The Forum > Article Comments > Revising the Racial Discrimination Act > Comments
Revising the Racial Discrimination Act : Comments
By Eric Porter, published 30/8/2016Democracy requires a public sphere in which people can participate and speak without fear of humiliation, intimidation and offense.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- Page 2
- 3
-
- All
Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 12:18:58 PM
| |
There are currently three kids being dragged through the Kafkaesque court system that is the HREOC for doing nothing more than criticise and mock a clearly racial policy of the Queensland University of Technology.
Four others have already paid the tribute required to avoid this nightmare. Any law that permits such a thing to happen is definitionally wrong and must be changed. That politicians are prepared to sit on their hands and play politics and allow what some have called legal blackmail to continue speaks volumes for the type of person drawn to the exercise of power. Quite apart from all the evidence that 18C suppresses speech and causes self-censorship throughout society, the notion that people can be sued as racist for pointing out racism is absurd. We as a society are poorer for having 18C and those who support it show their true colours by doing so. Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 1:02:55 PM
| |
Armchair: I don't always agree with Graham, but on reflection find him scrupulously fair, even handed and very tolerant in what is allowed, including often rambunctious robust debate.
Most deleted comment is removed for profanity or abuse! Steer clear of those two and you stand less chance of having courtesy costs nothing, civil comment removed! Have a nice day. Alan B. Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 30 August 2016 3:38:43 PM
| |
Australia is a surveillance state.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jun/05/glenn-greenwald-says-australia-is-one-of-most-aggressive-in-mass-surveillance The country is not ruled by the people, but ruled by political parties, and political parties know most things about members of the public. All it takes is for a political party to state that saying anything negative about that political party or about the government is an offense, and 1984 has arrived in Australia. Posted by interactive, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 4:32:15 PM
| |
Hi Alan,
I wasn't referring to this website. I agree with you completely regarding the tolerance and fairness given on OLO, and am grateful for it. I've actually never had a comment deleted here, though I'll admit a couple I made in response to your comments recently may have been deserving. Although technically 'legal', they weren't all that respectful and for that I apologise. Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 10:16:38 PM
| |
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/29/leaked-soros-document-calls-for-regulating-internet-to-favor-open-society-supporters/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165 Posted by Armchair Critic, Tuesday, 30 August 2016 10:54:23 PM
|
Even if speech is within the rules some politically correct websites delete your comments anyway, only publishing comments they find favourable or that reinforces their own belief system.
These sites are then pushed as representing the people when in fact they may just represent a minority absent of criticism.
I see these types of websites as a bigger danger to free speech because they not only decide themselves what speech is and isn't acceptable but they also try to steer the entire community in that politically correct direction.
Unfavourable (but legal) opinions should stand.
I oppose site censorship and cherry picking users comments.