The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

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 27/7/2015

Many 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.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
There is no reason why a public (i.e. a group of people) should be forced to tolerate offensive behaviour in their public arena, including verbal.

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.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 27 July 2015 6:45:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well worth the read. Thank you to the author.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 27 July 2015 11:52:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Free speech is a myth! The media and political system start a debate where shock jocks criticise who ever first made a statement.
Average poorly educated to believe what they're told people are often too busy to care past using shock jocks as an entertaining distraction. Most pretend debateable topics have nothing to do with citizens day to day concerns. Shock jock ravings are federal issues, boat people, political embarrassments. Emotionally decided, simply easy to understand prompted to scan memories' people will feel smart, to many people of the often repeated topics up for debate.
Too much pretend free speech blocks any thinking of real free speech topics like; world over population; investment companies crashing every so often. Why banks need foreign investment when banks have savings money going nowhere, instead banks don't lend money, banks lend bank cheques. Bank cheques deposited in other banks becomes another credit needing interest, allowing more capital to be leant.
Posted by steve101, Tuesday, 28 July 2015 12:40:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy