidays and gay provocateurs is no longer acceptable. Especially if the event requires a large police presence.

The nonsense shite that is deemed protest worthy by the left would have Martin Luther King Jr rolling in his grave. RIP
Click to expand...

So you're in favour of de-platforming now?
 
An example of how myopic this Yiannopolous bullshit is. He trolls with nazi stuff and calls feminists fat. He might or might npt believe it, but it's disposable crap. Using this or Alex Jones or these other pretenders to define the issue of free speech is just playing into their hands.

Meanwhile, someone who dared speak up against military state power is still being harangued by the state.
 
sorted said:
OK, let's say antifa-wannabees.

There's a bunch of twats that will turn up and violently demonstrate against speakers who are perceived to be on the right. Their aim is to stop anyone they disagree with from speaking, or to deter their potential audience from attending. In my case it worked when I declined to attend an event where Nigel Farage was speaking. As I anticipated there were violent protests outside the venue.

It's ridiculous that people who wish to speak peacefully are billed by the Victorian government for the policing of the twats that are protesting, then those protests and costs are used by the Federal government as a reason to bar people from entry into the country.

From the Immigration Department's letter to Milo, warning why it is likely to ban him:

In the event the person were allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, there is a risk that the person would:
(iv) incite discord in the Australian community or in a segment of that community;​
• Despite the locations of your previous appearances being withheld by the organisers until 24 hours prior to the events, there were significant protests at both the Sydney and Melbourne events. The protest at the Melbourne event involved violence between those protesting and your supporters. You were issued with a bill of $50,000 by Victoria Police for the cost of policing your event.​
Click to expand...
I agree with you that it is absurd that the protests are cited as a reason to reject a speaker's entry to the country, but I still think you're extrapolating US violent protests across an Australian context, the same way Milo did. We don't have the same protest culture, we don't do mass violence the way they do and have. Most of the time, even the protesters don't want to rock the boat. You're also relying on media reports of violence at the protests, the same media who viciously exaggerate the level of violence in society at large, and are looking to sell advertising space using people's fear.

If you want to feel afraid of university students too bored to be in another lecture, that's perfectly up to you, but why would you allow them to limit your freedom?
 
Soft Downhill Skier said:
An example of how myopic this Yiannopolous bullshit is. He trolls with nazi stuff and calls feminists fat. He might or might npt believe it, but it's disposable crap. Using this or Alex Jones or these other pretenders to define the issue of free speech is just playing into their hands.

Meanwhile, someone who dared speak up against military state power is still being harangued by the state.
Click to expand...
You mean the troon that broke the law?

Lucky to not have been executed.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

EasternTiger said:
If the protest serves no purpose other than ideological or political point scoring, and is going to eat up police resources and public funds, then it should be banned.

The protests seem to boost his popularity.

The public should not be expected to fund idiots standing around with other idiots.

Go protest genetically modified tomatoes, or something that actually harms the public.
Click to expand...
...

So you think that we should have a Protester's Motive Tribunal (PMT) where a government panel adjudicates (for a fee, because bureaucracy isn't cheap) over the new legislation written to define exactly what 'Ideological" protest is, what "Point scoring" is, and "unjust use of police resources" is, and to seek a permit for a non-ideological, non-using up of police funds, non-point scoring protest?

That is genuinely one of the silliest things I've ever heard; it'd belong in a Terry Pratchett/Douglas Adams novel. I'd be stoked to hear about how it went, for the full month it took before the system promptly shut down as people ignored the s**t out of it.
 
Snake_Baker said:
Nope, but when they start tossing s**t at people or interfering with peoples normal freedom of movement then it becomes an issue. That's not freedom of speech, that's being an obnoxious arsehole.

The protesters are the ones protesting against others peoples freedom of speech. They are control freaks.
Click to expand...
Who's to say that they're protesting Milo's freedom of speech? They could be protesting the content of his speeches. It's a fine line, I'll grant you.

And 'tossing s**t at people or interfering with peoples normal freedom of movement' are not just being obnoxious arseholes, it's breaking the law and should be policed as such. That's how you ensure protests don't get violent; the second it becomes a possibility, clamp down on it hard, to ensure that people know the boundaries of lawful protest.
 
Gethelred said:
...

So you think that we should have a Protester's Motive Tribunal (PMT) where a government panel adjudicates (for a fee, because bureaucracy isn't cheap) over the new legislation written to define exactly what 'Ideological" protest is, what "Point scoring" is, and "unjust use of police resources" is, and to seek a permit for a non-ideological, non-using up of police funds, non-point scoring protest?
Click to expand...
Now who is an idiot
The police just need to enforce laws on
Violence
Trespass
Vandalism
While fining or jailing those that that commit these offences

If the gutless fascists break the law they should be made to pay for that
 
Gethelred said:
...

So you think that we should have a Protester's Motive Tribunal (PMT) where a government panel adjudicates (for a fee, because bureaucracy isn't cheap) over the new legislation written to define exactly what 'Ideological" protest is, what "Point scoring" is, and "unjust use of police resources" is, and to seek a permit for a non-ideological, non-using up of police funds, non-point scoring protest?

That is genuinely one of the silliest things I've ever heard; it'd belong in a Terry Pratchett/Douglas Adams novel. I'd be stoked to hear about how it went, for the full month it took before the system promptly shut down as people ignored the s**t out of it.
Click to expand...

I think we should deal with rent-a-crowd protesters the same way we do vexatious litigants.
 
Gethelred said:
Who's to say that they're protesting Milo's freedom of speech? They could be protesting the content of his speeches. It's a fine line, I'll grant you.

And 'tossing s**t at people or interfering with peoples normal freedom of movement' are not just being obnoxious arseholes, it's breaking the law and should be policed as such. That's how you ensure protests don't get violent; the second it becomes a possibility, clamp down on it hard, to ensure that people know the boundaries of lawful protest.
Click to expand...
But the speaker should not have to pay for the actions of the gutless fascists
 
WA ROO said:
Now who is an idiot
The police just need to enforce laws on
Violence
Trespass
Vandalism
While fining or jailing those that that commit these offences

If the gutless fascists break the law they should be made to pay for that
Click to expand...
You, quite clearly...
WA ROO said:
But the speaker should not have to pay for the actions of the gutless fascists
Click to expand...
... because as you can see by the fact that you failed to even wait before you read the thread before replying, you would've seen that I actually agree with this.

Also, gutless fascists? Could you point out to me where and how the policies they advocate resemble Benito Mussolini's Italy, please, preferably in dot points? And is the gut how you differentiate between the right wing fascists and the left wing ones, based on the 'free speech' protests on St Kilda beach?

I also think it's a problem that Milo was billed by police for their services at protecting his speaking tour, but I'd argue that's a problem which generated more from the right than the left of politics. The left are perfectly okay with society footing the bill for services, where the right would privatise the roads as they deteriorated, the police and prisons with private security (oh wait, they've already done the latter). It's positively neoliberal to charge Milo for the use of the police at his event, just as it's also neoliberal to deny him and his speech entry in the event of him being unwilling to pay his bill for the last trip and for security this time around.
 
Last edited:
EasternTiger said:
I think we should deal with rent-a-crowd protesters the same way we do vexatious litigants.
Click to expand...
Okay. Sounds great.

Create a brief by which you can a) distinguish between fervent passionate protesters, those there for the food (because you just know at some point there's going to be at the very least an icecream truck) and to be part of the crowd, those there because they're looking after a younger sibling who is passionate, those parents standing and watching, the people who just went out for milk and wnet along with the crowd, and the 'rent-a-crowd' protesters b) without breaking the bank, or compromising each of those individual's freedom of speech, or creating legislation that is both too clunky and too restrictive that it becomes unusable.

I'll be waiting patiently, but I'll not be holding my breath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

darth_timon
  • Poll
Politics Is Education better off Privatised?
Replies
19
Views
572
Rusty Brookes
R
mr bagcroft
Politics Rich Men North of Richmond
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
Chief
Chief
Aristotle Pickett
Remove Sam Newman from the Hall of Fame petition.
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
448
Views
15K
Chief
Chief
zeggie
  • Locked
Society/Culture Ending the centralisation of corporate power increasingly undermining government and culture.
2
Replies
29
Views
903
zeggie
zeggie
Back One Out
The Law FNQ's Bob Katter proposes outback camps for young indigenous offenders
Replies
21
Views
1K
baris
B
nut
BRICS and the reduced power of the US dollar.
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
barreness
barreness
CD Xbow
Europe Mary, Queen of Tasmania
Replies
10
Views
677
CD Xbow
CD Xbow

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top