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 > On the freeness of speech > Comments

On the freeness of speech : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 4/4/2016

Why don’t we have a much wider Act that covers all insulting or offending words? Think about it. I think it’s a minefield.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Free speech that doesn't include a right to offend is just not free! And amply exampled in places like Turkey, Russia, Malaysia, and last but not least, Thailand,(have I missed anyone) where you're free to publish the verifiable facts, if you have official permission or don't critique so called VIP's!

Moreover, what's socially accepted complimentary comment in our culture, could be a hanging offense in some others!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 4 April 2016 1:29:46 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
Don,

Are you saying that if a statement of fact offends someone it may still be a punishable offence to make that statement?

e.g:-Mohammed married a girl of six years and consummated the marriage when she was nine.
Mohammed beheaded all males members of a Jewish tribe he conquered and so all its women and children into slavery.

All these actions are criminal by the standards of civilised society.
Am I in breach of 18c in making these statements ?

If I am, then I would be also in breach of 18c to say that Hitler was guilty of mass murder of guiltless people.

Those statements would offend someone. Muslims in one case and some Germans of national socialist leanings in another.

Yet those statements are simple statements of fact.

In the case of Mohammed the statements verified by a straight translation of Arabic texts in hadiths.

Truth, in some jurisdictions, must be accompanied by public benefit to be a defence to an action for defamation but we are dealing, in 18c with a criminal offence with drastic potential penalty and regardless of whether actual damage is done.

Should it EVER be an offence to tell a clear undeniable widely known truth , even if known only in better informed sections of the public?

Is everything relative ? Are there no absolutes ever?
Posted by Old Man, Monday, 4 April 2016 5:18:06 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
Yep if the truth was told what happened in Australia before the British arrived many would be highly offended. Ask Andrew Bolt.
Posted by runner, Monday, 4 April 2016 5:35:08 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
According to the IQ2 Oz website (consulted a couple of years ago) the laws of most Australian states and territories continue to prohibit blasphemy. “For example, in NSW a person may still be prosecuted for the common law offence of blasphemy if their purpose is to engage in ‘scoffing or reviling’. Put simply, citizens may not mock or insult God or the Prophets.”
Blasphemy laws are an absurd anachronism and should be abolished immediately.
Posted by Asclepius, Monday, 4 April 2016 6:26:59 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
Don, I’m not a Rawlsian, but I drew on his work in my 1999 NCP paper “The Economics of Compensation and its Relevance to Taxi Deregulation.” (As this paper had been by only a handful of people and was still relevant at the time of the Harper competition review, I submitted it to the review.) Quote: “The compensation issue can be approached from the viewpoint of justice or fairness without regard to the net efficiency benefits to society, as exemplified by Rawls’ work. Rawls considered that under certain conditions social arrangements which damaged the rights of any individual were unjustified even if they created significant benefits for the community as a whole. He defined justice as the special virtue of social arrangements within which such inequalities become unacceptable.”

In my view there are no inherent, natural or predetermined rights; any rights arise from society and will depend on the values of that society; and such values and rights will vary as, for example, the wealth and education levels of a society change.

Section 18c makes it illegal to “say something that is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone because of their race or ethnicity.” This is very subjective: one person’s view of what is “likely” to offend etc might be very different from another’s; and one can take the view that the problem is not the words, but the reaction to them. An equanimous person will not take offence at intended abuse, they will know that the abuser first hurts himself, by acting with an agitated mind. It seems to me that the effect of 18c is to limit necessary discussion, cf Andrew Bolt, and even moderate comments such as those in the QUT computer room case. My understanding is that if 18C were abolished, there are other laws under which action could be taken when justified, which do not have the blanket negative impact of 18c.
Posted by Faustino, Monday, 4 April 2016 6:36:56 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
"... had been seen by ..."
Posted by Faustino, Monday, 4 April 2016 6:38:43 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
Faustino:

Thanks for your comment. I agree with you about 18(c), and about the use of it to silence comment. Who is to say what is offensive?
Posted by Don Aitkin, Tuesday, 5 April 2016 7:26:43 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
Hey everyone,
What I want to know implicitly is do you people think it is within my free speech to say that I believe Israel brought its Palestinian problem on itself?

Just in the same way I feel its within my rights to say Europe brought its refugee problem on itself by supporting Western efforts to remove Assad?

I'm saying it in good faith because that is what I believe, and I don't intentionally wish to offend anyone, though I understand a lot of Jewish people may feel offended by this statement.

It could be alleged that I deliberately set out to cause offense.

I think I'm within my rights to say it, but I expect I'm going to be attacked and called names for saying it nonetheless.
In this case, I'm the one who ends up being attacked, slandered and victimised for doing what should be with my rights.

What's the consensus on this particular issue of free speech?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 5 April 2016 12:03:31 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
Moral absolutes have a way of biting their proponents on the bum, by virtue of the fact that taken to extremes, almost anything can become a parody of what it wants to defend.

But the right to free speech on social issues not covered by the Official Secrets Act, comes pretty damned close to being a moral absolute. The right to explore and debate any social issue is fundamental to the existence of any free society. No free society can remain free unless the right to examine any subject conducive to the social stability of that nation is absolute. People must be free to re examine the social mores which hold their countries together, as changing times alter the values upon which the existing social mores are based.

The idea that free speech should be curtailed to prevent "offending, insulting or humiliating" any other section of society is extraordinary. Such a premise would have effectively prevented free speech about subjects such as Evolution, whether the Earth orbited the Sun, or whether the Earth was flat.

The most effective counter to the present politically correct idea that minorities must be protected through censorship, is that legal statutes like 18C are so selectively applied. Say something unkind about Muslims and the PC thought police will be all over you like a rash. But the PC Left can say whatever they like about the Catholic Church, the Exclusive Brethren, or the Hillsong Church.

Offending ethnicities is limited to those the PC left protect. The most reviled and offended ethnicity which is fair game to all, is the white heterosexual male. The white heterosexual male is responsible for every damned thing that ever went wrong with the world. You can offend, insult, intimidate, and humiliate white heterosexual males to your heart's content, and the motley collection of Human rights commissars will suddenly become The Three Monkeys.

It is all pure hypocrisy.
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 6 April 2016 4:41:40 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
As a side note: In the distant past didn't they use court jesters and of 'specifically making fun of things' in order to see things rationally and make smart decisions?
Offending, insulting or humiliating - they actually once used these things to make better decisions for themselves.
Don't they also do this (to a small degree) in parliament?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Wednesday, 6 April 2016 5:47:00 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
18c would become acceptable if and only if accompanied by a clause which the British have attached to their own version of our 18c:

“The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”
Posted by EmperorJulian, Wednesday, 6 April 2016 11:18:20 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