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