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.