LEGO,

I have seen the consequences of censorship in the guilt, poor decisions and harmed, stunted lives of people who were children in the years after WW2.

Interestingly, the focus is always on the girls and their sexuality where a 'bit of censorship' is contemplated.

I have often passed by Wicked campers when I had children in the car. I cannot recall any ever drawing attention to the signs let alone finding them vaguely interesting. They were good at finding those Maccas signs though.

Freedom of speech suits me because the messages (and deletions) can be challenged.

Exactly right, Killarney.

Freedom of speech is not a moral absolute, Leoj. Valid restrictions have always applied and been agreed to by the public who can appreciate their necessity. These include libel, child pornography, the publication of state secrets, contempt of court, the glamourisation of suicide, and restrictions on advertising. Restricting Wicked Campers from advertising with extremely offensive messages is no more an example of totalitarian censorship, than preventing cigarette manufacturers from advertising their dangerously unhealthy and addictive product to kids.

I am glad that you mentioned 60's censorship, because unless you have been asleep at the wheel, you might have noticed the relaxation of censorship coincided with the steep rise of violent and mindless crime in Australia. (That and the liberalisation of our once very restrictive immigration laws.)

The sixties. When schoolboy cadets went to school on the bus with .303 rifles on their shoulders, but school massacres did not happen. When our suburbs and trains were not defaced with American style graffiti. When you could catch a train from Central to Liverpool and not see endless suburbs of houses with bars on every window. When kids did not kill kids. When teachers did not throw in their careers because they could not cope with out of control pupils. Six schools in Sydney now have permanent security guards.

What Killarney wrote is that we have swung from one extreme to the other. We now have media which panders to adolescents and teenagers who are at the most rebellious times of their lives, and it tells them that parental and official authority should be ignored, girls are sluts who really want it, women should be bashed, being a street thug is fashionable, taking drugs is OK, murdering teachers and fellow students is cool, and that real men are violent men who get even.

And when the consequences of these media messages to our young manifest themselves in appalling behaviour, Leoj wonders how it happened? Leoj asks "don't these kids know right from wrong?" Poorly socialised kids don't know right from wrong, Leoj, because our culture is sending them mixed messages.

Why is it that Left whingers always want to control what other people say? But never apply the same standards to themselves.

<But never apply the same standards to themselves> Risible rubbish SM, and typical trotted out broad sweeping statement proffered, without a single shard of a scaric of a grain of evidence!

Name that recalcitrant left whinger and provide the evidence that proves the truth of what you claim and I'll sue for you and every other defender of the right to verbal the few genuinely decent caring posters putting a real name to their honestly held convictions, posting here.

As far as I know, free speech doesn't include the right to disingenuously label or simply verbal, or outright abuse those you disagree with.

The morality of a rutting feral alley cat fits well with the feral alley cat, but not a discriminating decent caring ADULT human being, willing to tolerate very reasonable boundaries, to protect the still unformed mind and attitudes of the innocent.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong I suppose, with gutter language or entirely unnecessary verbal garbage? Just that of the young minds it programs as normal! Or already in antisocial minds of the recalcitrant dimwits, who see no harm in it! Nor the abuse nor antisocial vilification that is integral to it.

And none of it even remotely necessary to protect the very tenets of genuine free speech! And caps that fit, the only ones needing to be worn, or allegedly offended by!
Alan B.

Dear Alan.B,

I could be wrong but I venture SM is probably referring to me.

He wrote;

“Why is it that Left whingers always want to control what other people say? But never apply the same standards to themselves.”

Of course as a typical elitist, neo-con, ideologue he again conflates a corporation being deliberately offensive for profit with individual or artistic rights of free speech.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I have owned and operated a number of businesses over my journey and I am more than happy to have applied and will continue to apply the same standards I am advocating for in this instance.

Alan B.,

You seem to have a propensity for rushing into print whenever I write something — you're often the first. But you seem to forget quickly wht you just read. Or you have one of those disorders.

What did I say? I quote: 'Would I write on my own car, let alone write stuff like that? No. Do I need to be protected against such writing? No. Am I offended, outraged or appalled? No. You just shrug, and ignore it. Life is too short.'

Like others here, and on my website, you seem to want Parliament to protect you from having to explain things to children. If you have children you should have already had to explain what is on television news. Unless, of course, you've banned that from your household. Grow up.