>"Silence isn't golden when it comes to free speech
This trend to silence opposing views and then cluster around shared beliefs is not only worrying, it may ultimately weaken our own understanding of an issue."

I agree totally.

The blocking of debate by the Left that the Left doesn't approve of is a really serious issue. here's some examples:

Blocking the establishment of the Australian Concensus Centre in the UWA business School because it was to be set up by Bjorn Lomborg (whom the Left hate)

Un Skeptical Science blocking and deleting comments by climate rationalists

ABC, Fairfax media and many other Left leaning media outlets blocking and censoring much that is not approved by the Left and acting as propaganda agents for the Left

Universities encouraging hate preachers to come to Australia and preach their hate on the basis it is freedom of speech.

Then blocking people from coming and waning Australian's us of the - e.g. Geert Wilders

Branding climate rationalists and sceptics as ":Deniers" of the Left's religiouss belief in "Catastrophic Climate Change"

The Left hate free speech (except of course to spread their Marxist propoganda)

There's no point me wasting more time on this. Others can provide better examples

What an excellent and very timely article!

>To wit: disagreement with my personal moral and political persuasions
> (and those, presumably, of most people I know) should be illegal. No
>debate to see here, folks; all other viewpoints have been defined off
>the cliff-edge as bigoted, small-minded, and dangerous.

The only problem is that people who believe this will never, ever admit it.

The UWA 'affair is perhaps the most agregious recent example of the VERRY issue you discuss here. I am truly appalled at this event and consider a democratic government, founded on the principle of free speech has every justification to withhold all taxpayer funds from the institution in question. Can an 'institution' be 'bigoted'? The UWA is truly a bigoted organisation.

There still should be boundaries on what people can say, because some things just aren't relevant. But to enter a comment for debate, on issues pertinent to a healthy society in which we all live, should be open. We don't have to agree, but wisdom cannot not be ignored.

Longy whilst I agree in principle with your point I don't agree in application. When we allow government or others to decide what is relevant or allowed in speech it all to readily morphs into the blocking of contrary views.

It's not a clear cut issue though, encouraging others to violence is in my view little different to doing the violence. Spreading lies about another to hurt them is a form of violence but it also gives a foothold to those who would censor to protect their own views.

One of the points those who would shut down opposing views by force is that sometimes the shoe is on the other foot and it's their own views that may be the ones censored.

R0bert

Peter Lang may have been taken in by the deceitful behavior of George W Bush and the USA fossil fuel industry.

Law Professor Mary Wood's excellent book Nature's Trust (Chapter 2) provides documentary support for her claims that the fossil fuel industry's own scientists stated to the industry "leaders" in 1995 that carbon dioxide was causing the earth's surface temperature to rise and was therefore a risk to human well-being.

Public trust law from the times of the Institutes of Justinian holds that key resources as "res communes" are owned by all. The Institutes state that, "By the law of nature these things are common to mankind - the air, running water, the seas and consequently the shores of the sea."

I wonder if the silly belief that Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy allows Australian citizens to be deprived of the benefits of public trust laws that can be used to the advantage of this and future generations in countries such as the USA, India, Philippines, South Africa and other democracies where the sovereignty which allows elected representatives to govern is recognized as being a grant from the voters, that is the citizens.

This article seems like a thinly veiled plea for the tolerance of religious views in particular.

The problem with religious views is that they are unique insofar as those who adhere to them place themselves outside of the society. All other topics that are discussed are discussed according to logic and reason. Facts are obtained arguments are put forward on the basis of those facts and a logical conclusion should be the result. People do not always agree on the facts and do not always argue logically and it can take a lot of discussion to come to some agreeable action but that is how we co-exist as a society. Even religious people accept this in most areas of their life.

Religious people do not however act according to reason and logic in many areas. Not only do they not act reasonably they openly declare that they do not have to because they act according to what God, the Bible, the Koran or the Holy Spirit tells them. They do not agree that reason and logic are necessarily the way forward and when their views are challenged as illogical they declare that their views are a matter of faith and the only reason you do not agree with them is because you lack faith in God, the Bible etc.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot place yourself outside of the ways of everyone else in society and then complain when others do not accept your views. This is the price you pay for your faith. You have decided to exempt yourself from society you have not been alienated – it is your own choice.

It is no surprise that some suggest religious views should be ignored since they are not intended to engage but to dictate. We should not respond to them as if they are meant to be a contribution to a better society. A better society is inclusive and not exclusive. However, religious people should have the right to express those views but that does not mean we have to listen to them.

The first comment referred to those on the left as being against free speech. Free speech is not a right or left issue. Unfortunately, often those with different views are characterised as all alike.

Those who have some views that may be called rightist may be either for or against free speech. Those who have some views that may be called leftist may be either for or against free speech.

Demonising those who say what we don't want to hear is an offense against free speech.

Tribalism when we lived in separate tribes had a virtue. It united a tribe against a common enemy. In current society we have to live with those of different tribes. Morality generally pertains to what we think of as good or bad for our tribe. That's ok as long as we are willing to accept that other tribes have a different morality and allow them to express their views.

We identify with many different tribes. One tribe is our nation. Our nation is against capital punishment. The Indonesian tribe accepts capital punishment so we get our knickers in a twist if the Indonesians execute two Australian thugs.

Orthodox Jews don't eat pig meat. That's their business. However, it would be wrong if they would demand that no one else eat pig meat. That's what we did to Indonesia.

We want or say we want free speech. If we really want it we have to allow others to say what we find offensive including their distaste for free speech.

Clearly the irony of Peter Lang's post is lost on him.

It's unfortunate the most people now have strong opinions on most things, even when they are almost completely ignorant of the facts.

I think the Irony of Peter Lang's post is lost on him.

I find it a strange that people can hold strong views on something and are largely ignorant of. People for some reason these days need to have an opinion about everything. Saying you don't fully understand, or this is want i understand/ believe is not enough for some. They need to have an opinion and will stick to it despite the facts.

Modern tech gives these fundamentalist a stronger voice then they might of had in the past. Be they religious, political or environmental.

phanto (not that this is on topic): "They do not agree that reason and logic are necessarily the way forward and when their views are challenged as illogical they declare that their views are a matter of faith and the only reason you do not agree with them is because you lack faith in God, the Bible etc.
".
This is wrong. Many scholars of the Jewish/Moslem/Christian religions (and probably other religions- I don't know much about others) spend countless hours applying logic and reason to justify their beliefs. In fact historically, many advancements in relational thinking have come from religious scholars.

For the record, in case you're wondering. Many would say that I'm an atheist in that I don't know if a god exists and I have never directly seen evidence for one. But actually, I'm more than that: for me, at the lowest level, the universe is beyond computation meaning that nothing in it has meaning or can be understood. But for everyday (not at a low level philosophical level) I follow the faith* based religion of science. I'm actually a scientist by training (science/engineering).

*PS: Oh, by-the-way, Yes! Science is a *faith* based belief system. You take some things in science on faith. Ie, you believe without any real evidence in its fundamental concepts: such as a belief in space and time (actually personally I'm very sceptical about the fundamental existence of time), and the belief that the laws of science apply consistently and constantly through the universe. Actually, even mathematics is faith based. If you have ever studied maths that you would know that it is quite arbitrary which axioms of maths you believe in or not. And further, below maths, it is even arbitrary which logical system you use to derive your theorems in (ie: you choose to use one logic/deductive system over the others that are available because you believe it's the "truth").

One can agree with most of what you say or contend?

Free speech nonetheless will only remain free if it includes a right to offend! Arguably the truth will invariably offend the bigoted or religious fanatics/flat earthers!?

I mean saying boo for sixpence, in some circumstances, could get your throat cut!

I very nearly had an eye taken out for cracking a harmless joke with a foreigner, who I once worked with, and was determined to be offended by anything English!

Thank God I'm a triple distilled Celt, (Irish Scot) I told him!

He found that extremely funny?

Moreover, one notes some are offended beyond belief, by a schoolgirl standing up for her right to an education; and just as an exercise in free speech, for which she paid for with a bullet to the brain!

The fact she survived proof positive of divine approval of her stated, but badly misrepresented female rights!

And only by those malcontent miscreants (Imran's constituents) who would withhold them, and by murdering/silencing innocents/spilling endless innocent blood!

Well if you can't bowl them out, and they refuse to retire, Imran!?
Rhrosty.

When it comes to the topic of 'Free speech', I wholeheartedly agree with what I heard Salmon Rushdie say the other night on TV, can't recall the progam's name at the moment. However I was taken by what he said about the concept of 'Free speech'..

"If you believe in free speech, then you believe in free speech that YOU DON'T LIKE"

Then he went on to say words to this effect (can't recall what he said exactly word for word) but he was implying.

'One can't expect the whole world to form to one's personal moral framework'

Sums up my own beliefs on this topic, only that Salmon said it so well, as he usually can...

Freedom of speech is under threat in Australia, and not just from the Left.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott does not really believe in freedom of speech - evidenced by his cowardly backdown on the PROMISE to remove Section 18C from the Racial Discrimination Act.

There must be no resctriction on free speech if it is to mean anything at all.

I must be a able to say what I like about anyone or anything. Others must be able to disagree with me and say what they wish to say.

Freedom of speech should not be conditional, and it certainly is not the place of elected politicians to decide who can say what.

Increasingly authoritarian Australian politicians of all persuasions are slowly but surely inching towards controlling and restricting freedom of speech to suit their identity politics and their personal electoral needs. They arrogantly say that they have to protect certain people, denying that those certain people have the same ability to speak out (putting them down, actually) and debate, thereby eventually reaching the truth, which is the whole idea of freedom of speech.

Many Australian politicians no longer respond to written questions to them, or communications criticising them. This is not merely discourtesy (which it is, and we pay the legions of staff they have to handle such correspondence): it is a way of telling us that what we believe is not important to them They are not listening.

Dear Phanto,

Thinkabit just took some of the words out of my mouth.
(Thanks, Thinkabit!)

Anyone who is serious and intelligent uses logic over facts, but facts do not tell us how to live: first we have values, then we apply logic over facts in order to forward our values.

Facts are found in nature, values are not.

Even if we had no disagreements whatsoever about facts and made no logical errors, still we will arrive at different conclusions because our values are different.

You then seem to complain about your difficulties in making a society out of people with different values, why others refuse to cooperate with what for you seems obvious - perhaps you tried to swallow a bone too large?

"perhaps you tried to swallow a bone too large?"

That is a rather arrogant thing to say. It is obviously not too large for you so why would it be too large for me unless you considered yourself more capable than me.

Having persecuted blasphemers and other dissidents for a millennium when it had the upper hand, Christianity now discovers freedom of speech! Better late than never, and I trust it includes art and Charlie Hebdo.

of course the moral relativist hate people to point out right from wrong. Usually they take up great 'moral' causes like the gw relgion. Just ask Cate Blanchett.

Dear Phanto,

The bone is indeed too large for either of us, but I have not swallowed this bone - I am vegetarian!

I have not asked to share a society with that many people of different basic values - I believe in smaller societies where membership is based on common or similar values rather than on happening to reside within some particularly large territory.

Thinkabit:

"This is wrong. Many scholars of the Jewish/Moslem/Christian religions (and probably other religions- I don't know much about others) spend countless hours applying logic and reason to justify their beliefs."

Why would they do this? If all that ultimately matters is having faith then why would you need to justify it? Either you have it or you don’t. If you can justify it then it is no longer a matter of faith but a matter of reason.

I can see what you are saying about science being initially based on faith. Of course you have to have some hunch and you hope eventually it will be proven correct but it would be silly to base your action on that hunch especially if your life depended on it. I am sure those who first experimented with electricity did not trust their safety to a hunch that could have killed them if they got it wrong. You wait until something is proven before you take risks or expect others to take risks.

People who claim religious faith not only risk their own lives and happiness but want to risk everyone else’s as well. Blowing you self to bits and dozens of others as well on the hunch that it will all work itself out in heaven is not the same as patiently working towards proving a theory to be fact.

Yuyutsu:

“The bone is indeed too large for either of us, but I have not swallowed this bone”
Well you should have said that in the first place. An apology would be more appropriate than some kind of smart alec piece of denial. Still you have no right to speak for me as to what I am capable of.

Dear Phanto,

In doing scientific experiments one is not always aware of the risks.

Marie Curie won the 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics and the 1911 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Her achievements included a theory of radioactivity (a term that she coined), techniques for isolating radioactive isotopes, and the discovery of two elements, polonium and radium. Under her direction, the world's first studies were conducted into the treatment of neoplasms, using radioactive isotopes. She founded the Curie Institutes in Paris and in Warsaw, which remain major centres of medical research today. During World War I, she established the first military field radiological centres.

She died in 1934 at the sanatorium of Sancellemoz (Haute-Savoie), France, due to aplastic anemia brought on by exposure to radiation – including carrying test tubes of radium in her pockets during research and her service during World War I in mobile X-ray units created by her.

There are other examples of scientists losing health and life as a result of their work.

A very well argued and timely article.

phanto
your simplistic misrepresentation of the relationship between religion, faith and science is a good example of the author’s concern that silencing those we disagree with makes it possible for us to “write off vast swathes of our countrymen and women as blind and bigoted”.

David f
I agree that free speech is not uniquely a left or right issue. There are those on both left and right who would happily silence dissenting views, and there are parts of both that vigorously champion free speech. But it seems to me that many of the more forceful and aggressive attempts to stifle unwelcome opinions of late have bee led by the left – witness the article by Tanya Cohen that Natasha links to (which I thought had to be a spoof when I first read it), or the attempts to silence Colonel Richard Kemp’s talk at ANU.
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2015/03/17/4199255.htm

“No platform” is most commonly a leftist slogan.

There is quite a lot of debate within the left itself about the growing shift against free speech. This article has some quite interesting views on the decline in support of free speech by the left, from within the left:

http://fredrikdeboer.com/2014/03/24/is-the-social-justice-left-really-abandoning-free-speech/

Locking people up for saying words really is a left wing thing, I've never heard a right winger calling for other people to be fined or incarcerated for saying things which rubbed them the wrong way.
The Left and the Human Rights crowd don't have any valid points to make so it's no skin of the right wingers's nose to have them screech into the void and make fools of themselves day in day out.
There are already laws to deal with incitement to violence (which in the political context again always comes from the left) and if a person makes a nuisance of themselves in public they can be dealt with under public order laws or local ordinances.
Apart from being a bunch of overly sensitive wowsers the Left love to play the man and not the ball, they always distort and misrepresent the words said by people they don't like or who may have upset them.
It's impossible to argue with someone who goes of on a tangent and never comes back, constantly moves the goal posts or who creates what they think is an unfalsifiable position, like so: http://goo.gl/jn3CrG
How do you argue with that? The Left approach every issue with "It doesn't matter what you said or what you meant,it only matters what I think you said and what I think you meant...and any way shut up because you're making me upset".
This article pokes much fun at the Left's collective personality disorders, can you "be brave" (#sobrave), take the test and look into your soul?
http://goo.gl/RW1kj0

Dear Phanto,

It was never my intention to comment about your level of ability, but about the wrongness of this "nation-building" out of people of different values.

In any case, having that ability to swallow large bones is not a virtue: Stalin managed to subjugate people of all values, including religious, living over nearly half of Euro-Asia, forcing them to become a single nation. Would you agree with me that it was not something to be proud of?

Peter Lang, some more examples:

Using the ‘homophobic’ label to ‘silence’ anyone daring to query the LGBT cause

Silencing those who question the need to hold a referendum on recognition of Aborigines in the Constitution.

Jay of Melbourne wrote: “Locking people up for saying words really is a left wing thing, I've never heard a right winger calling for other people to be fined or incarcerated for saying things which rubbed them the wrong way.”

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005686

On the night of February 27-28, 1933, a mentally disabled Dutch citizen set fire to the German parliament building (the Reichstag). Hitler and his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, presented the incident as the prelude to an armed Communist uprising and persuaded the aging President Paul von Hindenburg to establish what became a permanent state of emergency. This decree, known as the Reichstag Fire Decree, suspended the provisions of the German constitution that protected basic individual rights, including freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly.

https://freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/spain/

Before the transition to democracy, Spain’s freedom of speech was not part of the human rights under the dictatorship of Francisco Franco. The term “Francoism” refers to the period of Spanish history from 1936 to 1975 when the dictatorship of Fransisco Franco took control of Spain. A time period of censorship of journalism, free speech, and political control.

Dictatorships, whether left or right, oppose free speech. Both left and right out of power may support free speech so they can be heard. Both left and right in power suppress free speech.

Hi Jay,

"Locking people up for saying words really is a left wing thing, I've never heard a right winger calling for other people to be fined or incarcerated for saying things which rubbed them the wrong way."

Then you must not have noticed the recently drafted anti-terror legislation that makes it illegal for journalists and whistle blowers to report on covert intelligence operations - they can be jailed up to 10 years. Even if people are killed by our secret services, our media can no longer report on it.

That is the beauty of censorship - it can be the omission of facts, so most of the time you don't even know when it is happening.

Our media is so tame, they hardly said a thing about everyone's right to free speech being taken away, they were mostly focused on their own loss of press freedom.

Then you have these new employment codes of conduct and confidentiality clauses that stop people from whistleblowing.

People telling the truth are now more at risk of being thrown in gaol than those who do the actual crimes.

Eg The only CIA agent to be imprisoned over the torture scandal in the US was
a) a person who who did the torturing
b) a person who designed the torture program
c) a person who authorised the use of torture
d) a person who blew the whistle

Answer is D - CIA agent John Kiriakou was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison for blowing the whistle on the torture program. Originally he was looking at a maximum term of 35 years but he took a plea deal.

At a more local level, the same can be said for workers and refugees at the Nauru detention centre - the Nauruan government has banned Facebook on the Island.

At the end of the day, locking up people for what they say isn't limited to the left or right - it is an authoritarian thing. When ideology (extremism of any kind) is more important than people, people start to be threatened, tortured, killed and even disappeared.

David, David, David,
We all know by now that Hitler was a full blown socialist, the "Nazis were right wingers" BS doesn't fly anymore and if you're going to invoke Godwin's law then at least do it properly, the USHMM is full of misleading nonsense.
Here's a tip, always use Sophie Scholl as your example of an anti Nazi martyr, but hey, she wasn't a lefty so she was bound to get on the wrong side of the Gestapo, sadly if she'd lived the Stasi probably would have shot her anyway.
This re-enactment of her interrogation, take from the official transcript is particularly moving:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqnD_165Ow4
Hmmm, that Gestapo man sounds like your typical lefty to me.
Do we need to have "the talk' about Colonel Stauffenberg and the Conservatives again?

Bjelly, OK, I understand the leftist logic in your post, the trick is to start at the bottom and read up to the top.
For those who aren't fluent in Newspeak the politically correct way to read Bjelly's contribution is:

-Journalists may run afoul of the anti terror laws.
-Most journalists are Left wing activists.
-Therefore the terror laws must be "right wing" and their authors and sponsors "right wingers".

Sadly mate/matette the "crimes" we're talking about here aren't anywhere near as serious as treason or sedition, the Left want to jail people for manifesting and verbalising the symptoms of phobias, "Transphobia", "Islamophobia","Homophobia" etc.

Dear Jay of Melbourne,

Hitler was a full-blown socialist? What absolute rubbish!

Hi Jay,

No not all journalists are lefties - I would say most mainstream journalists are centrists or to the right - when was the last time you heard a Marxist or even Socialist voice on any subject?

I don't remember the last time I heard any anti-capitalist rhetoric in the MSM.

Is there any debate that the Abbott government is of the far right? They have done a good job of working their way through the IPA wishlist.

The anti-terror laws that limit free speech aren't limited to journalists, they apply to all of us. If anyone says something about covert operations, even badly botched ones, they can be locked up for a very long time. And there is no public interest test - Senator Xenophon tried to add this ammendment, but it was rejected.

There are plenty of right wing dictatorships that have locked up and killed dissenters.

Pinochet's Chile,
South Africa under Apartheid
Marcos' Philipines
Suharto's Indonesia

Yes, their left wing equivalents are just as bad or even worse - Many millions died under Stalin and Mao - they were evil regimes.

Jay you are welcome to your opinions, but you can't make up your own facts.

Jay,

If Hitler was such a raving pinko lefty, why did he imprison trade unionists, socialists and communists as political prisoners? In my experience, lefties are really big fans of solidarity. Wouldn't a socialist dictator have imprisoned all the fascists as political prisoners instead of the socialists?

Those who say censorship isn't a left right issue are correct, in a longitudinal sense. The right has been into it in the past as much as the left. But in Australia today the left is a bigger danger for free speech than the right.

Most of those who are active on the right these days are libertarians and classical liberals, and we actually believe what we say about rights, like freedom of speech.

When I was younger there were people on the left who fought for free speech, like the various civil liberties councils. But when I was not so young it appeared it wasn't free speech at all, but their own views. They don't come out when people they don't agree with are persecuted.

The left today is so sure it is right that there is no need to hear alternative views. That is a problem, because the left today is just as wrong as it ever was, but more numerous.

Invoking Hitler in this debate is a bit pointless, but suggesting the National Socialist Party wasn't a socialist party is a good argument for free speech. You should be able to say stupid and offensive things, and people should be able to challenge you.

Tony,
Stalin also persecuted fellow Socialists and adopted nationalistic rhetoric when it suited him, the German Right, the Wehrmacht leadership in particular were always under suspicion and lived under the spectre of a purge by Hitler's faction, in fact Hitler was prevented on many occasions from following in Stalin's footsteps and whacking generals left right and centre.
You only have to look at the situation in Dachau before the war and Buchenwald during the hostilities where fanatical German Communists basically ran the system inside the wire and "Right Wing" prisoners, conservatives, clergy, Jehovahs witnesses, conscientious objectors and such like were murdered, raped and mercilessly tortured. In fact homosexuals arrested under paragraph 175 had a better rate of survival in the camps than conservatives.
Hitler treated German communists the way Stalin treated the United Opposition (more leniently if we're honest), it's all perfectly consistent with the real world character of Socialism and you can't wish it away or get carried away with revisionism.

What this article seems to be arguing is that any form of speech that does not conform to a certain prevailing consensus of what is right should be criminalised.

Most individuals have an opinion on most things. For example, I abhor extremist anti-abortion rhetoric, but I also believe that arguments regarding pro-life concerns about abortion are valid and have a right to be heard. I also believe in a person's right to challenge the Holocaust and other 'genocides' such as Srebrenica and Rwanda, and how they are used for political purposes. I also believe in smokers' rights - why should people trapped with an addiction be ostracised and made to suffer?

I have also been subjected to horrendous personal abuse, on this and other forums, for voicing any opinion that has a feminist orientation. However, what good would it do to outlaw those who dish out the abuse? It doesn't make me any more 'right' than they are.

On this basis, some of my beliefs would be deemed criminal in the author's eyes and others deemed an expression of my freedom of speech.

The article also fails to account for how the prevailing consensus on what is right is often manipulated by controlling interests. The fact that I am a feminist does not make me immune from seeing how feminism has been used by the powers that be to disintegrate the family unit to create more consumers and cheap female labour. Outlawing hate speech against feminists does not do me or feminism any favours.

Certainly, some belief systems, if they get out of hand, can lead to widespread violence and destruction. However, this only tends to happen when society has already reached some kind of breaking point - massive poverty, financial and/or political failure, revolution or war ... to name a few.

Advocating the criminalisation of certain opinions while we still have a reasonably functioning society is the real 'slippery slope' we should be avoiding at all costs. In these uncertain times of financial chaos, increasing social inequality and environmental breakdown, the author's advocacy is bordering on dangerous.

Oh, dear! Mea culpa.

My apologies to Natasha Moore. My references to 'the author' in my above comment were regarding the article the Natasha linked to, not to Natasha's article itself - which I mainly agree with.

There is something that is worse than censoring opposing views and that is censoring the truth.

Our government is doing this in the name of national security.

I self censored in a previous post as I knew of a case where an injunction was placed on the press last year to ensure the Australian people did not find out the truth about allegations of wrongdoing involving the Reserve Bank.

I didn't mention it as I was afraid of getting charged with an offense, but I found this story on Media Watch so I expect their legal people ran their eyes over it so it should be safe to share this link.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4060715.htm

The above link has some conversations of journalists trying to figure out what they can and can't report about the case - it makes for unsettling reading in a supposedly free society.

So all this hoo haa about whether or not we can call each other names - get real - let's treat each other with dignity and respect, and you won't have any problems - I'm curious as to why we need to fight for the right to humiliate or denigrate others based on things they can't control like their race, gender, sexual orientation. If someone is an idiot, then we can still call them an idiot, just not a racial/religious/sexual orientation slur idiot.

However, I can see how it is politically useful to free up people to use hateful speech - it increases social divisions and tensions, it creates opportunities to grow the hatred of others - and get the cycle of discord started.

Also,if we are talking about this we aren't talking about the real loss of free speech that is happening - the ability to tell the truth about abuses in the system.

I'm totally against criminal sanctions for those holding minority views, apart from the usual limits of not inciting hatred etc. I want people to be free to voice opposing views, but is it so very wrong to ask people to speak the truth, and not make up cr@p?

Dear Graham Y,

I think it is a matter of perception rather than reality that the left is more against free speech than the right. Most people in Australia are ostensibly for free speech, and many if not most tend to think they are more virtuous than those who have different views. If one considers him or herself to be on the right one is likely to see those on the left as enemies of free speech. If one considers him or herself to be on the left one is likely to see those on the right as enemies of free speech. You obviously have a great respect for freedom of speech so it is natural for you to assume that those who have your point of view in other matters also have a great respect for freedom of speech.

I think there are enemies of free speech on both left and right and know of no objective study which could establish where the greater danger to free speech lies. I doubt if such a study could even be made without incorporating the biases of those who made the study.

Hitler was relevant since a poster contended that the right always supported free speech. The authoritarian right, like the authoritarian left, opposes free speech. The non-authoritarian right and the non-authoritarian left may vigourously support free speech.

However, those on the right try to disown Hitler as those on the left try to disown Stalin.

Hitler was no socialist. When he took power he left the capitalist enterprises not owned by race enemies alone and did not interfere with private property. A socialist would have nationalised the means of production. Hitler would have quite happy for communists of the ‘correct’ racial background to become Nazis. His concern was race - not class. Out of power the Nazis had a leftwing branch which they used to appeal to the working class. After Hitler took power he purged the leftwing Nazi leaders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives tells of that purge in which he murdered leaders of the party’s socialist element as well as conservative anti-Nazis.

Dear BJelly,

<<There is something that is worse than censoring opposing views and that is censoring the truth.>>

There is something that is worse than censoring the truth and that is the truth itself.

Suppose, as in the film "The Invention of Lying", the government could not help but tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth: "Our purpose is to pull out and burn the intestines of anyone who won't serve us" - would it be of any help?

Why should it matter what the government says or doesn't? nobody believes them anyway, nor can anyone do anything about them anyway!

Hi Yuyustu,

I recognize the need for government to have some secrecy. I don't want to know everything that it does, but surely it shouldn't be illegal to report on government or corporate wrong doing and corruption?

This June will mark 800 years since the Magna Carta was signed. Our PM loves his Knights and Dames, but somehow I think he will be less enthusiastic about celebrating a legal document that supported the idea of the presumption of innocence, and Habeaus Corpus,- both these have been diminished under recent so called anti-terror legislation and our treatment of boatpeople held in indefinite detention, including approximately 50 Sri Lankan refugees held indefinitely due to secret negative ASIO assessments.

You aren't curious about what the government is hiding from us and why?

I can't say too much more as I am afraid of being charged, but the story I alluded to in my previous post isn't about real national security - check out the link to the Media Watch story - I'm not saying any more about it.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4060715.htm

Libertarian Senator Leyonhejelm said this:

This year the Magna Carta has its 800th anniversary. It is appropriate to speak in this place of its central importance to our liberal democratic heritage. ... I have berated both the government and the opposition for their failure to uphold it. Liberty, to a classical liberal, is absolutely fundamental. The attacks on liberty in the national security legislation take two forms. First, they constrain freedom of speech—I have spoken and written about this a lot—particularly when it comes to freedom of the press. Second, they destroy liberty by undermining the rule of law. In civilised societies, liberty dies without law. ... the idea that no-one is above the law—not the king, not his minister’s, not the Church. ... There is no special ‘parliamentary pass’

Dear BJelly,

<<but surely it shouldn't be illegal to report on government or corporate wrong doing and corruption?>>

Of course it shouldn't, but I'm bothered by more practical issues that affect ordinary people rather than just journalists: it shouldn't for example be illegal to ride a bicycle without wearing a pot over one's head!

<<You aren't curious about what the government is hiding from us and why?>>

What difference would it make? They exist in order to harm us, so would it make any difference if they started doing it overtly rather than covertly?

As for that joke, "the rule of law", everyone knows that it's them who make the laws! All this nonsense about "Magna Carta", "democracy" and the illusion of differences-between-Labor-and-Liberals is just propaganda and as part of it they even allow Senator Leyonhjelm some leash to bark at them since they know he cannot bite - the rulers create the law in order to rule over and oppress us and other than talking, nothing real in that regard has changed from the times of Cromwell.

Hi Yuyutsu,

"What difference would it make? They exist in order to harm us, so would it make any difference if they started doing it overtly rather than covertly?"

You may be right about that - but I'm not quite ready to believe it just yet. But if things keep going the way they are, I may stop feeling free to make comments critical of the secret services, and the government - I'm already nervous about it if I'm honest.

You are right about the "rule of law" there has always been one rule for people who can afford lawyers and those who can't. But it is getting worse, and that is not a good thing.

Point of order, David F.

China today allows free enterprise, but it still has a Socialist government.

Germany under Hitler also allowed free enterprise, but it still had a Socialist government.

The primary difference between Stalin's Socialism and Hitler's Socialism, was that the Russian Socialists demanded that all Socialist parties throughout the world be subject to Russian control. Hitler was a nationalist and he would not allow Germans to be subject to the Kremlin's will. Same for China. The big split between China and the USSR occurred in the 70's when the Chinese refused to be subject Socialists to the Kremlin.

Like the German Socialists of the National Socialist German Workers (Nazi) Party, the Chinese Socialists are nationalists first.

Josef Broz Tito was a Socialist who also allowed free enterprise within Yugoslavia. He refused demands by Stalin to make Yugoslavia part of the Warsaw pact and be subject to Soviet control because like the Germans and the Chinese, he was a nationalist. When the Soviets moved forces to invade Yugoslavia, Tito promised Stalin that he would give him twenty years of war. Stalin backed off.

Sorry, but however much you lefties hate the idea, Hitler was one of your own.

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJYHCUM8QNs
How Adolf Hitler Destroyed Germany | George Reisman and Stefan Molyneux
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BfuEFSI3w0

LEGO, Exactly right, the German communists were directed from Moscow and led by Bolshevik Jews and they were running amok in Germany, carrying out assassinations, rioting, and all the usual Left wing sabotage, arson and intimidation of the population. Hitlerian socialism had a Nordicist character as you'd expect while the Soviet Union,the PRC,DPRK,Kampuchea and Vietnam all have an Asiatic character. Marx and Engels definitely envisioned a Nordicist brand of Socialism for Europe and from a purely practical point of view Hitler was correct in putting down the Asiatic, Jewish led Bolshevism in Germany as it threatened to destroy not only the nation but the German people.Hitler believed, as did many Socialists of that era in an organic "natural socialism" dormant within the German race and that under the leadership of the party and the Germanic (Aryan)Herrenvolk he could promise Europeans an eternal Socialist paradise. Sadly like all Socialist demagogues Hitler was wrong but what exacerbated the situation was his declining health, in late 1940 Hitler was diagnosed with atherosclerosis, he was dying and he was beginning to endure the dementia like symptoms, the palsy, the vison problems etc so he simply sped up the program, bet all his chips at once and lost, end of story.

phanto: (again this is not on topic- but the thread is dead anyway)
You appear to have missed the point I was trying to make about science being a religion. At the foundational level there are things that you just believe to be true: it is not a case of assuming something before you gather enough evidence to support your case. These things can not be "tested" at all. I previously gave you the example of the belief that the laws of physics holdout throughout the universe: you can never prove this, to prove it you would have to conduct experiments in every single instant of space which is obviously an impossibility. The other example I gave is the belief that time really does exist: actually some physicists don't believe this tenet, they are therefore practising a different version of the religion. There are also other foundational beliefs, such as the beliefs invoked in the answer to the question of whether the universe is computable- specifically, "Is it at its lowest level governed by mathematical laws*".

Now, once you've established and believe the foundational doctrine of beliefs associated with your version of science, it is possible build hypotheses on top of it that can be accepted or rejected by evidence. This evidence is gathered and analysed in a systematic way-- this is "doing" part of science, ie, applying the scientific method. Of course, the hypotheses proposed which are acceptable and the existence of/along with the permissible ways to analyse the evidence are only allowed/accepted/performed if they accord with the fundamental beliefs.

*This question to me is the most profound question ever asked by mankind. There are way greater than questions such as our quibbles over whether a god exists or not-- these other questions cannot even be formed meaningfully for rational discussion until you determine your position on the universe's computability. For me, I believe that the universal is non-computable (ie: it cannot be emulated on a Turing machine).

Dear Thinkabit,

While the belief in science is irrational, that doesn't qualify it as a religion.

(that is not to deny that there are individuals whom science benefits as part of their spiritual path)

I agree that the question about God's existence is childish and also tend to agree that the universe is non-computable, but I am curious as to why you consider this, of all questions, to be the most profound?

Yuyutsu: I'm not saying that science is irrational. It is actually the opposite that holds- it is very rational. Scientists routinely make logical arguments to derive conclusions.
I also say that it is a religion, because:
1) its foundational statements have to be believed on faith,
2) it has a central dogma (there are some variations among the different versions of science but within the participants of given version there is substantial agreement on dogma)
3) it has social organizational structures and is a community endeavour not just a personal belief system,
4) lastly, various branches of it make statements about how we should live our lives (eg: ethics of laboratory animal experiments, environmental statements, ethics of psychological experiments, etc). Admittedly you may say that this is not central/necessary for science, but the reality is that in the way that it is actually practised this is what happens.

So I say science is a religion heavily based on rational argument.

In general, many religion incorporate rational arguments. However, just because an argument is rationally sound and valid doesn't necessarily convince me to believe it. To explain why this is, I have to I first need to explain what a logic and deductive system is (sorry if you know all this already, but I really have no idea what you know about logic arguments).
In the modern sense pure logic is just rules that govern how to make proper (well formed) sentences written with symbols that belong to the logic. A deductive system are rules that allow one group of these sentences to be followed by another. The very first group of sentences is called the premise and after one or more uses of the deductive rules the very last group of sentences produced is called the conclusion. We say/state that the deductive system controls how some property changes for each application of a deductive rules and overall from the initial premise to the final conclusion (normally the change of property is that it doesn't, ie. it is maintained/preserved).
--continued--

--continued--
These properties are usually something like "truth" or "provability" or such (most usually is it "truth").
When we present either a single, or a repeated application of these deductive rules as a whole, this is what is called an argument. When we make an rational argument concerning some abstract concepts and/or parts of reality, we give these logic sentences semantic meaning.
Finally, we say that these arguments are "valid and sound" when the applications of the rules was done properly and the premises are "true" with-respect-to the universe of your semantics.
(Note that the above is a very, very rough, fast and loose/vague overview, you should consult the internet for a thorough explanation)

Some questions that naturally arise for any given argument or attempt at an argument are:
- do I even care about it -- eg: if you present me with an argument that the 100 billionth digit in the decimal expansion of pi is 7, I'm not going to read it. I really cannot care less.
-which logic/deductive system is being used and why,
-what are the inherent limits of this combination and do they effect what we are trying to achieve-- eg, are there logic sentences that we would like to make that cannot be made/derived within this framework
-is the argument valid,
-do we understand what the logic statements mean, ie, what are the argument's semantics.
-is the argument sound. This includes issues such as if it is meant to be about reality, does the argument's reality equate with mine, if not in which ways does it differ.
-with respect to its given semantics what are its limitations-- eg: are there some meanings you would like to have but the semantics just can't capture it properly
-what happens when we try to use other logic/deductive systems to construct something similar.

The reason why the answers to these questions are very pertinent is because to be convinced that an argument works for their reality most people have to:
-have a care about it in the first place
-agree that the argument is about their reality

--continued--
-believe that the aspects of reality dealt with can actually be analysed through logic computation
-agree that the logic/deductive system used was an appropiate choice and that the semanics it uses can express the meaning that people are claming it does
-accept that the argument is "valid and sound" and that some property (usually "truth) was perserved during argument.

So, if asking "Do religious scholars make rational arguments that are valid and sound about their belief systems?". They certain do try and many times they do succeed. However, when you propose the above questions for a given argument to people you can get many different answers: which means that many times, even when someone agrees that argument is "valid and sound" it still does not convince them.

Here is an example- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJv7s0eytMM (start 10:00): this guy is a Muslim blindly reciting a Christian’s modern version of an old Islamic scholar's take on an ancient Greek argument for the proof of the existence of god. This argument appears to be using the old Aristotelian classical logic and uses the law of excluded middle, eg. he uses the law when he says that there can only be either nothing or something. So even if the argument is was valid and sound, if you believe that a logic which doesn't have excluded middle rule was appropriate to use (such as intuitionistic logic ), then you would not be convinced of this argument. (Personally, I don't think it's sound anyway due to the semantics involved- an example of this is that he is makes a rather grand assumptions that the receiver of the argument has a similar notion of causation as him. His reality is different from mine)

Dear Thinkabit,

You mentioned 4 properties of science which are to be similar to religion, briefly: "faith", "dogma", "organisational" and "instructive".

I agree that science has the first three, but not the fourth (science does not dictate any ethics because no "good" or "bad" are found in nature).
I agree that religion incorporates the first and fourth, but not the second and third (which just often happen to attach themselves around religion and even tend to stifle it).

What is left in my view is therefore just one out of these 4 properties in common (faith), which is incidental and insufficient for calling science a religion.

What I consider an even more important difference, is that science misses what religion is all about - it doesn't bring us closer to God. In fact, it tends to increase our interest in the world and by that it even tends to distract us away from God. There are exceptions of course, such as Einstein seeing God in the workings of the world (but by that he didn't believe in some long-bearded old man on the clouds).

Thank you for the explanations about logic: I have learned it in university many years ago.

Not only are you not obliged to be convinced by deductive rational arguments, but I even think that it would be detrimental from a religious point of view:

When one is compelled to believe because it appears to be logically correct, this kills faith! In fact, we could then say that they have faith in logic and the set of assumptions, rather than in the conclusion itself, which they reluctantly accept.

Religion comprises of a full transformation of character - it's not an intellectual quiz, such as "if you can recite the 100 billionth digit of Pi (or spell God's name correctly), then you go to heaven"...