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.