Politics So I guess when the sh*t hits the fan, everyone's a socialist

(Log in to remove this ad.)

HaroLad

HaroChad
Dec 11, 2013
18,910
25,260
Baghdad
AFL Club
Geelong
It could be his opinion there is a fire? Why not? Are you censoring his opinion now?
While it could be his opinion, I think that it could be measured by the objective reasonable person standard ie. would a reasonable person in his position make such a statement as an opinion?
So you want qualified free speech, like we already have
I want absolute freedom of expression/opinion, which we don't have.
 

iBeng

Intentionally left blank
Apr 3, 2012
54,140
59,112
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
I want absolute freedom of expression/opinion, which we don't have.
So rather than compromise, you want the extreme the OTHER way of the scale. So anyone can have absolute freedom to express their opinion on anything without discourse.

I could make the claim you masturbate horses into jars and then sell them as mayonnaise, and thats my right as freedom of speech.
 

HaroLad

HaroChad
Dec 11, 2013
18,910
25,260
Baghdad
AFL Club
Geelong
So rather than compromise, you want the extreme the OTHER way of the scale. So anyone can have absolute freedom to express their opinion on anything without discourse.

I could make the claim you masturbate horses into jars and then sell them as mayonnaise, and thats my right as freedom of speech.
It would seem you have found an oversight in my thinking.

Perhaps by retaining the existing tort law or adding an ‘honestly held opinion or belief’ as a criterion would help, but if you thought long enough you could probably find a loophole or difficulty in that too.

My original intent, as I’m sure you know, was that opinions, views, expression of that nature shouldn’t be restrained, as evinced by the context in which I made the comment. Not sure why anyone would have any issues with that.
 

iBeng

Intentionally left blank
Apr 3, 2012
54,140
59,112
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
It would seem you have found an oversight in my thinking.

Perhaps by retaining the existing tort law or adding an ‘honestly held opinion or belief’ as a criterion would help, but if you thought long enough you could probably find a loophole or difficulty in that too.

My original intent, as I’m sure you know, was that opinions, views, expression of that nature shouldn’t be restrained, as evinced by the context in which I made the comment. Not sure why anyone would have any issues with that.
Even when these opinions, views and expressions put at risk people in the community? Such as, organising a protest against measures to prevent the uncontrolled spread of a virus that has the potential to cripple entire medical networks and cause actual, real life death?

One would surely argue that you can have free speech UNLESS that results in actual, real world definable deaths.

Unless you want conspiracy to supersede that particular scenario.
 

Ned_Flanders

Premium Platinum
Aug 22, 2009
57,676
107,791
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76'ers
While it could be his opinion, I think that it could be measured by the objective reasonable person standard ie. would a reasonable person in his position make such a statement as an opinion?

I want absolute freedom of expression/opinion, which we don't have.
No you don't. You want it on your terms. That's worse than censorship, because you're pretending it's free speech when it's not
 

HaroLad

HaroChad
Dec 11, 2013
18,910
25,260
Baghdad
AFL Club
Geelong
Even when these opinions, views and expressions put at risk people in the community? Such as, organising a protest against measures to prevent the uncontrolled spread of a virus that has the potential to cripple entire medical networks and cause actual, real life death?

One would surely argue that you can have free speech UNLESS that results in actual, real world definable deaths.

Unless you want conspiracy to supersede that particular scenario.
Absolutely my friend, absolutely.

One would surely argue that you can have free speech UNLESS that results in actual, real world definable deaths.
That is such a vague, abstract, subjective criterion that it defeats the very purpose of such a right.

Because when the time comes when we really need it, (and it may be sooner than you think), there can be no doubt, there can be no ambiguity, little subjectivity, no exception. It must protect us.

And yes, there may be a price to pay. But so what?
No you don't. You want it on your terms. That's worse than censorship, because you're pretending it's free speech when it's not
It's not free speech, because such a thing, taken literally, isn't feasible.

But you know exactly what I'm advocating for. I wish we had this in our constitution:
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 

iBeng

Intentionally left blank
Apr 3, 2012
54,140
59,112
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Then HOW can you defend a free speech that would ACTIVELY threaten the safety of those in society that are unable to ascertain the truth from opinion?

That would be like saying the people who advocated using BLEACH to treat Covid was just them expressing their free speech, and if anyone listened and did what they said it wasnt their fault!
 

HaroLad

HaroChad
Dec 11, 2013
18,910
25,260
Baghdad
AFL Club
Geelong
Then HOW can you defend a free speech that would ACTIVELY threaten the safety of those in society that are unable to ascertain the truth from opinion?

That would be like saying the people who advocated using BLEACH to treat Covid was just them expressing their free speech, and if anyone listened and did what they said it wasnt their fault!
I said previously retaining the tort law would help this situations like that.

You get what I'm trying to say though, don't you.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

iBeng

Intentionally left blank
Apr 3, 2012
54,140
59,112
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
I said previously retaining the tort law would help this situations like that.

You get what I'm trying to say though, don't you.
Im doing my best to wrap my head around it, honestly. Are you against what happened to that women who was trying to organise a protest in Melbourne?
 

iBeng

Intentionally left blank
Apr 3, 2012
54,140
59,112
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Yes, I don't understand how you couldn't be.

All I'm advocating for is very similar to what they have in the US.
She was organizing an event that would increase the change of death in her fellow people...You are defending her right to help hasten the spread of a virus that has proven to kill and cause long term effects in people. Not everyone you'll say, and its a low rate, but its STILL A VALID THREAT.

Its not like she could play dumb and say she didnt realise she couldnt organise such an event. The Victorian Government are doing everything they can to contain this outbreak. What do you think the public consensus would be if they just threw their hands up and went stuff it, let everyone govern themselves on this one?

Its literally a damned if they do, damned if they dont situation. And you're here arguing that some random, unqualified individual should have the RIGHT to undermind efforts to protect peoples welfare.

You CANNOT have free speech that NEGATIVELY IMPACTS OTHERS WELFARE.
 

HaroLad

HaroChad
Dec 11, 2013
18,910
25,260
Baghdad
AFL Club
Geelong
She was organizing an event that would increase the change of death in her fellow people...You are defending her right to help hasten the spread of a virus that has proven to kill and cause long term effects in people. Not everyone you'll say, and its a low rate, but its STILL A VALID THREAT.
No matter the situation, no matter what - someone should be able to protest and organise a protest against their government.

If you make exceptions to that principle, such as 'if it could result in deaths' and as you acknowledged, it's a low rate - so where do you draw the line? It's a slippery slope, and not one which would work in our favour.
The Victorian Government are doing everything they can to contain this outbreak. What do you think the public consensus would be if they just threw their hands up and went stuff it, let everyone govern themselves on this one?
That's a seperate issue.
You CANNOT have free speech that NEGATIVELY IMPACTS OTHERS WELFARE.
Yes you can.
 

iBeng

Intentionally left blank
Apr 3, 2012
54,140
59,112
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
I get the strong sensation that you've watched V for Vendetta recently Haro...i watched it last week and its eerily similar, but to suggest we are on the way to that existence simply because the government is trying to crack down on events that could cause further spread is stretching a veeeeery long bow...
 

HaroLad

HaroChad
Dec 11, 2013
18,910
25,260
Baghdad
AFL Club
Geelong
I get the strong sensation that you've watched V for Vendetta recently Haro...i watched it last week and its eerily similar, but to suggest we are on the way to that existence simply because the government is trying to crack down on events that could cause further spread is stretching a veeeeery long bow...
I'm afraid I have not, I'm just familiar with history and know how things can get out of hand.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
13,002
25,056
AFL Club
Carlton
I get the strong sensation that you've watched V for Vendetta recently Haro...i watched it last week and its eerily similar, but to suggest we are on the way to that existence simply because the government is trying to crack down on events that could cause further spread is stretching a veeeeery long bow...
Read the book. It's waaaay better.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
13,002
25,056
AFL Club
Carlton
Yeah, I read some bits about it after and the author wasnt happy that they americanised the message so much, changed it from the original purpose of what V stood for.
V in the book is an actual anarchist; he doesn't long for the times before, for democracy and for a return to the way things were. V is asexual, amorphous; most of the time, when someone tries to attack him, he's not really there and it's a cloakrack wearing a Guy Fawkes mask. There are more characters, there's more corruption, there's worse consequences that are worse for everyone, those in power and those without.

They changed a bit to fit in a few things; Stephen Fry's character is just a nice guy who takes in Evie, and they have sex before he's captured, but that didn't fit in with the more progressive message the film is going for. It's a book about how sometimes the system is too corrupt and too powerful, and things can only get worse before they get better.
 

Patrick Bullet

Club Legend
Jun 18, 2003
1,536
1,179
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
She was organizing an event that would increase the change of death in her fellow people...You are defending her right to help hasten the spread of a virus that has proven to kill and cause long term effects in people. Not everyone you'll say, and its a low rate, but its STILL A VALID THREAT.

Its not like she could play dumb and say she didnt realise she couldnt organise such an event. The Victorian Government are doing everything they can to contain this outbreak. What do you think the public consensus would be if they just threw their hands up and went stuff it, let everyone govern themselves on this one?

Its literally a damned if they do, damned if they dont situation. And you're here arguing that some random, unqualified individual should have the RIGHT to undermind efforts to protect peoples welfare.

You CANNOT have free speech that NEGATIVELY IMPACTS OTHERS WELFARE.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the BLM protests in Melbourne and Sydney when COVID was still in its 'ambiguity' phase?
And the BLM protests in the US?
(My apologies in advance if you've posted about these issues elsewhere - happy for you to reply with just a link to an older post.)
 

Top Bottom