What about my freedom not to be forced to pay for your speech?

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it, you person of little understanding.

All the supporters of the ABC have complete freedom to express their political and other opinions as much as they like. That's not what's in issue. It's being able to force people who don't agree with them to pay for their bias and prejudices.

Notice how no-one is able to come up with one single reason why the ABC should exist that could not equally be done by its supporters paying for it themselves?

Notice how EVERY SINGLE TIME they attempt to run the discussion into some diversion? Notice how all the arguments they give in favour of it presuppose some justification that they can't seem to identify?

Wolly ya wally, why isn't a complete and fair solution that you, and everyone else who supports endless State-worshipping totalitarian fascist propaganda, pay for it yourselves? No-one's stopping you. What about the freedom of speech of people who find your opinions offensive, immoral, irrational and anti-social? All of a sudden freedom doesn't matter - like in every other agenda the ABC keeps plugging.

Just because you want it, so what? What kind of a justification is that?

It's like we're dealing with people operating at the moral level of an infant.

You cannot reason with the clones who declare their support for the ABC under the banner of free speech; ie:

"What ever happened to the idea of freedom of speech?

So lets sell off the ABC or give it away simply because what it reports does not agree with your own preciously held biases and prejudices?

I think that it is for that very reason the ABC should remain in public ownership."

The ABC is NOT free; it costs over a $billion PA and its real cost is that it promotes hard left issues such as AGW which cost the community many more $billions.

The ABC is also not free in access; it gives NO venue for AGW sceptics or those who recognise that the boat people are fakes and Islamic opportunists.

The ABC also distorts the public discourse by subreption. If it does not want to cover an important issue like Gillard's potential criminality or her association with Union corruption it won't. It also ignores the continual idiocy and destructiveness of the Greens, that traitorous bunch of recycled communists and prima donna parasites.

There are plenty of commercial outlets which cater for the leftie side of society such as all of Fairfax and many of the television outlets particularly 7 and 10 despite the horror of having Reinhardt as a part owner.

If lefties want the ABC they can pay for it

The anti ABC brigade are saying, that the ABC should only broadcast right wing propaganda, the ghosts of the German third Reich must be clapping in glee.
Wonder what Newman former chairman of the ABC, and now advisor to Abbott would say.

" The anti ABC brigade are saying, that the ABC should only broadcast right wing propaganda, the ghosts of the German third Reich must be clapping in glee."

What a stupid thing to say.

What I'm saying is a highly politicised publically funded broadcaster, continually in breach of its Charter should no longer be publically funded.

Anyway any idiot who resorts to the highly offensive, Nazi comparison, Godwins Law, is so witless they must be an ABC supporter.

"The anti ABC brigade are saying, that the ABC should only broadcast right wing propaganda..."

More misrepresentation and diversion.

The anti-ABC brigade are saying nothing of the sort. They're saying the ABC should be abolished, that there is no way it can be anything but biased, that it is in fact biased, that this is unfair to those forced to pay for the propagation of political and moral opinions they find offensive and disagree with, that there's no justification for it, and why don't its supporters pay for it themselves?

Notice the complete inability of any of the ABC supporters, like the ABC, to give a fair and balanced representation of anything they don't agree with, or to give any justification for its existence? It's exactly this kind of fallacious state-worship that it spreads in the population.

The case against it is no different from the case against state support of a particular religion. There is simply no reason why government should be supporting the propagation of what can only be contentious, divisive, and partisan opinions.

It should be abolished now.

The Navy would not do cruel burnings to refugee hands, of course they wouldn't, they hand out lollypops to welcome them on board, when o when has any Navy, Army or Airforce been trained not to inflict cruelty, I remember running with a 303 rifle above my head for 30 minutes, and I was not a refugee, of course they do.