Free Speech, is it a good thing?

[Rusk]

Yes, total free speech should be allowed.

 

[HIMBOB]

One aspect not yet touched on is the factual basis of any claims made publically.

Andrew Bolt (journo) got convicted of basically vilification for making incorrect claims about light skinned aboriginals (basically they only claim to be aboriginal for special benefits), this is one case that really started the debate.

Currently (ie prior to any amendments) making an incorrect claim can see you charged, had Mr Bolt not made factually incorrect claims he would not have been able to be charged.

One key issue with this approcah is that no one is right all the time, no one. They may have been mislead or trusted reputable sources which are wrong (of course they could also be ignoring facts to suit their agenda). This means through no fault of you own you could be charged under current legislation.

I do agree this is not a good test.



So I am wondering in America could I take out an add denying the holocaust?

Would my right to say that be protected as free speech? Or would face legal repercussions because such a claim was baseless?

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Andrew Bolt is a prick

 

[Marsupial]

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

Yes. Freedom of speech does not entail an obligation to provide an inviolable platform for all views, opinions, comments, etc.

 

[Marsupial]

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.

Quite. But they are not entitled to assault you.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Quite. But they are not entitled to assault you.

never argued they were, I am simply arguing that consequences are not tied to legality or rights.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

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.

Ah, yes. The defender of irrational persons who take violent offense to any speech which challenges their views. I remember you spewing BS about persons who insult Islam deserve whatever they get. You'd make an ideal N. Korean citizen, Rudd.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

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

He's an apologist for those who take offense to the slightest challenge and resort to violence; hence the 'you have the right to say it, but you have to bear the consequences' BS he constantly regurgitates. He'd bend over backwards not to offend anybody who holds views slightly more crazy than he does.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Ah, yes. The defender of irrational persons who take violent offense to any speech which challenges their views. I remember you spewing BS about persons who insult Islam deserve whatever they get. You'd make an ideal N. Korean citizen, Rudd.

fuck off idiot or refute what I have said in a logical manner. Are consequences tied to legality or reality?

And your memory is wrong, what I said is if you go around burning a koran and shouting I am doing this under protected free speech in front of your local mosque don't be surprised if someone beats the shit out of you for it. There was no mention of deserving just reality.

I live in the real world, not some made up fantasy world where you think you can run around saying whatever you like without any fear of reprisal because a law says so.

 

[oldshadow]

One aspect not yet touched on is the factual basis of any claims made publically.

Andrew Bolt (journo) got convicted of basically vilification for making incorrect claims about light skinned aboriginals (basically they only claim to be aboriginal for special benefits), this is one case that really started the debate.

Currently (ie prior to any amendments) making an incorrect claim can see you charged, had Mr Bolt not made factually incorrect claims he would not have been able to be charged.

One key issue with this approcah is that no one is right all the time, no one. They may have been mislead or trusted reputable sources which are wrong (of course they could also be ignoring facts to suit their agenda). This means through no fault of you own you could be charged under current legislation.

I do agree this is not a good test.



So I am wondering in America could I take out an add denying the holocaust?

Would my right to say that be protected as free speech? Or would face legal repercussions because such a claim was baseless?

Yes you could take out an add like that and it would be legal.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

He's a realist for those who take offense to the slightest challenge and resort to violence; hence the 'you have the right to say it, but you have to bear the consequences' BS he constantly regurgitates.

fixed that for you moron.

 

[OldGoat]

fixed that for you moron.

By your "logic" he would be justified assaulting you.

 

[OldGoat]

One aspect not yet touched on is the factual basis of any claims made publically.

Andrew Bolt (journo) got convicted of basically vilification for making incorrect claims about light skinned aboriginals (basically they only claim to be aboriginal for special benefits), this is one case that really started the debate.

Currently (ie prior to any amendments) making an incorrect claim can see you charged, had Mr Bolt not made factually incorrect claims he would not have been able to be charged.

One key issue with this approcah is that no one is right all the time, no one. They may have been mislead or trusted reputable sources which are wrong (of course they could also be ignoring facts to suit their agenda). This means through no fault of you own you could be charged under current legislation.

I do agree this is not a good test.



So I am wondering in America could I take out an add denying the holocaust?

Would my right to say that be protected as free speech? Or would face legal repercussions because such a claim was baseless?

You could if you wished. A publisher doesn't have to allow it but there would be practically no consequences for doing so. We even tolerate Marxist and communist speech.

 

[LatFlare]

The point is that neither Kevvy Rudd nor BKMMAFAN should fear any legal consequences of the hateful things they say to one another.

Once they start to beat the shit out of each other however, it becomes a whole new ball game.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

By your "logic" he would be justified assaulting you.

no he wouldn't moron, read my response to oldshadow. How hard is a very simple concept to understand?

If you went through a black neighbourhood shouting "I hate Nword" what do you think would happen? Forget right and wrong and legal or illegal, what do you think the consequence of that would be?

It isn't hard to understand but you seem to be hung up on the legal side of things rather than what would actually happen in real life. Same deal with that other halfwit BKKMMANANA or whatever his name is.

Devoid from reality.

 

[OldGoat]

no he wouldn't moron, read my response to oldshadow. How hard is a very simple concept to understand?

If you went through a black neighbourhood shouting "I hate Nword" what do you think would happen? Forget right and wrong and legal or illegal, what do you think the consequence of that would be?

It isn't hard to understand but you seem to be hung up on the legal side of things rather than what would actually happen in real life.

Now I could rightfully assault you as well. You should slap your mama for not providing you with a proper education.

 

[LatFlare]

If you went through a black neighbourhood shouting "I hate Nword" what do you think would happen? Forget right and wrong and legal or illegal, what do you think the consequence of that would be?

We already know that the consequences of this would be that Samuel Jackson would come to your rescue at which point you would engage in a deadly game of cat and mouse, racing around New York City in a taxi to disarm bombs left by a maniacal Jeremy Irons.

 

[HIMBOB]

Yes. Freedom of speech does not entail an obligation to provide an inviolable platform for all views, opinions, comments, etc.

But doesn't the New York metro being forced to put up those adds against their wishes contradict the latter?

 

[LatFlare]

But doesn't the New York metro being forced to put up those adds against their wishes contradict the latter?

I thought they had to run the ad because america has some special rule regarding political discourse.

 

[OldGoat]

But doesn't the New York metro being forced to put up those adds against their wishes contradict the latter?

Not necessarily.