The Law Freedom of Speech

ShanDog

Super Moderator
Aug 12, 2012
19,209
36,628
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
Freedom of speech seems to be an excuse for the right wingers to claim being muzzled because they spit bigoted bile.
Sure, if you want to take a partisan, unthinking, low-resolution and ideologically-motivated position on free speech in order to avoid thinking about anything in a nuanced fashion because it might challenge your presuppositions, I can see how you'd conclude that.
 

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
22,519
18,379
AFL Club
Melbourne
Sure, if you want to take a partisan, unthinking, low-resolution and ideologically-motivated position on free speech in order to avoid thinking about anything in a nuanced fashion because it might challenge your presuppositions, I can see how you'd conclude that.
I do for the moment because I am operating off 4 hours sleep post working late, but I’d also state it’s abused by extreme leftist types as well.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gethelred

Norm Smith Medallist
May 1, 2016
9,802
19,083
AFL Club
Carlton
I'm amused by the notion that ZUBY(?) feels that his opinion is not indoctrinated.

I mean, I agree with every one of his list except potentially the last one. Am I indoctrinated well? If I am, does that mean he is, except in that single area? So much grey area here?

Could be that I'm asking for too much from a twitter post...
 

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
22,519
18,379
AFL Club
Melbourne
This is debatable and I'm sure as time passed we'll see how those laws are interpreted when an incident occurs.

However, this is a thread about free speech not Peterson's specific example so I won't go further with that. There's a thread on him it's more appropriate for.
Freedom of speech is a great thing. It allows us all to be able to freely express opinion without being shunned or persecuted by the government, free speech has seen some seriously positive movements created, subject matters aired and shaken of stigma.

Personally, my view of free speech is completely fine if you’re not using it as an excuse to be a bigot. Racism, sexism, or any form of discriminatory narrative is a no go. My issue is that it has been used as an excuse in the past by right and left extremists. Right wing types often say they’re having free speech contravened because they can’t preach hate speech, cue far right activists beheading a dummy at a mosque.

Left wing extremists feel that they are being shunned because they’re being told to pack up and go away when they storm into the properties of farmers protesting the farming of animals for slaughter. Just an example of a left leaning clown I heard speak after he was arrested recently in that incident.

The reason there are laws against bigotry and hate speech, and actions that are extreme, is that they can incite hate, violence and abuse to the targeted parties. Let’s face it, a Muslim citizen finding his or her way in a free country doesn’t need to be a called a terrorist, and farmers busting their hides don’t need anti animal activists storming into their properties upsetting their opportunity to make a living.

Either way, keep it in check, know your boundaries, use it when appropriate.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
20,743
21,783
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I think so, but you’d have to be a complete moron to deny it.
Refuting the numbers is even a crime. Despite the fact that the numbers have changed over the years as better research has taken place.

BTW your posts above... if you didnt want to be partisan why only mention right wingers? Leftists these days are all about stifling debate and wanting to lock up those with differing views.

But then, when the argumemt is weak maybe you need to go to insults and shutdowns.
 

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
22,519
18,379
AFL Club
Melbourne
Refuting the numbers is even a crime. Despite the fact that the numbers have changed over the years as better research has taken place.

BTW your posts above... if you didnt want to be partisan why only mention right wingers? Leftists these days are all about stifling debate and wanting to lock up those with differing views.

But then, when the argumemt is weak maybe you need to go to insults and shutdowns.
I didn’t exclude the left. Scroll through the thread to find the part where I posted the extreme left is just as bad. I am not offering insults and shutdowns, I am saying that both forms of extremity are bad.

Irrespective of the numbers, it happened and it was a blight on humanity.
 

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
22,519
18,379
AFL Club
Melbourne
Refuting the numbers is even a crime. Despite the fact that the numbers have changed over the years as better research has taken place.

BTW your posts above... if you didnt want to be partisan why only mention right wingers? Leftists these days are all about stifling debate and wanting to lock up those with differing views.

But then, when the argumemt is weak maybe you need to go to insults and shutdowns.
In fact it’s the post above where you quoted me
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
20,743
21,783
AFL Club
Hawthorn
In fact it’s the post above where you quoted me
Right, but that post only appeared after you were called out.

Both sides want to stifle debate. Both sides make weak arguments in their defence.

There is simply no point to a freedom of speech unless you allow for people being upset.
 

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
22,519
18,379
AFL Club
Melbourne
Right, but that post only appeared after you were called out.

Both sides want to stifle debate. Both sides make weak arguments in their defence.

There is simply no point to a freedom of speech unless you allow for people being upset.
Righto mate. I started off with the right comment then pretty swiftly backed it up. I don’t i was ‘called out’. But yeah whatever helps you out.
 
Last edited:

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
20,743
21,783
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Has the "refuting the numbers" been tested in court? What do they base "the numbers" on? Or is it just refuting the numbers with no basis other than you're a neo-Nazi douche?
Over the last 60 years or more the numbers have changed a number of times as more information was unearthed.

Somewhere along the way the German govt decided question the number was the same as denying the event.

Which seems extreme when you consider they kept the same music in their national anthem so its very easy to sing the old words.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

demondavey

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 18, 2005
22,519
18,379
AFL Club
Melbourne
Over the last 60 years or more the numbers have changed a number of times as more information was unearthed.

Somewhere along the way the German govt decided question the number was the same as denying the event.

Which seems extreme when you consider they kept the same music in their national anthem so its very easy to sing the old words.
I don’t know where you’re going with this?

Do you believe it happened or not? Straight to the point.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
20,743
21,783
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I don’t know where you’re going with this?

Do you believe it happened or not? Straight to the point.
Of course it happened. But do you think someone should go to gaol because their research shows 5.5m not 6m dying ?

There was a time when the number was 5m.
 

HairyO

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 13, 2015
20,743
21,783
AFL Club
Hawthorn
But would they go to jail for that if they have data to back up their claim?
The 6 million is based on best guesses. As much as the Nazis loved notes, sometimes they slaughtered tens of thousands in giant ditches.

But I think the bigger point is being missed. Saying things that may upset being illegal is insane.
 

Chief

Chugging Adrenochrome
Dec 1, 1999
83,506
56,017
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
The 6 million is based on best guesses. As much as the Nazis loved notes, sometimes they slaughtered tens of thousands in giant ditches.

But I think the bigger point is being missed. Saying things that may upset being illegal is insane.
As more time passes between then and now it might ease off.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2004
36,384
7,504
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Has the "refuting the numbers" been tested in court? What do they base "the numbers" on? Or is it just refuting the numbers with no basis other than you're a neo-Nazi douche?
Read a book on the topic by Martin Gilbert. The numbers are disputed as whilst the Nazis were immaculate number recorders in the west re deportations, they werent in the East. That though is a far cry from "refuting the numbers". IIRC there have been cases in Germany and France re this with people jailed.

The 6 million is based on best guesses. As much as the Nazis loved notes, sometimes they slaughtered tens of thousands in giant ditches.
That number is mentioned so often its almost accepted. It relates to Jewish victims not the total number which was vastly higher and included millions of Russians and Poles (not all of whom were Jewish)
 

ShanDog

Super Moderator
Aug 12, 2012
19,209
36,628
sv_cheats 1
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Edmonton Oilers
Update on the lawsuit that was filed against The Washington Post due to their characterisation and reporting on the Covington Catholic student Nicholas Sandmann:


The suit accused The Post's coverage of being libelous, and called for the newspaper to pay $250 million in damages for "a series of false and defamatory print and online articles" about Sandmann. However, the judge said articles on Sandmann must be "more than annoying, offensive or embarrassing" to be considered defamation.

"Few principles of law are as well-established as the rule that statements of opinion are not actionable in libel actions," Bertelsman wrote in court documents. Bertelsman ruled that The Post had the right to report on the story from Philips' perspective, and many of the statements Sandmann claimed were defamatory focused not on him, but on the group of students as a whole.

"And while unfortunate, it is further irrelevant that Sandmann was scorned on social media," Bertelsman wrote.
Ultimately, if the articles and tweets were opinion, then that law interpretation is correct. But that just brings up more questions about the appropriateness of the laws and accountability in the media. Social media has created a whole new world where it's fair to ask whether the old laws and principles are still appropriate. Are the effects of invasive and instantly world-wide social media blow-ups comparable to the social landscape of when libel laws were formed? The obvious answer is no. But what then? Should they be changed and how?
 

Top Bottom