rache, it cannot be claimed that we can speak freely if we have laws which clearly prohibit freedom of speech.
I subscribe and hold strongly to the view that I 'must' say exactly what I feel I should say, without fear or favour.
If I wish to insult someone, I must be allowed to do so.
These laws you speak of they are not promoting the truth, but lies.
If I believe the situation calls for a good verballing, then so be it.
I care not for a country or it's people where a very small minority, again wish to dictate to the greater majority, on such issues as free speech.
As human beings we are endowed with all these emotions.
If I hate someone, that is my right.
If I wish to vilify and insult someone, that too is my right.
There is no correct way to insult or threaten someone without insulting or threatening them.
I would challenge anyone on the basis that if they are not co-accused in the matter of abuse in question, they have no right of engagement in the matter at hand and should simply move on.
It is moronic to say the least when a govt actually legislates on such issues as freedom of speech.
Just because a few wallflowers are offended by some intended offensive comments does not mean they should not be said.
If what is said is untrue,then the comments can be challenged, and should be dealt with immediately.
Just like maggot two dads.
If the rumours of her sleeping around are unfounded then she should have fessed up, in doing so would have put her detractors in their place.
But no she is guilty as charged by her own hand in not challenging the allegation.
So you SNAGS and FAGS get back in your respective boxes or closets or wherever the heck you all come from and practice your nanny politics and PC oppressive speech mantra's to yourselves because us open minded liberal thinking, free speaking guys, don't want to listen to your self righteous and oppressive BS.

Dear rache,

Well said. A tolerance of criticism and of dissenting
opinions is fundamental to democracy. A democracy
also requires its citizens to make informed choices.
They need access to information. If citizens or
their representatives are denied access to the
information they need to make these choices, or if they
are given false or misleading information, the
democratic process becomes a sham.

It is therefore important that the media not be censored,
that citizens have the right of free speech, and that
public officials tell the truth.

In the case of Senator David Leyonhjelm - he behaved
inappropriately and should have simply apologised. He
misinterpreted what she said and accused her of saying
something she did not say. To make matters worse when
she asked for an explanation - he told her to "F-off,"
and then went on TV and radio and repeated his comments.
That sort of behaviour is and should be unacceptable.

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty
to respect other people's rights. A person's freedom of
speech is limited by the rights of others. For example
their right to maintain their good reputation and their
right to privacy.

All democratic societies put various
restrictions on what people may say. They prohibit
certain types of speech that they believe might harm
the government or people. We have laws covering libel,
slander, public decency, urging violence, speech that
endangers lives, property, or national security and so on.

We have laws that we are all expected to abide by, whether
we like them or not for the sake of social cohesion and
a fair, civilised and equitable society in which we can
all enjoy living together. Imagine if we all went around
being abusive?

The only nation on the planet that truly has free speech is the USA. That's because the laws that protect their speech are in their constitution and therefore override all other laws. Other nations such as Australia, UK, NZ etc have free speech laws but these are laws passed by their legislature and therefore can be revoked by the legislature. Whatismore they can be overridden and/or modified by the legislature at will.

In the US laws like 18C would never happen and if they did they would be quickly ruled illegal by the relevant courts since they violate the constitution. In the US, the QLD university students wouldn't merely be found innocent after being put through the wringers by various anti-free speech bureaucrats, they would be able to sue based upon violations of their rights and the resultant payout would deter any other group from trying it on again.

So while we can applaud the good senators aims to make a bad situation marginally less bad, ultimately the aim has to be to get a clause or clauses in the constitution which will stop censorious bureaucrats, politicians and ancillary social-justice warriors from attacking the most fundamental right of all.

The US Constitution's First Amendment protects free
speech very broadly. However there are nine categories
that are not protected:

1) Obscenity
2) Fighting words
3) Defamation (incl. libel and slander)
4) Child pornography
5) Perjury
6) Blackmail
7) Incitement to imminent lawless action
8) True threats
9) Solicitations to commit crimes

Some people would add treason (if committed verbally) and
plagiarism is also not protected.

Australia does not have a Bill of Rights and our Constitution
does not guarantee our freedom of speech. The framers of our
Constitution it seems preferred to place their faith in the
democratic process for the protection of individual rights.
They possibly thought that by defining rights we would in
effect be limiting them. So until we change what we have
currently - we are required to abide by the laws that we have.

It will be interesting to see whose side the law is regarding
the two senators. Senator Hanson Young and Senator David
Leyonhjelm.

I'm not getting it.
If the US constitution protects free speech, I did not see any reference to the categories mentioned.
They must be in some other section or I've looked up A wrong interpretation of the US constitution.
Anyway, WTF are we referring to the US for?
Don't we have enough crap laws already?
Enough already.
Just as some believe that DL behaved 'inappropriately', there are many many more who believe SHY behaved like someone who is not befitting the position of a minister of the govt.
DL actually stands for something and someone.
It just doesn't happen to be the left and the maggots, so surprise surprise, they come out whinging and bitching because that's all their good at.
She is a disgusting and embarrassing 'look' for a politician.
Unless we are to see her as a 'joke' politician, then she is perfectly placed.
No platform, nothing of any value or relevance.
Just acting as if she knows what she is talking about and keeps putting her foot in her mouth at every turn.
So this is why the con Sarah two dads is wrong in what she said and did on the day.
Because this is her inept and normal level and intellect and is stuffing up day after day. The sooner she gets the arse, (no won't go there) the better.

ALTRAV,

Why would you think it's acceptable in any fair and reasonable society to be able to defame, sexually harass, bully, threaten or vilify anybody on the basis of race or sexual orientation or any other aspect with which you happen to personally disagree?
Does that restriction somehow place you at a personal disadvantage?

If you had those rights then why would somebody not have the right to retaliate - physically if required - to silence you?

Why can't I be allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, if only for my own amusement, or smoke in a restaurant or spit in the street?

I'm free to publicly refer to people as cripples, spastic, n*ggers or wogs in public but that would say more about me than about to who I may be referring although I can be arrested for shouting obscenities.

It's not the mythical and overblown restriction called Politicial Correctness, just manners. You're free to argue any point you wish but just not in a particular manner.

It's how society maintains some sort of civility.

(I've also noticed that I had to spell the word n*ggers because the proper spelling was automatically classified by this site as a profanity - but wog wasn't. There's a restriction right there but I fully accept it because I was still able to make my point.)