Free Speech, is it a good thing?

[HIMBOB]

In Australia we are currently having debate about freedom of speech.

Currently we do not have free speech offically, but realistically we do. It is not however protected by the consititution.

I just wanted to hear some thoughts on this,

The changes proposed
"Under Senator Brandis' proposed changes....it would no longer be unlawful to ''offend, insult and humiliate'' someone because of their race, colour or ethnic origin.

But, under new sections of the act, it would be unlawful to incite hatred against or intimidate them.

The problem with this, critics say, is a broad ''get-out'' clause that allows intimidation, incitement of hatred and other forms of vilification, so long as they are done in the course of participating in a public discussion."


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...nous-leader-20140330-35rxc.html#ixzz2xbhSiS4a


One key point is that while the term villification remains they have changed the meaning of the word to only meaning initimidation or enciting hatred.


Another key point I thought most interesting is that the more complicated the legal definition becomes the more the power to be racist is transfered to the richer people (who have the means todefend or attack in court), and these are the people who have traditionally suffered less racism etc.



Also should the below kind of advertising be protected by law?

And further should places like New York subway station (where this add was displayed) be allowed to refuse such adverts.

 

[LatFlare]

Someone made a very good point on Q&A last night and basically said that if its illegal to "insult or offend" the breaches of such a law that will most commonly be prosecuted will be those deemed insulting or offensive to the powerful majority i.e. these laws won't protect minorities.

 

[LatFlare]

Did you watch Q&A last night?

RE: the poster - the lady who vandalised it is wrong and should be punished imo. The law allows it, and it also allows her the freedom to put up an opposing poster. Her argument was that "it costs $6000 to put up an ad in the subway, i don't have $6000, therefore only rich people ave the right to free speech" which is fucking ridiculous.
If she was so passionate about opposing that viewpoint, she had other options: she could look for people who share her views and get donations, she could make a sign and stand there with it. But instead, she violated that groups right to express their political views.

fwiw, it was clearly apparent from her loud red hair, consistently saying "fuck this" or "fuck that" and her demeanor in general that she is an offensive, confrontational person who is not fit to to be discussing fairness of rights. In her mind, her rights and opinions > anybody else's rights and opinions.

 

[HIMBOB]

Did you watch Q&A last night?

RE: the poster - the lady who vandalised it is wrong and should be punished imo.

Yeap, I watched it.

I do agree with you about her actions, I don't see either side as being in the right.

But I do think that point she raised was correct.

Had she attempted to reply to all the adds,(and maybe got blocked and then had to take legal action like they did) she would have had to establish a similar support base to the group she is opposing.
I feel this does demonstrate an ability for the the more well funded group to over whlem a minority through sheer force of numbers.

Another example of how this could go wrong is those with a profit motive being financially better placed to fight a legal and advertising battle against a group who want nothing to be left alone.

For example (that I made up) say a mining company wants a piece of land and its owners want to stay where they are, the mining company has substancially more ability to spend than a group of families who happen to live there.

 

[the can]

this about sums it up for me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDjlx_voUGM

 

[IDL]

Someone made a very good point on Q&A last night and basically said that if its illegal to "insult or offend" the breaches of such a law that will most commonly be prosecuted will be those deemed insulting or offensive to the powerful majority i.e. these laws won't protect minorities.

In Canada it is really only to protect minorities and not the other way around. So, not sure if it would be implemented the same way.

 

[LatFlare]

Yeap, I watched it.

I do agree with you about her actions, I don't see either side as being in the right.

But I do think that point she raised was correct.

Had she attempted to reply to all the adds,(and maybe got blocked and then had to take legal action like they did) she would have had to establish a similar support base to the group she is opposing.
I feel this does demonstrate an ability for the the more well funded group to over whlem a minority through sheer force of numbers.

Another example of how this could go wrong is those with a profit motive being financially better placed to fight a legal and advertising battle against a group who want nothing to be left alone.

For example (that I made up) say a mining company wants a piece of land and its owners want to stay where they are, the mining company has substancially more ability to spend than a group of families who happen to live there.

We are discussing the right to free speech, not the right to be heard, which is a completely different issue. Unfortunately, the world is not fair, there are people with more and less power, and people with louder and softer voices. In the American system, and in our own but not to the same degree, money plays a huge role. e.g. In the US, in theory, the american dream is that everyone has the freedom to pursue their dreams and may even rise to be president, but that isn;t going to happen unless he gets backed by a shitload of people with a shitload of money.

And why would she get blocked or have to fight a legal battle? That would be unlikely if she was to create a sign promoting equal but opposing political ideas.

 

[LatFlare]

In Canada it is really only to protect minorities and not the other way around. So, not sure if it would be implemented the same way.

I don't think can you legislate something to protect "minorities". The law must apply equally to everyone, and the definition of minority can be vague and shifting depending on circumstances.

 

[HIMBOB]

We are discussing the right to free speech, not the right to be heard, which is a completely different issue. Unfortunately, the world is not fair, there are people with more and less power, and people with louder and softer voices. In the American system, and in our own but not to the same degree, money plays a huge role. e.g. In the US, in theory, the american dream is that everyone has the freedom to pursue their dreams and may even rise to be president, but that isn;t going to happen unless he gets backed by a shitload of people with a shitload of money.

And why would she get blocked or have to fight a legal battle? That would be unlikely if she was to create a sign promoting equal but opposing political ideas.

Good point re, free speech Vs right to be heard.

The creators of the poster I showed had to win a legal battle to show the add, if he response was similar but from the opposing view point there is a chance she too would have to win in court to make them display her add.

The New York Metro didn't want the first inflamatory add, doubt they would want a second.

 

[IDL]

I don't think can you legislate something to protect "minorities". The law must apply equally to everyone, and the definition of minority can be vague and shifting depending on circumstances.

It's setup in theory to protect everyone but in reality it's to protect minorities

Human rights tribunal, it's called. I think people would laugh if a case was made to protect an able bodied majority. There are disability discriminations and that sort of thing though.

 

[Scrody]

Yes.

 

[LatFlare]

Good point re, free speech Vs right to be heard.

The creators of the poster I showed had to win a legal battle to show the add, if he response was similar but from the opposing view point there is a chance she too would have to win in court to make them display her add.

The New York Metro didn't want the first inflamatory add, doubt they would want a second.

That case would be a precedent. And anyway, if she had support, she could get her message across. Just because she disagrees doesn't mean she should get a billboard. i disagree with heaps of stuff but i don't go around vandalising and tearing things down, because that is illegal.

It's setup in theory to protect everyone but in reality it's to protect minorities

Human rights tribunal, it's called. I think people would laugh if a case was made to protect an able bodied majority.

so in reality the minorities are protected by a social convention, not by the law itself.

 

[IDL]

That case would be a precedent. And anyway, if she had support, she could get her message across. Just because she disagrees doesn't mean she should get a billboard. i disagree with heaps of stuff but i don't go around vandalising and tearing things down, because that is illegal.



so in reality the minorities are protected by a social convention, not by the law itself.

No it's a court. Minorities file claims and win. If anything, the additional social convention favors minorities.

 

[LatFlare]

No it's a court minorities file claims and win. If anything, the additional social convention favors minorities.

yes but according to a social convention, only claims being made by minorities will be heard by the court.

 

[IDL]

yes but according to a social convention, only claims being made by minorities will be heard by the court.

Yeah that's how it is largely viewed. Minorities being ethnic minorities, or people with disabilities. There are also claims against gender discrimination though I see in there as well.

 

[SirDiddymus]

Freedom of speech does not and should not mean freedom from consequenses of said speech.

 

[Armbars]

There's no such thing as free speech

Everything you say has a consequence.

 

[Son of Jamin]

I don't think can you legislate something to protect "minorities". The law must apply equally to everyone, and the definition of minority can be vague and shifting depending on circumstances.

In Sweden it's not, racial agitation is acceptable towards ethnic Swedes but not against minorities (I wonder if that will change when ethnic Swedes are the minority in 20-30 years).

As for the topic, I think free speech is a good thing less regulation is generally a good thing.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

No. We need laws to restrict what people are allowed to say.

 

[oldshadow]

Freedom of speech does not and should not mean freedom from consequenses of said speech.

What do you mean consequences?

Are we saying if I don