The Law Freedom of Speech

Should Milo Yiannopoulos be denied entry to Australia?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

ShanDog

Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Posts
17,106
Likes
30,858
Location
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
Thread starter Moderator #1
There doesn't seem to be any recent threads in the SRP about freedom of speech as a concept itself - more so reactions to specific issues or events as they have happened over time.

Australia has lawful protection of political speech, but no explicit law protecting general speech (or text etc) in the same way other countries like the United States may have; however, there was an 'implied freedom of speech that was recognised' in a High Court case regarding political speech. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Australia).

In recent times, there have been a few somewhat high profile cases crop up in popular discourse internationally, particularly by those who are ardent supporters of free speech rights. The United States always has examples to discuss, but more recently, it's been argued by many that some countries are flirting with the line between banning speech and compelling it, such as in Canada and the UK.

Popular academic figure Dr Jordan Peterson initially rose to public fame in response to his refusal to follow what he believed to be compelled speech laws that were proposed (and later make law) in Canada regarding the appropriate use of personal pronouns. This is an ongoing debate which has polarised many people.

You may also be aware of Count Dunkula - a shitposting Scotsman who put a video on YouTube where he taught his partner's dog to bark when hearing the phrase "Gas the Jews' and made it salute at imagines of Hitler in order to 'prank' his partner. A long and drawn out legal battle happened which ultimately resulted in him being convicted (without jail time). Depending on where you sit, this is either a complete travesty or fair enough.

South Yorkshire Police in the UK have come under fire after they asked that people report all offensive speech found online, even if it didn't break any laws. It's also been reported that several thousand in the UK have been investigated by police for things posted online.

And most recently, creator of the Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd TV shows Graham Linehan was warned by police in the UK after he used 'a transgender activist's birth name on Twitter' and was reported for transphobia (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...sing-transgender-activists-birth-Twitter.html).

I love a good Jonathan Pie clip, and in my opinion, the below is a great one:

Are the traditionally liberal / progressive views regarding freedom of speech at risk of being eroded at the hands of extremists of the very same political orientation?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

its free real estate

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
4,816
Likes
5,767
AFL Club
Fremantle
#2

CheapCharlie

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Posts
4,225
Likes
4,476
AFL Club
Sydney
#3
Too many people now believe it is their right not to be offended and as such they go seeking out any possible comment or written word that they can feel offended by.
Free speech is all about not having the government decide what you can and can't say... Too many people willing to let governments and police make life decisions for them
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,805
Likes
6,124
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#6
Progressivism in the UK has gone off the deep end.
Its made easier when you have 20k plus employees at the BBC and a quasi monopoly position re tv and radio.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45408492

A Labour MP is trying to change the law so that misogynistic behaviour is treated as a hate crime.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2018/10/15/doctor-feature-rosa-parks-episode-civil-rights-movement/

The Doctor (Jodie Whittaker) and her trio of companions will travel back in time to 1955 Alabama, where they’ll meet civil rights icon Rosa Parks.
 

deltablues

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Posts
1,456
Likes
1,505
Location
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Sturt
#7
There doesn't seem to be any recent threads in the SRP about freedom of speech as a concept itself - more so reactions to specific issues or events as they have happened over time.

Australia has lawful protection of political speech, but no explicit law protecting general speech (or text etc) in the same way other countries like the United States may have; however, there was an 'implied freedom of speech that was recognised' in a High Court case regarding political speech. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Australia).

In recent times, there have been a few somewhat high profile cases crop up in popular discourse internationally, particularly by those who are ardent supporters of free speech rights. The United States always has examples to discuss, but more recently, it's been argued by many that some countries are flirting with the line between banning speech and compelling it, such as in Canada and the UK.

Popular academic figure Dr Jordan Peterson initially rose to public fame in response to his refusal to follow what he believed to be compelled speech laws that were proposed (and later make law) in Canada regarding the appropriate use of personal pronouns. This is an ongoing debate which has polarised many people.

You may also be aware of Count Dunkula - a shitposting Scotsman who put a video on YouTube where he taught his partner's dog to bark when hearing the phrase "Gas the Jews' and made it salute at imagines of Hitler in order to 'prank' his partner. A long and drawn out legal battle happened which ultimately resulted in him being convicted (without jail time). Depending on where you sit, this is either a complete travesty or fair enough.

South Yorkshire Police in the UK have come under fire after they asked that people report all offensive speech found online, even if it didn't break any laws. It's also been reported that several thousand in the UK have been investigated by police for things posted online.

And most recently, creator of the Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd TV shows Graham Linehan was warned by police in the UK after he used 'a transgender activist's birth name on Twitter' and was reported for transphobia (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...sing-transgender-activists-birth-Twitter.html).

I love a good Jonathan Pie clip, and in my opinion, the below is a great one:

Are the traditionally liberal / progressive views regarding freedom of speech at risk of being eroded at the hands of extremists of the very same political orientation?
There has been a lot on freedom of speech debate in this forum, but not recent. As an example, a synthesized version of some of my posts here:

Note Voltaire's observation: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who or what you are not allowed to criticize.”

The robust Anglo-Saxon concept of freedom of speech as per John Stuart Mill (i.e. you can test opposing ideas, and mock, expose and refute them, but not use the law to asphyxiate debate, because in the silence that follows a dreadful conformism would set in - aka PC speech) is dead.

In its place we now have the American legal philosopher Joel Feinburg's "offense principle" - where the law should stop freedom of speech which causes/is likely to cause offense.

We are on the slippery slope towards totalitarianism, thanks to multiculturalism. Owning your own country means not having to explain things to those from different cultures and being free to comment without the fear of being labelled racist.

We now have a kind of emotional hive-mind of adolescent group-think (which is an aim of cultural Marxism) - a generation which, like frogs slowly being boiled alive, doesn't even realize the extent to which it has entered the realm of Orwellian Newspeak and thought control; doesn't even realize the extent of the consequential loss of any intellectual curiosity in searching out opposing viewpoints, in order to learn/test its own. Sad.

Following on from Feinburg, the right of free speech has been supplanted by an entitlement to what Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education calls a" right to freedom from speech deemed uncongenial". This entitlement is buttressed by “trigger warnings” against spoken “micro-aggressions” and code words (e.g. vibrant/minority/community/disadvantaged/diversity) that are sacrosanct; the breach of which lacerates the delicate sensibilities of individuals who are encouraged to be exquisitely sensitive.

[pause for breath. Heh.]
 

deltablues

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Posts
1,456
Likes
1,505
Location
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Sturt
#8
There has been a lot on freedom of speech debate in this forum, but not recent. As an example, a synthesized version of some of my posts here:

Note Voltaire's observation: “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who or what you are not allowed to criticize.”

The robust Anglo-Saxon concept of freedom of speech as per John Stuart Mill (i.e. you can test opposing ideas, and mock, expose and refute them, but not use the law to asphyxiate debate, because in the silence that follows a dreadful conformism would set in - aka PC speech) is dead.

In its place we now have the American legal philosopher Joel Feinburg's "offense principle" - where the law should stop freedom of speech which causes/is likely to cause offense.

We are on the slippery slope towards totalitarianism, thanks to multiculturalism. Owning your own country means not having to explain things to those from different cultures and being free to comment without the fear of being labelled racist.

We now have a kind of emotional hive-mind of adolescent group-think (which is an aim of cultural Marxism) - a generation which, like frogs slowly being boiled alive, doesn't even realize the extent to which it has entered the realm of Orwellian Newspeak and thought control; doesn't even realize the extent of the consequential loss of any intellectual curiosity in searching out opposing viewpoints, in order to learn/test its own. Sad.

Following on from Feinburg, the right of free speech has been supplanted by an entitlement to what Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education calls a" right to freedom from speech deemed uncongenial". This entitlement is buttressed by “trigger warnings” against spoken “micro-aggressions” and code words (e.g. vibrant/minority/community/disadvantaged/diversity) that are sacrosanct; the breach of which lacerates the delicate sensibilities of individuals who are encouraged to be exquisitely sensitive.

[pause for breath. Heh.]
EDIT - in the SRP Forum.
 

Bunkdar

Team Captain
Joined
Aug 29, 2018
Posts
519
Likes
195
AFL Club
GWS
#10
There doesn't seem to be any recent threads in the SRP about freedom of speech as a concept itself - more so reactions to specific issues or events as they have happened over time.

Australia has lawful protection of political speech, but no explicit law protecting general speech (or text etc) in the same way other countries like the United States may have; however, there was an 'implied freedom of speech that was recognised' in a High Court case regarding political speech. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Australia).

In recent times, there have been a few somewhat high profile cases crop up in popular discourse internationally, particularly by those who are ardent supporters of free speech rights. The United States always has examples to discuss, but more recently, it's been argued by many that some countries are flirting with the line between banning speech and compelling it, such as in Canada and the UK.

Popular academic figure Dr Jordan Peterson initially rose to public fame in response to his refusal to follow what he believed to be compelled speech laws that were proposed (and later make law) in Canada regarding the appropriate use of personal pronouns. This is an ongoing debate which has polarised many people.

You may also be aware of Count Dunkula - a shitposting Scotsman who put a video on YouTube where he taught his partner's dog to bark when hearing the phrase "Gas the Jews' and made it salute at imagines of Hitler in order to 'prank' his partner. A long and drawn out legal battle happened which ultimately resulted in him being convicted (without jail time). Depending on where you sit, this is either a complete travesty or fair enough.

South Yorkshire Police in the UK have come under fire after they asked that people report all offensive speech found online, even if it didn't break any laws. It's also been reported that several thousand in the UK have been investigated by police for things posted online.

And most recently, creator of the Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd TV shows Graham Linehan was warned by police in the UK after he used 'a transgender activist's birth name on Twitter' and was reported for transphobia (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...sing-transgender-activists-birth-Twitter.html).

I love a good Jonathan Pie clip, and in my opinion, the below is a great one:

Are the traditionally liberal / progressive views regarding freedom of speech at risk of being eroded at the hands of extremists of the very same political orientation?
YES
We have no bill of rights
This means when things downturn ya ringa is gonna burn hotter then proton in the sun
LEFT/RIGHT who cares
No rights
 

its free real estate

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
4,816
Likes
5,767
AFL Club
Fremantle
#11
Too many people now believe it is their right not to be offended and as such they go seeking out any possible comment or written word that they can feel offended by.
Not simply about offence, it's about carving out a space where you can be considered a member of a protected class, and therefore be afforded privileges in accordance with your perceived oppression.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

go you pups

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Posts
40,197
Likes
35,822
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur, SSC Napoli, ESH
Moderator #12
I've always believed you should say what you want to, but you're absolutely accountable for what you say also.

If it's within just cause or people choose their words wisely and be considerate then their shouldn't be an issue imo.

Though that Voltaire quote is unfortunately pretty spot on and enforced upon heavily in some parts of the world.
 

its free real estate

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
4,816
Likes
5,767
AFL Club
Fremantle
#13
Its made easier when you have 20k plus employees at the BBC and a quasi monopoly position re tv and radio.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45408492

A Labour MP is trying to change the law so that misogynistic behaviour is treated as a hate crime.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2018/10/15/doctor-feature-rosa-parks-episode-civil-rights-movement/

The Doctor (Jodie Whittaker) and her trio of companions will travel back in time to 1955 Alabama, where they’ll meet civil rights icon Rosa Parks.
I think this is the best bit

Both misogyny (prejudice against women) and misandry (prejudice against men) will be considered by the review, as will attitudes towards alternative lifestyles such as goth subculture, and age.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...f-uk-hate-law-to-consider-misogyny-and-ageism

Anti-goth hate crime.
 

ralphmalph

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 24, 2004
Posts
1,813
Likes
463
Location
milwaukee
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Carlton
#14

Chief

110% sass!
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Posts
71,362
Likes
41,669
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
Admin #15
The big problem is that someone will always find a new word to label the other.

What else can we include as a restriction of freedom of speech?

Controls on public demonstrations?

Laws against boycotts? (e.g. Trump and Israel - https://theintercept.com/2018/06/28/israel-boycott-law-bds/; Australian laws on secondary boycotts https://www.smh.com.au/business/wor...o-secondary-boycott-laws-20180518-p4zg4s.html)

Laws against distributing pornography? Child pornography?

The eternal question is "Where is the line?"
 

CheapCharlie

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Posts
4,225
Likes
4,476
AFL Club
Sydney
#17
The big problem is that someone will always find a new word to label the other.

What else can we include as a restriction of freedom of speech?

Controls on public demonstrations?

Laws against boycotts? (e.g. Trump and Israel - https://theintercept.com/2018/06/28/israel-boycott-law-bds/; Australian laws on secondary boycotts https://www.smh.com.au/business/wor...o-secondary-boycott-laws-20180518-p4zg4s.html)

Laws against distributing pornography? Child pornography?

The eternal question is "Where is the line?"
Where are the lines for you?
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2017
Posts
3,530
Likes
2,814
AFL Club
GWS
#18
Well, if there is no recourse to just tell the truth (unless the statement etc is presented as fiction), and have the allowance of people stating whatever they want, whenever they feel like, there should at least be some responsibility for the people in power (especially) to not do so. Apparently this should already happen in a civil and advanced society, unfortunately we are not there yet...

Turn Voltaire upside down...

In a society where people want freedom of speech, people should only have "freedom of speech" when this is directed towards those above them and equal to them (e.g. income, influence, position). Therefore, only "the people" have the right of free speech.

Donald Trump retweets - "81% of White murder victims were killed by Black people"
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...mp/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/
Donald Trump's position means he should have some kind of responsibility to tell the truth, fact check etc
Donald Trump should not be able to make this statement
 

CheapCharlie

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Posts
4,225
Likes
4,476
AFL Club
Sydney
#20
Well, if there is no recourse to just tell the truth (unless the statement etc is presented as fiction), and have the allowance of people stating whatever they want, whenever they feel like, there should at least be some responsibility for the people in power (especially) to not do so. Apparently this should already happen in a civil and advanced society, unfortunately we are not there yet...

Turn Voltaire upside down...

In a society where people want freedom of speech, people should only have "freedom of speech" when this is directed towards those above them and equal to them (e.g. income, influence, position). Therefore, only "the people" have the right of free speech.

Donald Trump retweets - "81% of White murder victims were killed by Black people"
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...mp/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/
Donald Trump's position means he should have some kind of responsibility to tell the truth, fact check etc
Donald Trump should not be able to make this statement
When you have the 'leader fo the free world' just making up continual shit every day , day after day, there is going to be a massive trickle down effect.
But look at his popularity... Seems like so many people just want to hear what makes them happy
 

Chief

110% sass!
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Posts
71,362
Likes
41,669
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
Admin #21
Where are the lines for you?
I don't have a hard and fast rule.

Is hate speech basically encouraging hate crime? It's probably impossible to quantify a given person's influence, but there are obvious ones like Alan Jones knowingly fanning the flames of racial tension in Sydney with no consequences at all.

As Rupie says above, is Jones more restricted given the amount of influence he seems to hold? We can't go back and run the Sydney riots again without Jones' input to see what happens. But you can bet if it was a Muslim saying those things on the radio they'd be pilloried by the same people who love Alan Jones.

It's a big question and the line is really something that needs to be explored from the point of view of different philosophies and principles.

What comes first? What should be protected? Where is the balance between your right to walk the streets and another's right to stand on the corner shouting about "white campaigners" as you go past?
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2017
Posts
3,530
Likes
2,814
AFL Club
GWS
#22
When you have the 'leader fo the free world' just making up continual shit every day , day after day, there is going to be a massive trickle down effect.
But look at his popularity... Seems like so many people just want to hear what makes them happy
Problem is, usually parliamentarians, government departments, media etc make a big song and dance how they should not mislead the people, and how much they have a responsibility to the people.
 

its free real estate

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
4,816
Likes
5,767
AFL Club
Fremantle
#23
Well, if there is no recourse to just tell the truth (unless the statement etc is presented as fiction), and have the allowance of people stating whatever they want, whenever they feel like, there should at least be some responsibility for the people in power (especially) to not do so. Apparently this should already happen in a civil and advanced society, unfortunately we are not there yet...

Turn Voltaire upside down...

In a society where people want freedom of speech, people should only have "freedom of speech" when this is directed towards those above them and equal to them (e.g. income, influence, position). Therefore, only "the people" have the right of free speech.

Donald Trump retweets - "81% of White murder victims were killed by Black people"
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...mp/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/
Donald Trump's position means he should have some kind of responsibility to tell the truth, fact check etc
Donald Trump should not be able to make this statement
Nonsense.
 

quotemokc

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Posts
11,622
Likes
12,625
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Atlanta Falcons/Winnipeg Jets
#24
I've always believed you should say what you want to, but you're absolutely accountable for what you say also.

If it's within just cause or people choose their words wisely and be considerate then their shouldn't be an issue imo.

Though that Voltaire quote is unfortunately pretty spot on and enforced upon heavily in some parts of the world.
The point of freedom of speech is so that you cannot be persecuted by the government. (or public institutions)

If people don't like what you say then fair play they get to call you out on it.
 

pugsville

Club Legend
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Posts
1,900
Likes
1,091
Location
leningrad
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
collingwood
#25
Popular academic figure Dr Jordan Peterson initially rose to public fame in response to his refusal to follow what he believed to be compelled speech laws that were proposed (and later make law) in Canada regarding the appropriate use of personal pronouns. This is an ongoing debate which has polarised many people.
Jordan Petersen has consistently grossly misrepresentation the Canadian laws and the misrepresentation has been taken as gospel by a whole bunch of people who are easily lead into believing stuff that fits with the world view. Petersen has refused to actually debate this issue fairly and take notice of corrections like the Canadian bar association. (see attchment) one must conclude that Petersen has no intent to debate teh issue in good faith.

https://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=be34d5a4-8850-40a0-beea-432eeb762d7f
 
Top Bottom