The Forum > Article Comments > So, what went wrong with section 18C? > Comments
So, what went wrong with section 18C? : Comments
By John de Meyrick, published 10/1/2017None of what the (then) Government appears to have intended or proposed is what section 18C says or does.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
-
- All
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 8:35:30 PM
| |
//Are some things too offensive?//
Ja. Anything that offends Oberfuhrer Young will be banned, including people if the doesn't like the cut of their jib (i.e. if they're left wing, rude and abusive. It's OK to be rude and abusive if you're conservative, or runner would have been Terminated long ago.) Amazingly, he claims to be a fan of the work of John Stuart Mill. The mind boggles. //is OLO a bastion of censorship and unreasonableness?// What, you've only just figured this out now? Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 10:58:19 PM
| |
Toni Lavis,
You seem to get away with being "left wing,rude and abusive" all the time. You appear to have survived insulting our editor with a Nazi rank, this time. Yobbos like you make it so easy. You continually display your ignorance and stupidity, which obviates the need for censorship. You do it all yourself. You don't need others to show you up. Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 11 January 2017 11:26:32 AM
| |
John. Thanks for your article; it does raise some interesting and challenging points.
One matter in particular does interest me and you refer to that in your introduction - to the gap between (probably) the first Cabinet submission and the subsequent legislation in 1995, and IMO you correctly state: "So what went wrong somewhere along the way between the policy intentions...and the actual amendment...?" John, does Hansard shed any light on why the change happened - was it for example Parliamentary opposition or Media pressure? Posted by Pilgrim, Wednesday, 11 January 2017 3:56:30 PM
| |
//Yobbos like you make it so easy.//
Nah mate, I'm a w4nker. Get it right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiHdpAVIHgo Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 11 January 2017 6:07:15 PM
| |
Section 18C and why do we have it?
To stifle free speech and nothing else. The supporters of this section know full well that the only change to behaviour that legislation will bring about is a behaviour resulting from a fear to say what they think. Perhaps this is their real intent to retain 18C. Why should any law say I cannot comment on another persons race colour religion or creed? Why should any law say I cant say something that offends others? Posted by Referundemdrivensocienty, Wednesday, 11 January 2017 6:40:53 PM
|
Goodoh but the topic is about the pollies writing the words in the Act.
People can be provoked , it's a defence to murder and maybe a person with known mental disorder is understood likely to go beserk under a certain type of speech. Maybe an ethnic group is that way. Some people just accept corrupt pollies , many Australians go nuts about it and demand the right to get cranky. Not easy..