Free Speech, is it a good thing?

[Ruprecht]

I don't agree with Brandis' specific proposals.
That said, I think it's about time we got a legislative or constitutional bill of rights.
I used to think the common law system had us covered, but the challenges to freedom of speech and the rights of association under proposed "special police powers", anti-bikie legislation and the Victorian anti-protesting laws have made me reconsider.
Civil liberties have taken a beating, and we need to kick back.
The increasing power of independent and minority powers, at state and federal levels, shows the level of dissatisfaction and hopefully provides a solution.

 

[panamaican]

Interesting to read about a free speech debate when it's not already law.

As an American, of course the ad should be protected and of course the subway should have the right to refuse running it.

The whole thing about unlawful to offend, etc. - you always be legally allowed to say whatever you want. Of course, we have limitations where you know that your speech will have certain outcomes but short of that go for it. Racist or other hateful speech shouldn't be illegal just because it's offensive.

 

[OldGoat]

No you shouldn't have freedom to speak if the government doesnt allow it. When technology advances sufficiently that should extend to thinking as well.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Freedom of speech is a scourge upon society. North Korea, and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia, have set the standard by which one can attain the pinnacle of societal order and conformity.

Jefferson and Madison can't really compare to the unmatched genius and vision of Kim Il-sung.

 

[IDL]

No you shouldn't have freedom to speak if the government doesnt allow it. When technology advances sufficiently that should extend to thinking as well.

Until that time, we can still put listening devices into peoples homes to make sure they are speaking like good citizens.

 

[djacobox372]

Who decides what's "insulting" or "offensive?"

 

[Melilot]

Who decides what's "insulting" or "offensive?"

professional insulters / offenders.

 

[panamaican]

professional insulters / offenders.

Does that pay well?

 

[OldGoat]

Until that time, we can still put listening devices into peoples homes to make sure they are speaking like good citizens.

If you have nothing to hide..

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Free speech has its drawbacks. I don't see how one person can tell another person they can't express their thoughts or opinions. Too bad if someone doesn't like it. I don't like speech being limited so we should make it illegal to suggest limited speech?

 

[LatFlare]

Who decides what's "insulting" or "offensive?"

According to the legislation:

to be determined by the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community not by the standards of any particular group within the Australian community

 

[OldGoat]

According to the legislation:

The whole premise is retarded. I'd be ashamed to be Australian.

 

[IDL]

The biggest concern with free speech laws is that it can eventually turn into a monster and be used to crack down on political dissent and generally control people as the government sees fit.

 

[LatFlare]

The whole premise is retarded. I'd be ashamed to be Australian.

I'd be ashamed to have you as an Australian.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

What do you mean consequences?

Are we saying if I don

 

[oldshadow]

consequences aren't about rights or legality, they are about reality. Just because you have the right to free speech that does not mean that there may not be consequences of said speech.

For example if you start mouthing off to someone calling them names, you are entitled to do that under law but when they punch you in the face as a result of your name calling those are the consequences of your free speech.

Do you mean there should be no legal consequences if you attack someone for something they say? So if someone attacks me for something I said can I now retaliate and get the upper hand then beat the person in till I'm satisfied I got my revenge for attacking me?

How about because they put their hands on me I lay two knives on a table and to satisfied the insult we fight to the death.

 

[OldGoat]

I'd be ashamed to have you as an Australian.

Wouldn't want someone who doesn't need the government's permission to speak freely polluting your pristine country.

 

[OldGoat]

consequences aren't about rights or legality, they are about reality. Just because you have the right to free speech that does not mean that there may not be consequences of said speech.

For example if you start mouthing off to someone calling them names, you are entitled to do that under law but when they punch you in the face as a result of your name calling those are the consequences of your free speech.

That's not how free speech works. Might want to check yo law book.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Do you mean there should be no legal consequences if you attack someone for something they say? So if someone attacks me for something I said can I now retaliate and get the upper hand then beat the person in till I'm satisfied I got my revenge for attacking me?

How about because they put their hands on me I lay two knives on a table and to satisfied the insult we fight to the death.

Not at all. I mean consequences are not bound by legality, but rather reality.

Absolutely someone should be charged for assault if they attack someone physically, that is without question regardless of verbal provocation.

But if you provoke an action through speech, there may be consequences whether they are legal or not.

 

[oldshadow]

Not at all. I mean consequences are not bound by legality, but rather reality.

Absolutely someone should be charged for assault if they attack someone physically, that is without question regardless of verbal provocation.

But if you provoke an action through speech, there may be consequences whether they are legal or not.

There is always someone that might attack you over anything they don't like. You hear of guys shooting someone over "mean mugging them".