bigot
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots
A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

I believe I have every right to be a bigot in today's upside down world and I don't care what anyone else says or thinks.
That means I have the right to call out dumb stuff when I see it, and I don't HAVE to stand there and nod my head like a good little lapdog buying into a whole heap of crap someone else is spouting if I don't want to.
It means I am allowed to think for myself and offer the constructive criticism of calling someone else an idiot if I believe they demonstrate those traits.

Rhian, so you advocate for tolerating intolerant people who intend to rape, kill or steal from you?

Cobber the hound, so you advocate for tolerating intolerant people who intend to rape, kill or steal from your wife or sister?

JBowyer, you could be onto something, i think we used to call it the white Australia policy.

plantagenet, a private enterprise economy does not need a growing population but a stable or sustainable one.

LEGO, prior to 1967 we had a system for protecting children from the evil you speak of & it was called censorship. What is wrong with suppressing corporate pedophilia? What is wrong with protecting a culture that has achieved perfection? In 1984 i met the architect of censorship's destruction & he was already regretting it after seeing the depravity unleashed on the land of OZ.

Jaye, Tyler the Creator, is not misogynist. Why should the supposed free speech of men to advocate violence against women trump women's rights to dignity, justice and equality? A, that is exactly the point made by the article, leftist liars like you have been protecting real islamic misogyny while making false claims of misogyny against decent men & using that as an excuse for suppressing free speech, it is called hypocrisy.

Zoo Weekly died because it did not have enough naked flesh, other mags that do are still alive, well & available everywhere.

plantagenet, spot on, the mid 1950s was when the Hollywood nightmare factory degeneration began in earnest.

Killarny, sounds easy when you say it fast but that is not what Jaye was defending.

Armchair Critic, absolutely correct, politically IN-correct.

What do we have to fear from letting people enter the country who have such bizarre ideas? Having an opinion is not the same as taking action. If they break the law whilst in this country then they should be punished accordingly but expressing an opinion is not breaking the law.

There are probably many people in Australia who share the views of these extremists but they do not express them or do not have a big enough platform to be heard. Should they be rounded up and interrogated for suspect ideas? An idea is not the same as action either. Are thought police the next thing?

Who is to be the judge of which ideas cannot be expressed in speech? It is an impossible thing to decide because it is so subjective. If those people act in such a way that causes harm to others then they should be dealt with. Harm such as violence can be seen and is not a subjective thing. The burden of proof must remain our guiding principle and value. There is no proof that allowing someone to speak causes harm.

The whole notion that vilification, incitement and hate speech should not be tolerated takes us into dangerous waters. If we stop differentiating between what is said and what is done then anyone is liable for prosecution.

Where does responsibility lie if you claim you have been incited to act by the speech of another? No one can make you do what you do not want to do. People have gone to their death rather than give in to tyrants and extremists. If you are not prepared to stand up for your beliefs then they were never that important in the first place.

We have the option to ignore what extremists say or simply not attend their speeches. Are we so insecure that we cannot let these people enter our country because of their views? What message does that send to the rest of the world about our values and maturity as a nation

Imacentristmoderate

You say

“so you advocate for tolerating intolerant people who intend to rape, kill or steal from you?”

Of course not. All of those things are illegal, and should remain so. Anyone doing them, or inciting other to do them, is breaking the law.

Phanto’s post gets to the crux of the issue very well: “If we stop differentiating between what is said and what is done then anyone is liable for prosecution.”

Phanto and Rhian,
What is the danger in going along with something stupid because its PC?
I agree completely that actions are completely different than words.
But why should we put our country at risk if we don't need to?

Armchair:

We do need to - everyone in the world needs to protect free speech. Free speech never hurt anyone but the denial of free speech hurts us all. It makes us less than human. None of the extremists have displayed unhuman behaviour they have just expressed a desire to do so. The minute they step out of line they should be dealt with like the citizens of this country.