The Forum > Article Comments > The freedom and fetter of the right of free speech > Comments
The freedom and fetter of the right of free speech : Comments
By John de Meyrick, published 27/7/2015Many of the cases brought under Australian law give rise to controversy over the right of free speech and to the degree that is thought reasonable and justified in restricting that right in the interests of public good.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
-
- All
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 27 July 2015 6:45:39 AM
| |
A man's home is his castle, but even there are some restrictions on what we can do legally; we can't scream abusive obscene invective from our front yard at passers by just because their skin color or ethnic origins may be personally unacceptable!?
When it comes to our utterances in public, by word or print; it must still pass the reasonable person test; and or, the Grandmother test and be obscenity free! Albeit that seems to change with every generation some of who deprived of the deleted expletive, would be limited to, duh, but, you um ah, old loud passage of wind? And how else could a fornicating fornicator be anything else than a fornicator? Although it's completely untrue that I do any of that with my face, and will not answer to that nomenclature! Could that be belabouring the point of what is offensive speech somewhat? And given the treasurer seems to be not alone in accepting election fighting donations, how was he damaged by the headlines! I thought he'd need to prove them untrue? Even so there needs to be further limits and complete transparency! I mean, what can be possibly wrong with having the very best democracy money can buy; given we seem to be following America in so many ways; including becoming the most litigious people on the planet? Rhrosty. Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 27 July 2015 11:25:36 AM
| |
The question of whether or not a person is hurt or harmed is completely irrelevant if the person or organisation accused of wrongdoing was simply telling the truth.
We should be grateful when the mainstream media tells the truth. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/treasurer-for-sale-joe-hockey-offers-privileged-access-20140504-zr06v.html What if the headline was "Politicians for Sale"? Would that have been wrong then? How could the article have been written to convey the information but not defame the Treasurer? Could the article have even been written at all? In which case was the crime simply writing the article? All politicians ever do is sit around finding ways to get a piece of other peoples money. I accept the right to free speech. This means I accept the right of others to express opinions I don't like or agree with. Should be really make laws that make it a criminal offense if you hurt someone else's feelings? Where does that path lead? Does the right to free speech include the right to insult? What happens if we start making it a crime? This whole argument of the right to free speech v's hurting individuals feelings is a slippery slope. Rhosty, I hope you're joking about having the best democracy money can buy. Posted by Armchair Critic, Monday, 27 July 2015 1:13:36 PM
| |
Dear Rhrosty,
<<we can't scream abusive obscene invective from our front yard at passers by>> Well you could, but it would be immoral because by sending such undesirable sound-waves you would be hurting others. I am not concerned whether this is legal or otherwise according to the dictates of that group of people who call themselves "the state" - I simply know that it is wrong to do so. --- Dear Critic, <<The question of whether or not a person is hurt or harmed is completely irrelevant if the person or organisation accused of wrongdoing was simply telling the truth.>> Not so. The foundation and first step of religion are the restraints and the very first spiritual restraint (Yama) is non-violence (Ahimsa). Truth-telling (Satyam) only comes second, so one should not utter the truth if it hurts others and if one is unable to tell the truth without hurting, then one should remain silent. Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 27 July 2015 4:22:15 PM
| |
The idea that intolerance is the cause of war is
a lie in the first place. It should be taught in our schools, if the desire is to teach what is factual, is the stated aim, that In fact wars are over the control of land, countries And territorial resources. Intolerance and racism are only a symptom of the deadly Underlying hostility of biological,bloodline territorial warfare. Territorial attacks,not terrorist attacks if factually you wished To be more accurate. But then this particular,historical fact and freedom of speech would be cried down in Absolute outrage if you tried to teach this at any school in The world. Especially in Australia or Europe. It goes against the love and peace,multicultural Idealism being taught in our schools. It is an ideology not based on fact. Posted by CHERFUL, Monday, 27 July 2015 11:24:54 PM
| |
Well worth the read. Thank you to the author.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 27 July 2015 11:52:22 PM
|
One should have full autonomy and be able not only to say, but also to do whatever they want on their own property - and had this indeed been the case, then one would have no need to step out of their property and scream out their anguish in the public arena (this being the original rationale for "free speech"). If one was free to live their life uninterrupted on their own premises, then they should not complain about being restricted, including verbally, when they voluntarily leave it.