Section 18C and D - Freedom of speech is doing as well as can be expected.

[medusala]

You don't really...understand the law, do you Meds?

It was an example, do I have to draw cartoons for you to get it? Silly question, i would be dragging myself to your level by using crayons

It takes a particularly ignorant and intellectually lacking person to think that a failed alp candidate of a minority religion is somehow able to objectively determine what is the view of a reasonable person of another ethnic group.

 

[medusala]

No, freedom of speech is at the core of both issues. Or does freedom of speech depend entirely on who wants it?

No. One has to do with contractual undertakings.

How do you think an AFL player would go saying something controversial about whatever the try hard pc topic of the day is?

Sacked. Why? Freedom of speech? No, disrepute or similar.

I expect Pavlovian moon howlers like Maljazeera not to get it but I thought you may have.

 

[Malifice]

It was an example, do I have to draw cartoons for you to get it? Silly question, i would be dragging myself to your level by using crayons

It takes a particularly ignorant and intellectually lacking person to think that a failed alp candidate of a minority religion is somehow able to objectively determine what is the view of a reasonable person of another ethnic group.

Yet judges do it all the time.

Man on the Clapham omnibus and all that.

 

[medusala]

Yet judges do it all the time.

Man on the Clapham omnibus and all that.

Subjective. Your bloke on the clapham omnibus is a 19 year old student doing a bachelor of origami reading the Guardian.

That's why this legislation is such a turd.

 

[Malifice]

Subjective. Your bloke on the clapham omnibus is a 19 year old student doing a bachelor of origami reading the Guardian.

That's why this legislation is such a turd.

Of course. Because all judges are left wing.

Michael Scalia wishes to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[medusala]

Of course. Because all judges are left wing.

FFS. If all judges were left wing and thought the same way then the issue of subjectivity would be far less

Misology 101

Go and play with the peanuts in Bay 13.

 

[Malifice]

FFS. If all judges were left wing and thought the same way then the issue of subjectivity would be far less

Misology 101

Go and play with the peanuts in Bay 13.

Your debating skills have really dropped off in recent times havent they?

I thought you'd be happy with Scotland leaving England, England leaving Europe, nationalistic governments rising up everywhere, Neo-Nazis and the alt-right suddenly being the mainstream, Gert Wilders in the Netherlands, and Donald Trump in the US. Now you get your wish with section 18C being reformed.

Its the world you asked for isn't it? The right wing nutters are ascendant. Global war is just around the corner. Just like last time this happened. And the time before. And before that. And so on.

We haven't started rounding the brown people up and sent them to the camps yet. I guess you haven't got everything you wanted.

 

[Lethality]

I'm heartened by at least an attempt to address free speech issues in Australia. I doubt this change will get through, but at least there is some challenge being made to this idea that mere 'offence' can determine hate speech. Many ideas are offensive but nonetheless valid, and it's better for a public discourse to determine which ideas work and which are simply nonsense, rather than for that decision to fall to a judge.

Also, I have been racially villified a few times in my life, and all of them would fall under the proposed new wording, so I don't feel there will be any threat to the protection that I have always enjoyed.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Wait til Australia reaches peak stupidity on this as per the UK. Absolutely disgraceful and still noone speaks out.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/northeast/victims_and_witnesses/hate_crime/

A Hate Incident is any incident which the victim, or anyone else, thinks is based on someones prejudice towards them because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or because they are transgender.

This is kind of my point. The current way 18c is interpreted now also stops that type of UK interpretation - action needs to have a level of insult more than a slight, and im unsure if you can make a complaint under 18c if you arent the injured party (the anyone else part of the UK rule). A rewrite may have courts interpreting new rules more strictly (less free speech).

Im also unsure what people want to be saying that they currently cannot. Bolt is just scared that his way of generating ratings and therefore income and relevance is threatened.

 

[Maggie5]

#Freespeechmaters

#rules

 

[Lebbo73]

Bolt is just an one eyed Liberal puppet. I can not take him seriously at all, especially when this is the same twit who thinks Abbott should come back as PM.

Hard to take his ultra right wing views as common sense.

Funny how the Liberals are crowing about free speech when f**kheads like Spud Dutton want to gag the business community on SSM. Hypocrites.

Not agreeing with the business communities views on gay marriage doesn't mean they want to gag them. There is a difference.

 

[Maggie5]

Im also unsure what people want to be saying that they currently cannot. Bolt is just scared that his way of generating ratings and therefore income and relevance is threatened.

This has been my point for some time.
If you exclude the QUT and Bolt situations, who would have really thought about changing? (Not including Leak as he pushed the boundary for attention).

I think 'harass' is a strange substitution.
How much harassment is necessary that you need to take it to the HRC?
My understanding of the word is over a period of time time (once, twice three times or more) what does it mean? Why does anybody need to accept it at all?

Could the female that that formed the reason for #I'llridewithyou or the family that was harassed in Harmony Park in Vic. have taken it further? Neither did. Both in my opinion were harassed.

Leave it as it is.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Not agreeing with the business communities views on gay marriage doesn't mean they want to gag them. There is a difference.

Telling business leaders to not get involved or to speak up (for or against) is a gag isn't it?
And in the current climate of politics it can be possible that there is a business advantage in taking these positions re gay marriage- and even better that they are against an unpopular government.

 

[Lethality]

Telling business leaders to not get involved or to speak up (for or against) is a gag isn't it?
And in the current climate of politics it can be possible that there is a business advantage in taking these positions re gay marriage- and even better that they are against an unpopular government.

Dutton told them to shut up, and they said no.

 

[Farm Boy]

Dutton trying to gag businesses is a joke. We are a country of language regulators - forever trying to tell others what to say. 18C is at the core of this bullsh*t. We should be able to say whatever we like. Those that do have distasteful opinions will no doubt be shouted at, and shamed anyway. I think the language police make society worse than it would be otherwise.

 

[JackOutback]

No. One has to do with contractual undertakings.

How do you think an AFL player would go saying something controversial about whatever the try hard pc topic of the day is?

Sacked. Why? Freedom of speech? No, disrepute or similar.

I expect Pavlovian moon howlers like Maljazeera not to get it but I thought you may have.

Journalists reporting on matters of terrorism has nothing to do with contractual law. If this issue was part of a broader discussion about freedom of speech in this country, people might be more willing to accept the current discussion. But it's not, it's simply about some people wanting to be able to say bigoted things free of consequences.

 

[Maggie5]

Dutton trying to gag businesses is a joke. We are a country of language regulators - forever trying to tell others what to say. 18C is at the core of this bullsh*t. We should be able to say whatever we like. Those that do have distasteful opinions will no doubt be shouted at, and shamed anyway. I think the language police make society worse than it would be otherwise.

 

[CM86]

We should be able to say whatever we like.

What do you want to say, that you can't?
What do you want others to say, that they can't?

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

BS alert:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...d/news-story/bb1524dcde091ce7200f48a5adbcfb5b

Still playing the victim. Facts Andrew Facts.

 

[Moo]

Surely there must be something that you or others think that you would like to speak but feel that 18c prevents and that 18D wouldn't give you sufficient protection.

Although when I asked the question, it wasn't you I had in mind.

There is nothing I would say.

On what others may say, I am just concerned with the general nature of the word 'offend' and how this could be a bit of a low bar to launch action. Even if it is not ultimately successful, I fear it could be used as a threat to people who may wish to express views that others (and most likely me - find distasteful) - however stopping them saying it wont stop them thinking it or sharing it.

Incite, threaten & discriminate are all clearer in my mind, however I would support someone saying something that they believe is true that may well hurt the feelings of someone in that subject group - without making it an offense to do so.

I've always believed free speech is not free, we have to pay the price of listening to a lot of BS from those I disagree with (and more) - however in my mind you have to be free to state your opinion without fear, and we're better off if the rest of us stomp those arguments. Bill Leak's cartoons were offensive to me, however I wouldn't ban them - I just didn't (and don't) buy the Australian anymore.

I'm a little over the whole thing as I stated - I wouldn't prioritise this over a raft of other things. The sad thing to me is if you're an advocate of change in this space - you're labelled a hate mongering, racist. I've been blocked on Twitter for simply saying I see some value in the changes and it is assumed I'm cross burning every Tuesday (it's actually every 2nd Wednesday).

 

[Moo]

The Govt is gagging the Opposition's attempt to debate 18C in the House of Reps ......am I the only one that thinks the Libs are just accepting they can't win and are now just masterful comedians? ....OK it's just me .....<leaves>

 

[RW]

The 18C question is a tough one, because personally I feel leaving it up to the courts to decide what speech is permissible is an imperfect solution in many ways, I'm not a fan of making speech illegal in general. Having said that it does feel like Turnbull is doing this now more to appease the Right, rather to come up with a better solution. If the meaning of "offend, insult, humiliate, intimidate" is reasonably settled, then that would be an argument against changing it, because in practice law changes just mean more work for lawyers whose job it is to interpret them... in an ideal world 18C would not be needed at all as people should not need a law to tell them to treat each other with respect... but things aren't always that simple...

 

[JackOutback]

The Govt is gagging the Opposition's attempt to debate 18C in the House of Reps ......am I the only one that thinks the Libs are just accepting they can't win and are now just masterful comedians? ....OK it's just me .....<leaves>

They are world class trolls.

To the point, speech has never been free. You can't yell fire in a crowded room. It's always been a matter of balancing competing interests. Personally, I think with 18D and case law showing very few abuses of the law, we have the balance about right.

 

[Maggie5]

There is nothing I would say.

On what others may say, I am just concerned with the general nature of the word 'offend' and how this could be a bit of a low bar to launch action. Even if it is not ultimately successful, I fear it could be used as a threat to people who may wish to express views that others (and most likely me - find distasteful) - however stopping them saying it wont stop them thinking it or sharing it.

Incite, threaten & discriminate are all clearer in my mind, however I would support someone saying something that they believe is true that may well hurt the feelings of someone in that subject group - without making it an offense to do so.

I've always believed free speech is not free, we have to pay the price of listening to a lot of BS from those I disagree with (and more) - however in my mind you have to be free to state your opinion without fear, and we're better off if the rest of us stomp those arguments. Bill Leak's cartoons were offensive to me, however I wouldn't ban them - I just didn't (and don't) buy the Australian anymore.

I'm a little over the whole thing as I stated - I wouldn't prioritise this over a raft of other things. The sad thing to me is if you're an advocate of change in this space - you're labelled a hate mongering, racist. I've been blocked on Twitter for simply saying I see some value in the changes and it is assumed I'm cross burning every Tuesday (it's actually every 2nd Wednesday).

Thanks for your reply.

For me it is much simpler, if one can't make their point about a particular race/religion, think it says more about their word skills.

 

[medusala]

Journalists reporting on matters of terrorism has nothing to do with contractual law.

Most countries have specific laws dealing with that. eg section D notices in the UK. Just as free speech is tempered by libel laws.

Personally, I think with 18D and case law showing very few abuses of the law, we have the balance about right.

Right so its both ridiculous AND unnecessary.

, it's simply about some people wanting to be able to say bigoted things free of consequences. .

Pathetic, utterly pathetic.

You want to ban Hitchens, Dawkins etc do you? Happy with blasphemy laws? Happy with the rights of people to riot over Rushdie, cartoons etc?

Have no issue with mass rapes in Rotherham due to public servants being terrified of being labelled as bigots?

Maybe actually give some serious thought to the topic and get back to us.

If you exclude the QUT and Bolt situations, who would have really thought about changing?

Plenty of people have long despised this nonsense.

Murdoch long been a beacon of free speech against the Orwellian lapdogs of the ABC with their snouts stuck in the taxpayers trough.