David, I note from your mugshot that you are an ugly chrome-domed fat-head!!

No, I take it back. You are an intelligent person who is proffering valuable comment on a very difficult subject.

However, I think that you are seeing this complex multifaceted issue in too much of a black and white manner.

I disagree with your basic premise; that offence is entirely in the mind of the offendee or would-be offendee. I can envisage many situations in which someone is being highly obnoxious with the intent of being strongly offensive.

How do you deal with that? If you don’t respond or you respond meekly, you may well be seen to be weak and your offender can be seen to be entirely correct in all the abuse that he is dishing out and everything he is saying about you.

It is very difficult territory. What we certainly don’t need is a level of freedom of speech where unscrupulous people feel that they can be bluntly and deliberately offensive, replete with false assertions, and just get away with it. Your comments seem to suggest that people should be allowed to do this.

You write:

< Unless a comment is coercive, by intimidating, threatening, tricking or forcing someone to do something against their will, responsibility for how it is received rests with the recipient. Those who feel offended are free to choose another feeling. >

I think the restrictions should be somewhat broader.

"Taking offence is a feeling, voluntarily chosen. No matter how bigoted, ill-informed or obnoxious, someone else’s words are never the cause."

Why then is Hansard replete with examples of remarks being withdrawn [and elided] from all sides of the parliament?

So, I take it we can look forward to your party's platform removing some debating rules and the anti-democratic concept of parliamentary privilege?

Excellent.

Unless what you were saying was bullshytt... no offence.

I fear that this may be an overly simplistic view of a very complex situation. There are those out there that make statements specifically designed to cause offence. There are also those who continuously make statements of an offensive nature to harass and bully others.

While I agree that taking offence over a single throw away comment and making a big deal over it is beyond infantile, one must also take into account the motives of the one making the comment. Was it just a spur of the moment throw away, or was it sculpted and honed to cut and cause offense? That is the question.

Has this new law passed through both Houses and become the law of the land, or is it still being proposed. Or does it even need to pass through Parliament? Can Gillard and Roxon establish it by edict?
I am hoping it will prove to be something like Senator Conway's proposal to censor the Internet, a proposal which, thankfully, was stillborn? Looked at one way, this new measure is an eerie echo of Senator Conway's efforts to gain an unwanted and unwarranted degree of control over our lives.
What say the Coalition?
What say the Greens?
Roxon and Gillard don't sit in Canberra on their own, even if sometimes they do give the impression that they would prefer it if they did.

The contradiction with saying that 'Offence is taken, not given' is that this guy begins and ends his article by deliberately saying something offensive. So just like that the entire premise of his argument turns out to be false.

At any rate, the proposed legislation is just an exposure draft. The provision thats causing so much ruckus is probably just a drafting error. Its not worth getting worked up over it until its law. I doubt that Parliament is going to put something into law that allows utterly trivial matters to go to the Federal Court.

Freedom of speech must of necessity, include a right to offend!
In some cultures, inoffensively remarking, that your wife is quite a looker, is unpardonable offence!
I don't know if Nicola has a big bum or not, never been very interested in the rear part of a woman's anatomy.
However, I might notice if she was so fat, her hubby had to roll her in flour and then look for a wet spot, before he could make love to her.
In some cultures that risqué humour, would be responded to, with a death sentence; and or, ritual beheading.
We need a bill of irrevocable rights, just so, the control freaks can't, with their hands on the levers of power, rob us of a right to unintentionally offend.
We already have enough laws to effectively control/remediate, intended racial vilification and libel!
Just ask Andrew Bolt, who all too often, just seems to open his mouth, to simply change socks.
Another, the P.M's partner, is also quite capable of politically incorrect remarks, just because he's a bloke?
Had the same remark been utter by a small Asian female doctor, would any of our female members been offended, or just twittered their embarrassment?
Personally, I find the digital rectal examination extremely unpleasant or even quite painful, and moreover, notoriously unreliable, and often quite capable of missing some very nasty tumours!
The annual check-up and PSA score, I believe, is usually a better indicator, and if high, I believe, ought to be followed, with a CAT scan or MIR.
Rhrosty.

“Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.”-Dean Steacy, Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator.

So the Labor party consider this amendment to be progressive in spite of the Canadian experience with the misuse of "Human rights"laws and the utterly corrupt cottage industry of professional "Hatefinders" and snitches which arose as a result?
You can imagine all the would be Richard Warmans and Dean Steacys warming up their poison pens and rubbing their hands with glee.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/07/jonathan-kay-good-riddance-to-section-13-of-the-canadian-human-rights-act/

Do we want a society of selfish, thick sculled Mr Teflons or would we rather people feel something when someone tries their darnest to offend and reduce our lot to less than theirs? Might feeling, understanding people be substantially nicer to other people, easier to get on with and more likely to contribute to the harmony of society than our mean spirited author? Of course! So why would we want to remove the need for respect and dignity?

This issue really comes down to power - the comfortable white guy in relative privilege, safely home amongst the majority on every front can afford to be Teflon and shrug off offending jibs. If you have grown up as scum of the earth because you are a minority, it could be a nail in their coffin or mine - and as a gay man living with disabilities I am sick and tired of people who do not have an ounce of feeling and don't care if we commit suicide at vastly greater rates because they and their lot are just fine. Take transgender people where the suicide rate is estimated to be close to 50%. Feeling so ashamed is the opposite of hope. Imagine being told every day you don't deserve to belong to humanity because you are a minority of a minority.

Put some evidence into the argument and tell us what alternatively could be done to stop people killing themselves if we make offence de rigueur but remember the solution must serve everybody as well as it does you - it must serve humanity, unlike not feeling offended.

Actually there's some good comments on the article in that link, they talk about the de normalisation and de legitimisation of the fake human rights laws and fake human rights groups. I always like to point out the long list of human rights groups and professional human rights activists in Australia and the total absence of any groups or individuals dedicated to the abolition of human rights.

Eric,
It's probably futile to point out to you that it's a universally accepted principle that nobody but the deceased party is responsible for suicide, if Gays and Transgendered people are killing themselves at higher rates than we'd otherwise expect then that might tell you something about Gays and Trans rather than other members of society.
What's more if 50% of Trans are killing themselves in this day and age then that's a massive black mark against the "Human Rights" industry, you've failed them, no matter how many laws they pass the state can't protect people from themselves or the actions of others,this amendment will have zero effect on suicide rates.
Seriously is this where the battle lines are going to be drawn in the next election, "Gay rights"? This is truly a pathetic society.

Jay Of Melbourne. Well spoken that man.

"We already have enough laws to effectively control/remediate, intended racial vilification and libel!". Says it all really.

Good article. We always have a choice as to how we feel/ react/respond to any situation, otherwise we are no more grown up than a 2 year olds. To suggest otherwise I regard as quite offensive.

Prompete,

"Good article. We always have a choice as to how we feel/ react/respond to any situation, otherwise we are no more grown up than a 2 year olds. To suggest otherwise I regard as quite offensive."

I hope that was you being "witty"...(you are free, after all "to choose another feeling":)

Jay of Melbourne look up the story of Brody's Law made in response to work mates blamed for causing her suicide. Look up Mindframe and SANE's StigmaWatch and see the mitigation strategies that only exist becuase it is not accepted "that nobody but the deceased party is responsible for suicide". You can't hound somebody to death and not be gulity of the same.

Just dismissing someone as too sensitive is immoral and cruel. Why should I be picked on publically all my life? The offence I feel makes me angry which makes me do a heap of volunteer work to turn it around.

Showing due care and courtesy to other drivers and pedestrians is a fundamental rule of the road. Showing due courtesy to all those with whom you interact in your work capacity is a fundamental tenet of all codes of conduct. So showing due courtesy in all manner of speech or interaction should be a fundamental principle.

People should definitely NOT be free to be offensive at will.

A mob of poxy youths in a public street should not be free to abuse men walking past or be offensively sexist to young women.

No one should be free to launch a tirade of abuse at someone because they disagree with their opinions.

It is certainly NOT entirely the choice of the person on the receiving end as to whether they take offence or not.
.

A vital aspect of the law as it pertains to freedom of speech is that it be reasonably simple to comprehend, written in a manner that reduces ambiguity and grey areas to a minimum, is as easy to police as possible, gets policed as per the intent of the law and not as something quite different, which is all too often the case with all manner of laws, and is evenly policed so that the same regulations apply to everyone across the board.

The policng of the laws is every bit as problematic as coming up with the right laws in the first place.

We shouldn’t just be thinking about what the best balance between maximum freedom of speech and harm minimisation is and what laws we need to achieve it, but also about how these laws will actually work. They’ve got to be workable and even-handed… or else we will have achieved very little.

Freedom of speech must include the right to say things that may be deemed offensive, or it is no freedom at all.

We already have laws that protect against genuinely harmful and malicious speech and actions. Slander and libel laws protect against harmful lies. Criminal law protects against threats and intimidation. Workplace law provides (perhaps inadequate) protection against bullying and racial/gender discrimination.

Protecting hurt feelings takes things too far, especially as we have no way to know exactly what will be hurtful. Some people take offence extremely easily, at things that were not intended to offend.

And, it’s the kind of law which will encourage people to magnify or feign offence in order to silence or intimidate those they disagree with.

One problem I think is that we have lost the distinction between behaviour that is socially unacceptable, and behaviour that should be legally sanctioned. As a society we determine that some types of behaviour and speech are unacceptable. That doesn’t mean they have to be illegal.

If David makes a habit of regularly commenting on women’s bum sizes, he will I hope be reproved by those who find this offensive, and advised by his friends to be more considerate, and eventually ostracised if he persists. He should not be jailed

If the law is backdated I dare say the PM's hair dresser might be in gaol for his remarks about small Asian female doctors.

Eric,
Brodie's law was an amendment to the existing anti stalking laws and it would only apply to extreme cases, probably where a death or suicide attempt had already been made. As is the case with the other anti vilification laws and the guidelines on bias crimes they are extremely difficult to prosecute, such laws are mostly symbolic or at best cautionary, legal experts concur that they do nothing to prevent the acts occurring.
Your earlier comments about "White Privilege" are indicative of the biased attitudes among the elites and bourgeoisie and are in themselves discriminatory, defamatory and offensive. The problem is that if the new amendments were passed then anyone could make a claim, do you want White men making claims against Aboriginals on the basis that they have been offended? Of course you don't and neither do I but what do you suggest, that we exclude White men from seeking redress for perceived wrongs under this proposed framework? It's bad for everyone, I don't want men from my ethnic group thinking that they can hide behind Nicola Roxon's skirts if they're feeling slighted, I'm sure the attitude is the same among men in other ethnic groups.

Take a good look at yourselves folks.

Take a look at the posts so far and evaluate the differences of opinion and who's on who's side. That's exactly what this proposed legislation wants to do and is all about. Divide and conquer. It's the greatest play in the Marxist idiom. Create artificial class struggle and play falsely on the moral highground creating victims to support and foster. The purpose is to divide social wellbeing and set brother against brother, sister against sister, and sister against brother. They first create the problem and then they exacerbate it, demonstrate attempts to solve it, but never do, leaving folks angry, frustrated and most importantly, holding hatred for their fellow citizens

In such an environment, governance of a police state can thrive because the citizens are too busy being full of hatred and distrust for their class enemies to be bothered to be critical of the government. This proposed legislation is designed to create exactly that, community division.

And all you good folk are already falling into your roles, taking the bait and starting the class war. You're already building walls and trenches to fight the battle, each believing that they hold the moral highground. When in reality, you're all good people with just slightly different points of view, who, left alone would agree to disagree, move on and get over it. There is no issue.

Hatred is exactly what Roxon and Co want. They want division amongst the people so they can be the rulers and masters.

But hey, right now I'm taking advantage of the fact that the legislation isn't law yet and to tell you that I think you're all acting very stupidly. You see, after the legislation is passed, and it will be, I won't be able to write this. I'll become public enemy No1.

Anyway, good luck folks, you're all gonna need it. Me? I'm hoping to go somewhere into eastern Europe maybe, where the folks there have had a gutfull of all this sort of rubbish and are now working cohesively towards freedom.

Cheers.

I side with the view that the article is simplistic. Human beings are much more complex than that. At our best we may be immune to the taunts of those who's opinions we don't value but we also for the most part social creatures. For most acceptance by our peers is valued to some degree. Most of us have our weak points where we are more sensitive than others.

We are certainly never in a position to truly judge how robust another person is (especially in an unsolicited prank call). We generally don't know what other pressures someone may be facing in their lives.

The basic premise is true, offence is taken, not given but we are not all that strong all the time. Taken as a license that belief is the mark of a bully just as hiding behind hurt feelings and offence can be the mark of a bully on the other extreme.

It could also be argued that attachment to material possessions is a choice not an absolute yet we mostly accept that should not give others the right to deface our property.

I don't much like the idea of the laws, I find it easy to envisage them being trivialised used to support abuse rather than decency but the tone of the article bothers me as well.

runner, I see the carry on about Tim's comments as mostly more swipes in political games rather than as genuinely offensive. A game his partner and her party have happily played but a sad one never the less. A man trying to use his position to help men be more aware of important health issues is not someone I'm happy to see the target of that game regardless of what I think of his partner. Frankly when I get that particular check the smaller the finger ding the check the better.

R0bert

First Finkelstein and now the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination draft bill.

Why does this bill exempt religion from prosecution when religion is the main source of discrimination [Sections 32 and 33]? This would mean women still cannot become Catholic priests and Islamic women would have no right to not wear the burqa.

In addition why does the Bill exempt members of parliament and arguably bureaucrats from prosecution when the legislature is the other main source of discrimination [Section 15(2)]? This would mean any elected official, even outside the protection of parliamentary privilege, could still offend under the description of the Act.

The Act also propose a reversal of the onus of proof [Section 124]; it is a maxim that it is legally impossible to prove a negative which is what anyone who has been accused of an offence under the Act would be required to do.

To create new rights involves compromising or destroying old rights. It is clear that this Act would compromise many aspects of the right to free speech; and it would do so without touching the main sources of discrimination.

Cohenite says "Islamic women would have no right to not wear the burqa."
Whilst I agree with the rest of your post and don't understand why religious people should have a monopoly on discriminating against others, I didn't think the legislation was going to make it compulsory for muslim women to wear the burqua. If the legislation doesn't enforce it and there is no other law requiring them to wear the burqua then how can they not "have the right not to wear the burqua?"

I guess the issue with the burqa would be that people arguing against the burqa would be caught by this legislation and that absence of support for those muslim women who do not want to wear the burqa would not be there, making it easier for the pressure within Islam for women to wear the burqa to be sustained.

But you are right, there is nothing specific within the Bill which in itself mandates that muslim women wear the burqa.

God how precious we are all getting.

I was about 5 years old when I was taught that old ditty that goes,
"Sticks & stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me".

I wonder just how old some people will have to be to actually understand what that means.

One really has to wonder if it is worth perpetuating a society which is full of people so weak they can't stand anyone talking meanly to them.

It is perhaps a good thing it is not worth perpetuating, as it is sure to slide out of existance on it's own slime very soon.

Perhaps the focus needs to be on the intent of the speaker rather than the effects on the listener. Speech can be used for many reasons including the expression of opinions and as a weapon to hurt people. I think we have to differentiate between these two.

When Allan Jones made his comments about the death of the Prime Minister’s father it was clear that he wasn’t expressing an opinion about the cause of his death. He was deliberately trying to hurt the Prime Minister. Whether he succeeded or not is irrelevant. He was being aggressive – his intention was clear for all to see. Jones should have the right to say what he likes. The appropriate response is not to clamp down on free speech by passing laws that restrict such comments. The appropriate response is to do exactly what most people did and that is to withdraw any support for Jones’ radio show which would severely limit his opportunities to hurt other people in a public way. Jones has the right to free speech but he does not have a right to a radio show. There should not be laws to limit free speech but there should definitely be consequences for people who act aggressively. Jones paid the price for his attempted aggression.

The word ‘offensive’ is not very helpful because it says nothing about the intent of the speaker and it can be used to emotionally manipulate someone into remaining silent just because their opinions cause unrest in the listener. If we focus on the words used, the tone of voice and the body language it is not hard to discern whether someone is being aggressive or whether they are just expressing an opinion.

Phanto. A particularly interesting post that I think really comes to the 'nub' of the quandary.

By way if illustrating your point, I would take issue with your example of Allan Jones.

Your interpretation was that his 'intent' was to hurt the PM. I, on the other hand, interpret that his 'intent' was to provide his audience with attitudes, interests and expressions with what they had an expectation to hear, with what they had paid money for.

To use the analogy of a prostitute would not be amiss. Indeed, that of any proficient thespian or politician for that matter.

So, were we to sit together in 'judgement' on Mr Jones, we would each reach different conclusions. I do not envy our judiciary the daily Gordian knot they are required to untangle.

A good post.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14627#252364

@Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Wednesday, 30 January 2013 12:52:29 PM
and the total absence of any groups or individuals dedicated to the abolition of human rights.

What ? we have entire Parliaments devoted to that very thing. Along with a plethora of groups, eg ACL, helping them.

Prompete,

This touches on another aspect of this issue - yes, of course, the right to freedom of speech includes the right to say something offensive to someone - and in my view, includes the right to deliberately say something offensive, which one knows most certainly will offend.

For example, if someone on this thread deliberately wrote something about me that they knew would offend me, if they went out of their way to offend me, deliberately, I may not like it but they would still have that right. I would grit my teeth and support their right to do so. And vice versa, of course.

Free speech may include the right to DELIBERATELY offend, in my view. And let's be honest, many of us do this all the time, almost offhandedly, about people ('Mister Rabbit', 'Juliar') and groups that we don't like that much. No biggie.

Joe

Loudmouth. I agree unreservedly, ya bastard!

Thank you, Prompete, I was going to respond in kind, but I think Graham may start to take an active interest in our to-and-fro and delete us :)

I hope he doesn't find that offrensive :(Cheers,

Joe

That's strange, I really thought that my friend Poirot would seize the opportunity to sink the boot into me, in defence of her other friend, Nicola Roxon, and also for the sheer, glorious fun of it.

I'm feeling somewhat neglected :(

"I'm feeling somewhat neglected..."

Good!

Ooh, you're so hurtful, Poirot !

Come on, sweetie, you can do better ;)

Loudmouth. Carefully now, deliberate provocation (incitement to argue) may be secreted in the 'revised' legislation, you know, in the small print.

Seriously, Prompete, I would have thought that 'incitement to argue' was a sort of corner-stone of the scientific method and of the core purpose, if there has to be one, of free speech: isn't it the sort of thing that good teachers try to instill in their best students ?

<< When Allan Jones made his comments about the death of the Prime Minister’s father it was clear that he wasn’t expressing an opinion about the cause of his death. He was deliberately trying to hurt the Prime Minister… ...He was being aggressive – his intention was clear for all to see. >>

Therefore phanto, IMHO, he should not have had the right to say it. He was being deliberately offensive in such a manner as to try to offend the PM, not pertaining to her politics but to a very personal matter. Dirty stuff indeed. The sort of stuff which should be directly outlawed. If he doesn’t like her politics or her leadership style then he should be debating that as vigorously as he can.

There seems to be a big contradiction in what you are saying:

<< Jones should have the right to say what he likes. The appropriate response is not to clamp down on free speech by passing laws that restrict such comments. >>

But then:

<< The appropriate response is to do exactly what most people did and that is to withdraw any support for Jones’ radio show which would severely limit his opportunities to hurt other people in a public way >>

continued

Well if that is an appropriate response, then why should it be legal for him to say it in the first place?

Those who boycotted Jones or otherwise spoke out about his comments felt that he had done something seriously wrong, which you seem to agree with. Shouldn’t ‘seriously wrong’ equate directly with ‘illegal’?

I don’t see how you can condone such strong retaliatory action while still allowing Jones the right to say what he likes. It doesn’t add up.

In my last post I drew the parallel between the basic road rule of showing due courtesy to other road users and the basic tenet of employee codes of conduct to show due courtesy to all those with whom you interact in a work-related manner.

The same sort of principle should apply. We should have very wide-ranging freedom of speech, but we should NOT have the right to be deliberately offensive or aggressive.

If you are entertaining vigorous debate and you become highly critical of someone as part of it, they may well take strong offence. That’s fine. But if, for example, you are sitting on a park bench and yelling abuse at everyone who walks past that you don’t like the look of, then you should be dealt with firmly by the constabulary.

I thus strongly disagree that we should have the right to exercise unfettered freedom of speech that is deliberately offensive. This would sit in contrast to other laws of this nature.

Ludwig – I think what I am trying to advocate is that we protect free speech as much as possible but also deal with aggressive behaviour. Once you begin to create laws to outlaw offensive speech you also have to abide by the ‘burden of proof’ and the value that a person is innocent until proven guilty. In the case of Jones – his words were on tape and everyone saw the evidence.

If, for example, Jones had said the same thing to the Prime Minister behind closed doors with only the two of them in the room, would it be any less offensive? She may have come out of that room in tears but how does she prove what was said? No action could be legally taken without proof. That does not mean that she cannot respond appropriately to someone who has deliberately tried to hurt her. It would be natural for her to want to have nothing to do with him. She may decide never to appear on his radio show and that may be something to his detriment. He may think twice about such aggressive behaviour in the future.

Even if Jones had been found ‘innocent’ of offensive language in a court of law it does not stop ordinary people and sponsors from taking action against him, within the normal law of the land, if they think he was guilty. Having laws to stop certain behaviour when it can be done without laws is preferable in my opinion. Laws that limit freedom of offensive speech could be open to abuse and all things being equal I think it is better not to risk that unless there is no other option and it seems to me that there are other options.

Even your example of the person sitting on the park bench yelling abuse could be dealt with without involving the law - it just takes some imagination and righteous indignation. It is just a question of asserting your right to live in a peaceful environment without aggressive behaviour.

Luddy old mate, none of that works.

There is nothing on earth that could offend me as much as the sight sound or thought of Julia Gillard. For her to appear on my TV is so offensive I instantly change channels if she appears.

If your ideas of restricting intentionally offensive she would have to be locked up in a windowless soundproof room.

Every TV or radio station would have to refrain from having her broadcast, as I would find it deliberately offensive.

I believe there are more than a few on here who feel exactly the same way about Howard, & the same would apply there.

I think it would be a very good ideas if all these control freaks took great care. I'm sure I & many others, could include them in causing a similar offence. Their prosecution could be an unintended consequence of their poor legislation, attempting to silence criticism.

Don't worry, Hasbeen, it's only Day Three ;)

<< Ludwig – I think what I am trying to advocate is that we protect free speech as much as possible but also deal with aggressive behaviour >>

But phanto, isn’t deliberately offensive speech part of aggressive behaviour?

<< Once you begin to create laws to outlaw offensive speech you also have to abide by the ‘burden of proof’ and the value that a person is innocent until proven guilty >>

Indeed this is a very big part of the problem. As I said in a previous post, the law has got to be workable, and even-handed, and we’ve got to have confidence in exactly what the legal situation is, so that we don’t risk saying things that we think are ok and then get busted for it.

I think that it comes down to one basic principle – the same one that is enshrined in law in the requirement to show due courtesy on the road and to be nice or at least neutral at work as per your code of conduct, or basic principles of decency your workplace doesn’t happen to have a code of conduct.

There will always be grey areas. But with properly written laws and then properly regulated laws, they can be reduced to a minimum. We certainly need to clamp down on the most blatant examples, and to not let grey areas or other difficulties prevent us from doing so.

It is also fundamentally important as to whether comments are made publicly or privately. Allan Jones should have every right to say exactly what he said to Julia Gillard, face to face, in private, but not via a public medium… unless he infringes his code of conduct in doing so, which he presumably would be because he’d be speaking to her in a work-related manner!

Hahahaaa, Hazza you ARE a funny old bugger!

As much as you are repulsed by dear lovely Julia (and I feel the same way about that horrible Sarah Hanson-Young person), she is of course not setting out to deliberately offend you, nor anyone else.

Therein lies the foot-shooting bullet in your argument!

Ludwig. I have a personal preference to have the 'greasy areas' as wide as possible and still maintain a civilised society and discourse. I am fearfull of the 'trend' to legalise and or regulate so many areas of our lives.

The NSW premier is worried about there being so little success in prosecuting cases of 'racism'. Perhaps that is because there just hasn't been the racism that he seems to think is occurring around him?

Hasbeen has so accurately expressed my own feelings of offence taken by me vis a vis our PM. But, it is me TAKING offence, as opposed to her giving it, I am sure that she tries very hard not to be offensive. In the same way, you have described very accurately and succinctly my own feelings towards our Sarah. (Truly, I cringe)

A most interesting and well argued group of posts gentlemen and ladies.

By the way, having revealed my feelings regarding two female polices here, I wonder if I have met the criteria for the new and improved definition of misogynist?

Cheers.

Ludwig <<But phanto, isn’t deliberately offensive speech part of aggressive behaviour?>>

Deliberately offensive speech is aggressive behaviour but it is very hard for a court to conclude that it was offensive or deliberate. Speech is used for many things and therefore its intended purpose can be misconstrued. It is not like violence which is another form of aggression. If you attack someone with a gun or a knife or your fists there is no doubt you are being aggressive – your intention is to hurt someone. If you use words there will be doubt and people take advantage of such doubt when they say ‘I was only joking’ or ‘you are too sensitive’ even when they know full well that they intended to hurt. A court may not be able to respond justly to such aggression but an individual could by taking their own action to withdraw otherwise reasonable behaviour in relation to the aggressor.

In the example of Jones there were no laws to administer justice but he surely got his comeuppance from the Australian public and his advertisers. I doubt a court would have been so vicious in their response. But he may have been treated unfairly. Even though I used him as an example of aggressive behaviour it is quite possible that his intent was not to hurt the Prime Minister as Prompete said. He could have been trying to rally support for his particular political causes by co-opting people not on the basis of reason but on a shared personal dislike for Julia Gillard. He may not have intended for her to hear those comments - if he wanted to be certain of offending her in that way he could have done so on his radio show – he’s said worse things.

Continued

Although I am advocating taking personal action against aggression where you think it has occurred I also think many people in the Jones case took action when there was no aggression directed towards them. Many people dislike him because of his attitudes and values and the power he wields and they jumped on the bandwagon to get at him. They were punishing him for having opinions and values which they do not share and not because of what he said to a group of his disciples.

I don’t think the analogy of the road and workplace are quite the same as this situation. We follow road rules not out of courtesy but because it would be very dangerous not to. If there were no rules there would be chaos. We also have rules of behaviour at work not out of courtesy but to make sure the aims of the workplace are met. There are no utilitarian reasons to have rules governing speech.

Courteous and respectful behaviour is behaviour that we would like to see but if it doesn’t happen then we just take personal action or we forget about it and move on. We have to make those choices nearly every day. If we were to go to court every time someone spoke to us in an offensive manner we wouldn’t get much done.

<< Ludwig. I have a personal preference to have the 'greasy areas' as wide as possible and still maintain a civilised society and discourse. I am fearfull of the 'trend' to legalise and or regulate so many areas of our lives. >>

Interesting comment Prompete.

One of my most basic premises regarding law is that it be as concise as possible and that the policing regime be as even-handed as possible, so that the grey areas are reduced to a minimum, and the likelihood of the authorities treating different people very differently for very similar misdemeanours is reduced to a minimum.

Having a tight legal paradigm with a high standard of regulation and uniformity does not mean having more regulations and restrictions in our lives.

<< Deliberately offensive speech is aggressive behaviour but it is very hard for a court to conclude that it was offensive or deliberate >>

Phanto, there is always going to be a complete spectrum from pure unadulterated offensive speech to offensive speech that is rendered with very good cause.

The same applies to physical violence, for which there could well strong mitigating circumstances.

Your separation of offensive speech from physical violence on the grounds that physical violence is easy for a court to convict someone over doesn’t hold up at all. It is all difficult territory.

<< Although I am advocating taking personal action against aggression where you think it has occurred I also think many people in the Jones case took action when there was no aggression directed towards them. Many people dislike him because of his attitudes and values and the power he wields and they jumped on the bandwagon to get at him. >>

This is dangerous territory. Is it right for us to condone strong repudiatory action against someone who has not broken the law?? Especially when as you say many of those doing it would not be doing it for the right reasons pertaining to what he said about Gillard, but for some broader and more general dislike of the man. And once things like this get a foothold, there could well be lots of unscrupulous hangers-on getting into the act well, simply because it is an opportunity to hit a high-flyer when he is down.

continued

<< We follow road rules not out of courtesy but because it would be very dangerous not to >>

You can’t separate courteous driving from safe driving. They are essentially the same thing. The most discourteous driving is to place other drivers under an unnecessary increased risk of mishap, by way of tailgating, speeding, dangerous overtaking, cutting in front, etc, etc.

<< We also have rules of behaviour at work not out of courtesy but to make sure the aims of the workplace are met. >>

Yes. Courtesy is very closely related to the achievement of one’s work duties in an efficient manner.

So why should it be different with freedom of speech? Why wouldn’t we implement laws to eliminate or reduce the worst and most offensive aspects of free speech? Wouldn’t it be for the greater good?

There are laws covering defamation and the like. So it would not be too much of a further extension to implement laws to restrict offensive speech. But as I said in a previous post, it should only apply in a public environment, or perhaps in a setting where there are a number of people, such as a private meeting, that may be misled by offensive and scurrilous comments. It should not apply in a private one-on-one conversation.