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!