Justice Holmes of the US Supreme would limit restrictions on speech to such speech as presents a clear and present danger. He gave as an example yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. Speech that can cause an immediate danger such as inciting a lynch mob is banned under common law provisions against incitement and harassment. I see no need for any anti-vilification legislation. Its effect is to silence crude expressions of racism or journalists who don't tread carefully. The problem is endemic racism not its crude or thoughtless expression.

"Huckleberry Finn" is an antiracist book which is a classic in US literature. It has been banned because it used the n-word for black people. If it hadn't used that word it would not have been accurately recording the speech of the time.

Speech which offends no one and no one finds loathsome is acceptable in a tyranny. Speech which some find offensive and loathsome but which presents no clear and present danger must be allowed or we do not have free speech.

An excellent article which I hope gets the wide readership it deserves.

Hi their . In regards to standing up for your rights I would have to add that their are two players in the melbourne Asian community who have stood out amonst their peer who have helped reduce racial velification in their community's . They have both been considered to be triad members but I don't know enough in this area so wont be commenting and that Is Tao Wei and Nick ho both from the eastern suburbs who many respect and admire in their work to help Asian youth empowerment . Their proficient grasp of the the English language has enabled them to speak to the higher members of social politics and demand work be done in their community's . Tao has been mistaken identity who continues to hold strong support within incarceration and nick who is strongly supported by so called omcg continues to be vocal in these area of contention .

I agree this is an excellent article. I'm not convinced you can legislate to prevent speech that may cause danger eg yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre. It seems to me that freedom of speech can only be fully realised by making if entirely free and that 'bad behaviour' can really only be moderated by convention, education and peer pressure. But if we can't agree on that, at least it seems we can agree that offending someone should not be a justification for punishment - lest the 'thin-lipped' and the 'thin skinned' - the people who think we should all think like them, get the upper hand (again).

richierhys
I agree, and especially on the use of social pressure and convention, rather than the force of law, to sanction unacceptable behaviour. The state can't and shouldn't arbitrate these things.

Social pressure in the form of ad hoc committees of vigilance and self appointed "Anti Racist" vigilantes have a terrible track record in this country. As we saw with the notorious and now defunct "Anti Bogan"website and Anti Racism generally all you get is a bunch of sad, marginalised White people ripping into another group of sad, marginalised White people,"Racism"in this context comes from a sense of helplessness, so does "Anti Racism". Let's face it, the anti discrimination laws only cause in group-out group hatred and wreck social cohesion within the White population and the really sad part is that they don't even apply to White Australians, we can be punished by them but we have no access mechanism of appeal against anti White vilification or discrimination.

Well I would like the freedom of speech to say
that religions divide countries and inevitabley
cause civil war over control of countries
as their respective numbers expand.

But I am told, I must practise religious tolerance
or else I am an intolerant uneducated bigot

So I am denied free speech because I quote
what History obviously demonstrates is fact,
because the reality is too harsh for people and also
because people have their own agendas in wanting to
practice their religious beliefs regardless of the
division it causes in societies where half the population
has a different belief.

There is also an underlying racism and tribalism in most religions
who claim they are falsely fighting a Holy war and not a bloodline
war. I would like to see them have the guts to teach the
truth in our Universities but they must teach the lie or
be drowned in a horror reaction by those who like to believe in
false lies that don't make them feel uncomfortable or frightened.

>>the really sad part is that they don't even apply to White Australians, we can be punished by them but we have no access mechanism of appeal against anti White vilification or discrimination.<<

Bullsmeg. The law applies equally to all Australian citizens: if you can demonstrate discrimination on the grounds of race then you have exactly the same rights under the law as the next foreign, evil, funny-smelling coloured bloke.

Cheers,

Tony

Any attempt to limit speech is really an attempt to limit thought.
If you can't say it, you can't think it.
"Thoughtcrime" should not be tolerated in a liberal, democratic society.

>>If you can't say it, you can't think it.<<

Bullsmeg. This forum is proof of that: I cannot say the profanity that might otherwise substitute for 'bullsmeg' but I can certainly think it. Until the government develops mind-probes - and neurological science is decades away from such technology being feasible - they can only prohibit your words but not your thoughts or beliefs.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony,

<<The law applies equally to all Australian citizens: if you can demonstrate discrimination on the grounds of race then you have exactly the same rights under the law as the next>>

Hmmm it seems then that someone hasn't told our magistrates!

"AN Aboriginal girl who kicked a woman and called her a 'white slut' did not engage in racial vilification because the slur was common street language."
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/street-language-ruled-not-vilification/story-e6frg6nf-1111112215330

Now can you imagine what would happen if "black" was inserted in place of "white" ...or heaven forbid, after inserting "black" in place of "white" you added the descriptor "ape" --perish the thought!

be warned..limiting..free-speach..leads..to limiting free-act
by those needing the act..thus excuse to stifle our freespeech

these are more of the same[insane]..acts
you..need a strong stomach

http://12160.info/photo/effect-of-depleted-uranium?context=featured

the page seems to redirect..very fast
but..to see the upsetting pictures
http://api.ning.com/files/yrG0YlPnk7Fxb1euI2aboBQK0hgvezFmutwbgwL6WHYipltYXcn3H5x*H8Geakkt7Hq*TfbjRVacjGv9sUECxPeLivm5hXFi/Effect_Of_Depleted_Uranium.jpg?width=435&height=577

so..the question..is..what would jesus want you to..do?

war..what war?

how about cluster bombs
or naplam..or white phosher

when..does the insanity end
where does the buck..stop*

This Is The Results of Using Depleted Uranium (DU) Munitions
THE HALF LIFE OF DU IS 4.5 BILLION YEARS

Use of DU in Iraq is a serious health threat to everyone worldwide.
It is the dramatic rise in the incidence of cancer and birth

why should we care?

the plan
http://iamthewitness.com/Protocols-of-Zion.htm

the..finale

http://goldengaiadb.com/Coming_Home

anyhow..the name calling has begun
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15664&page=0

the preparation..for the false flag
[blackflag event..or red flag..event..depends on
this..being a non-event?
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/netanyahus-laurent-france.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131113/08405625230/tpp-ip-chapter-leaked-confirming-its-worse-than-acta.shtml

hence..this event..[prevent]
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/FBwarningAllWars.jpg
http://www.redressonline.com/2013/11/netanyahus-latest-deception/
http://intellihub.com/2013/11/13/america-and-israel-created-a-monster-computer-virus-which-now-threatens-nuclear-reactors-worldwide/

What Binoy Kamplak is angling for in his article is that a Bill of Rights would guarantee free speech. Gee, that's funny. It is those states that have enacted "Human Rights" legislation to over ride our elected parliaments that seem to be the ones most enamoured of introducing freedom restricting political correctness on us. Although not covered in legislation, widespread Freedom of Speech is supposed to be a done deal in Australia. That trendies would even try to turn back the clock by introducing section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, is a measure of how much we should distrust them whenever they want us to agree to the Bill of Rights agenda which can restrict our ability to create a society we want through consensus.

The concept of a Bill of Rights is a trendy lefty agenda to enshrine their favourite causes to be beyond the reach of the electorate. What Binoy does not mention, is that the very same people who want to shut Andrew Bolt up are the very same people who want a Bill of Rights. When such people try to tell me that they want to introduce a Bill of Rights to protect me from their own decisions, my BS antennae starts to rise.

The degree to which we as an enlightened society have freedom of speech and freedom of expression is a matter for the electorate to decide. The introduction of section 18c of the racial Discrimination Act was enacted by the very people that Binoy would support, and it was meant to shut up people like Bolt for commenting upon the pitflls of multiculturalism. As such, the electorate was incensed that a journalist could be prosecuted for commenting upon a valid news article. Free people know that this was absolutely wrong, and it was one of the reasons why the Labor government was rightfully hurled from office.

A Bill of Rights would be nothing more than a sugar coated cyanide pill for democracy, where a bunch of unelected judges with a "progressive" social agenda could decide on matters that are the electorate's business.

Tony Lavis "Bullsmeg. This forum is proof of that"

This forum's rules are not the *law*.
There is no legal restriction on saying bull$#!+.

It's perfectly acceptable for private individuals, companies or organisations to self-censor.
"Liberty" allows that.
Don't like it? You're "free" to find another forum.

We're talking about the *state* prohibiting words.

EFF: Stop Secret Copyright Treaties
http://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=9357&t=t

Trade agreements with extreme copyright provisions and Internet controls are being negotiated in secret, while corporate advisors to Big Content companies have easy ongoing access to view and comment on draft texts. At the same time, our own lawmakers have been granted extremely limited access.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/ryan-shapiro-the-punk-rocker-who-can-liberate-your-fbi-file/

But a coming law threatens to make this undemocratic process even worse.

Lawmakers in Congress are just about to introduce a bill to hand over their own constitutional authority to debate and modify trade law. It’s called Fast Track, or Trade Promotion Authority. It creates special rules that empower the White House to negotiate and sign trade agreements without Congressional oversight.
http://www.neowin.net/news/sony-to-disallow-resell-or-renting-of-playstation-games-after-initially-supporting-it

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Microsoft%E2%80%99s_new_Kinect_patent_goes_Big_Brother%2C_will_spy_on_you_for_the_MPAA/30312/0/0/0/Y/M.html

Lawmakers won’t be able to analyze and change their provisions, and have only 90 days for an up or down, Yes or No vote to ratify the entire treaty.
http://xrepublic.tv/node/6177

That means Internet and copyright provisions, buried in omnibus treaties, will get almost no oversight
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-11-14/leaked-document-adds-to-us-led-trade-deal-doubts

http://12160.info/main/mobilepage/desktopMode?target=%2Fxn%2Fdetail%2F2649739%3ABlogPost%3A1357739

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Guest_Post%3A_The_Government_Plans_To_Track_Us_And_Those_We_Are_Related_To_Using_Our_DNA/30332/0/38/38/Y/M.html

http://www.zdnet.com/why-ive-all-but-given-up-on-windows-7000023083/

http://12160.info/video/alternative-media-under-attack-someone-trying-to-set-up?xg_source=activity

http://www.today.com/money/cryptolocker-crooks-launch-new-customer-service-website-victims-2D11586019

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/seattle-wi-fi-spy-network-has-not-been-deactivated/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507113/JPMorgan-forced-cancel-Twitter-Q-A-barrage-abuse.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/node?page=1

The problem with speech is that it is not only used to express opinions – it is also used as a weapon to try and hurt others. Trying to determine the intent of the speaker is not always easy but it must be the starting point of any necessary repercussions.

Yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre may be a timely warning of danger but it may also be intended to create fear or mischief. There is always a reason when people speak and this is what needs to be determined. You have to look at things like tone of voice, body language, whether or not an audience is present. The context is important.

The fact is people can be ‘offended’ by insulting and vindictive speech. Offence usually means they are hurt. It may be reasonable to feel pain or upset at particularly vicious speech. The upset is usually caused by fear, not at the words expressed, but the implied threat of violence that accompanies them. Social pressure should be brought to bear on anyone who would try and change things by violence. That does not need further government intervention and there are laws in place already to deal with violence that goes beyond implication.

People can also feel upset when opinions are expressed which threaten things on which they are emotionally dependent. Fear is natural in the face of implied violence but it is not natural when someone simply expresses an opinion that differs from your own. Religious people might feel fear when others express opposing views to them. Their fear is based on their emotional dependence on religion and it is their dependence which is unnatural. The threat they perceive to their well-being is unfounded. Many people can live contentedly without such dependence but no one can live contentedly in an environment which threatens violence.

We need to take into account whether any ‘offence’ that is claimed is natural and therefore reasonable and this may mean questioning many things that we are emotionally dependent on including perhaps our identification with our race.

All socieites, including demoratic ones, put
various limittions on what people may say.
They prohibit certain types of speech that
they believe might harm people. But drawing the
line between dangerous and harmless speech can be
extremely difficult.

We have laws covering libel and slander. We have laws
that forbid speech that offends public decency by
using obscenities or by encouraging people to commit
acts considered immoral. We have laws against urging
violence. Other laws forbid speech that invades the
right of people not to listen to it. For example, a
local by-law might limit the times when people may
use loudspeakers to make annnouncements in the streets,
and so on.

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty to
respect other people's rights. A person's freedom of speech
is limited by the rights of others, for example their
right to maintain their good reputation and their right to
privacy.

Dear Foxy,

People should have no right to maintain their good reputation when it is not good. Defamation law does that, and it has been used as a tool to shut people up. Jo Bjelke-Petersen shut up critics by threatening defamation suits with the power of the Queensland government behind them. Truth of the charges was no defense against defamation suits. True charges could also injure one's reputation. All defamation laws should be repealed. Libel laws serve the purpose since truth is a defense against charges of libel.

Dear David F.,

The law isn't about justice though is it.
The law is the law. And who's going to be
the judge on whether someone's reputation
is good or bad? AS I stated earlier - it's
a fine and difficult line - but the law is
all we've got.

Foxy, "AS I stated earlier - it's a fine and difficult line - but the law is all we've got"

LOL, you run with the foxes and hunt with the hounds. For example, you are all for trashing the Marriage Act because you want homosexual marriage.

david f is right in what he is saying and it deserves something better in return than a dismissive, 'Suck it up and never you mind'.

1) I am not for thrashing the Marriage Act.
What I would like to see is to have the
clause removed that was added by John Howard
that marriage was between a man and a woman to
the exclusion of all others. There is a distinct
difference between holding these views and
wanting the Marriage Act thrashed.

2) I respect David F., too much and value his
opinion far too greatly to tell him to "suck anything up."
And as David F. has said, "One way of arguing is
putting words in other people's mouths."

3) The Law is the set of enforced rules under which a
society is governed. It is one of the most basic social
institutions, and one of the most necessary. No society
could exist if all people did just as they pleased,
without regard for the rights of others. Nor could a
society exist if its members did not recognise that they
also have certain obligations toward one another. The Law
The Law thus establishes the rules that define a person's
rights and obligations. It also sets penalties for people
who violate these rules, and it states how government
shall enforce the rules and penalties.

However, the laws enforced by government can be changed.
In fact, Laws are frequently changed to reflect changes in
a society's needs and attitudes.

Foxy, "I am not for thrashing the Marriage Act. What I would like to see is to have the clause removed that was added by John Howard that marriage was between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. There is a distinct difference between holding these views and wanting the Marriage Act thrashed"

Trashing is what I said. While you play with words, the fact remains that marriage always was and is between one man and one woman (as well as other conditions). PM John Howard acted to preserve that and protect the community's understanding, interest and expectations of the institution of marriage. As you are aware, it appeared that activists might try endless legal suits and manipulation to take advantage of what they saw as a possible loophole that could frustrate the will of the people.

You don't like that, but it is being less than honest to claim that John Howard did anything but preserve what was already there.

It is going to be a long 6+ years for you.

Dear otb,

Marriage has not always been between one man and one woman. In the Bible which is the basis for the religions most Australians who have a religion follow Jacob was married to both Leah and Rachel. Jacob, Rachel and Leah were legally married according to the law prevailing in that part of the world at that time. At some later time most European nations adopted monogamy. However, monogamy was a change from a previous polygamy. The definition of marriage is not fixed but changed with the social situation and what was accepted. What is accepted may become legal. As more and more same-sex couples pair off they want the same recognition and legal protection that heterosexual couples have. Religious institutions may set whatever standards they wish for those who they decide to marry. However, civil marriage is another matter, and marriage as defined in civil law can be extended to same sex couples.

Dear David F.,

Thanks for that.

Just a bit more information on what the then Prime Minister
John Howard did in 2004 - the Marriage Laws that were in
existence at that time did not define marriage. It was
Mr Howard who wanted to make it very plain what their
views were on marriage and he ended up not only imposing their views
on the country - he went much further - including the adoption
of children:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html

Foxy, " the Marriage Laws that were in existence at that time did not define marriage"

So why were there no variations from one man and one woman? Why weren't homosexuals marrying? Apart from the simple fact that homosexuals always rejected the heterosexual's government regulated relationships and 'straitjacket' lifestyle, both of which homosexuals abhorred and made no secret of it either.

From what you and other activists for homosexual marriage would have everyone believe, there would have been thousands of homosexuals lined up to be married and asserting their so-called 'right' to do so.

If the demand was there and the facility, why not thousands of married homosexuals?

You fabricate, but the truth is in the last election results where Labor the lunar Greens were thrown out on their ears. The rubbish was put out in Canberra and it was a good thing too.

good point, onthebeach.
If there previously was no legal definition of marriage as heterosexual (one man, one woman) then technically gay couples could been marrying each other for years.

They didn't.

Try reading the news article cited earlier
from The Sydney Morning Herald. I'm just
quoting what then Prime Minister stated at
the time about what he did and the reasons
for it. These were his words, not mine.