Marko,

I agree that people should be allowed to express their views. However, there should be limits for certain things such as the distribution of child porn, or the calls for others to commit crimes, particularly violent crimes. For example people can express their opinion for example that rape or jihad should not be a crime, but

Remember also that freedom of speech does not guarantee access to mass media, and it also includes the right to remove oneself from discussions.

Remember also that freedom of speech does not guarantee access to mass media,

But the Media lap it up. It sell papers & Air Time on TV.

Shadow Minister: and it also includes the right to remove oneself from discussions.

Yes, there is that right. The "I don't want to talk about it. I might have to think." attitude is something I don't understand.

Shadow Minister: For example people can express their opinion for example that rape or jihad should not be a crime,

Yes they can & a discussion ensures. The call for people to "commit" Rape or Jihad is a different story, that should be a criminal offence. (I thought it was already.)

Thanks Marko,

I didn't know this:

Noam Chomsky, another noted anarchist activist, observed that "with regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards."

And I didn't think I would ever agree with Chomsky, but there you go. But he could have bracketed 'Stalinist/fascist/Islamist standards.'

Isn't it strange, that the opportunist left defend a tyrd like Mallah, and his right to free speech, but condemn Andrew Bolt for a lot less, for being a lot more accurate ?

I suppose, whatever works as a stick up the @rse of (a) Abbott and/or (b) the neo-liberal, capitalist system. [I was about to insert 'patriarchal' in there, but I realised that opportunist left 'feminists' are going very easy on 'patriarchal' when it comes to Islamists these days.]

So what are the limits of free speech ? Does it include the right to lie about other groups, to offend, to insult, [draw your own line in the sand], to humiliate, to incite against, to attack, to urge violence against ........

Where is YOUR line in the sand, dear reader ?

Joe

Yes Loudmouth the left hate Bolt because he often exposes the fraudulent and dishonest nature of their arguements and dogmas. Bill Shorten will now be credited with and made a hero for his turning back the boats policy.

Joe

Good question – very few of us who think we support free speech actually support unlimited free speech. These are my lines in the sand:

1) Defamation: lies told about a person that can cause material harm to them(under Australian law truth is not necessarily a defence against slander/libel, but I think it should be)

2) Incitement to violence.

3) Pornography involving children or violence.

I’d add two qualifiers.

Organisations have the right to impose restrictions on their members or employees to the extent their public pronouncements affect the organisation’s interests. You can't be head of the Boy Scout movement and use your Facebook page to advocate paedophilia.

Simply because saying something is legal doesn’t mean it is acceptable or can be said without sanction. Racism, sexism, Islamism are wrong, even if speaking them is not illegal. These are social evils and should be met with social, not legal, sanctions.

runner: Bill Shorten will now be credited with and made a hero for his turning back the boats policy.

Be careful here. Have a close look at what he actually said & you'll find that all is not what it seems.

Cutting to the quick. He intimated that turning back the boats was one of the possibilities the Labor Party will look at. He did say that it "would" be Policy.

Never jump to conclusions on anything a Politician says.

Smarmey B@$t@rd$!