Peter Bowden says that freedom of speech is immoral if it hurts someone.

Sometimes, somebody says something which is so idiotic, it is breathtaking.

Isn't it just amazing the lengths that our trendy lefties will go to defend the crumbling edifice of multiculturalism? All we have to do to make multiculturalism work is to shut everybody up who criticises it. And to make it work, we must shut up anybody who heaps very justifiable criticism upon any minority group who's values, attitudes and behaviour definitely need some criticism.

Freedom of Speech is one of the bedrock foundations of secular western democracy. The only people who do not believe in it are totalitarian tyrants, the fundamentalist clergy of every religion, and now the left wing social justice warrior caste. It's funny how our SJ warriors like Peter now take common cause with tyrants and religious fanatics, and then claim that they are the ones being "moral."

The most interesting thing about fundamentalists of every stripe, is just how close their mindsets are. International Socialists, National Socialists, extreme Greens, extreme racists, religious fanatics of every religion, and unrepentant multiculturalists, all think exactly the same. They all think that whatever cause they are pushing, that they, and only they, are the keepers of the gate of all that is good and holy. Their opponents are not just wrong, they are evil. And whatever their opponents write or say, must be censored. This mindset kept the entire Soviet Union and eastern Europe in chains for decades.

How did you become so fundamentalist in your thinking, Peter? How can you claim any connection to liberalism if you demand that your political and social opponents must be silenced? And then incredibly, claim that your position is a moral one? Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the Inquisitors of the Inquisition all claimed that there particular positions were unchallengeably moral. Can't you see the connection in the way they thought, and the way you think?

Well, if you think that advocating censorship of social issues is the hallmark of an intelligent person, Peter, I vehemently disagree with you

Not harming others?

Huh...I made a complaint to one of the most leftist organisations in Australia about one of their advertisement that shows a man sitting on a chair, and that man is then hit so hard by someone else he is knocked off the chair.

This is an advertisement, and it is an advertisement for an arts show on that leftist TV channel.

I also made a complaint to another organisation about an advertisement where a man opens a cupboard, and is then continuously hit in the head by objects being thrown out of the cupboard.

The common link between these two ads...the person being hit is a white male.

I applaud the actions of David Leyonhjelm, who has objected to being called an "angry white male"

Anything can be said and done to "white male", and the 18c legislation is for anyone except "white male".

As for academics, they are the worst offenders of use of derogatory terms such as "old white male", but old white males have been very useful for universities, because they have supplied so much tax payer funding to universities.

Perhaps the terms "bigoted, racist, discriminatory university academics who leach money from the public" should be more widely used, as these terms would represent the majority of university academics.

J.O.M. Have absolutely no problem with a bill of irrevocable human rights! Or robust but essentially civil debate and irreverent free speech that stands the granny test, as not beyond the pale!
Cheers, Alan B.

The author claims that ' .... the moral theory of not harming others is the underpinning for the major social developments of the human race over history – the ending of feudalism, the abolition of slavery"

Rubbish: in the long struggle for equal rights and democracy, of course feudal lords and slave-owners were financially harmed, and quite rightly. The values for which peasants and abolitionists fought were won after very bitter struggles: the Thirty Years' War in Europe, and the US Civil War, were the most costly in human lives in both arenas. So the values which were so hard-won, against authoritarianism and inequality, are thereby even more precious.

Perhaps sections of our society devalue those hard-won achievements, usually known collectively as the 'Enlightenment'. Any better society has to be built on those values, not to set them aside in a petulant push for some new and ghastly form of totalitarianism.

A key achievement over a thousand years - in the West, at least - has been the right to free expression. Inevitably, this MUST mean the right to make people uncomfortable by expressing views which some people might find offensive or insulting, or exploit that pretext in order to enforce conformity. The conformists of today are quick to cripple free discussion. As Mikk exemplifies above,

"Not surprised to see the bigots here wanting the freedom to insult and lie and harass other people. It's what you do best."

No, Mikk, 'lie' and 'harass' have specific meanings in law, and you're not quite so stupid as not to know that. So your diversion from, and over-statement of, the issues are nothing more than the mark of an empty-headed bigot. Is that all you've got ?

Not that there is anything illegal about being a bigot. After all, how does one distinguish them from others, and who is to say ? Go for it.

Joe

Joe it all boils down to wanting to be an a hole to other people. Something I will never support.

Are you saying it is a good thing to be a bigot?
We should aspire to be bigots?
That we should look up to and laud bigots?
That we should teach our children bigotry?

Just in case you have forgotten what the word means.
bigotry
noun
intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.
synonyms: prejudice, bias, partiality, partisanship, sectarianism, discrimination, unfairness, injustice;

https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=F7WzV67MA8HN8geS-LjIDw#q=bigotry

Well?

Hi mikk,

Oops ! I think you've already broken your own rule: " ..... it all boils down to wanting to be an a hole to other people. Something I will never support."

Who defines 'bigot' ? If it can't be identified in law, then it's not illegal. Not ice, but not illegal. But do your best, you're not doing too bad so far :)

But I'm glad you clarified its meaning: " .... intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself."

Where would you fit on a bigot/non-bigot spectrum ?

I'm getting to think that a major battle is shaping up between free-speechers and totalitarians, in many strange ways. Funny, I've always thought of totalitarianism as something on the extreme-Right. After all, free speech was brutally punished in totalitarian systems, from fascist Italy (and admittedly Bolshevik Russia), through to Saddam's Iraq and today's China and Turkey.

So which side are you on, Mikk ? The side of power or the side of free expression ? Take your time :)

Joe