The Forum > Article Comments > Is free speech dead? > Comments
Is free speech dead? : Comments
By Jim Dowling, published 26/4/2019Graham Preston, who has been assaulted and abused on countless occasions, for daring to express the wrong opinion, was arrested again two months ago.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
-
- All
Posted by Jim Dowling, Saturday, 27 April 2019 11:55:30 AM
| |
Standing outside abortion clinics harassing women is not free speech it is intimidation and very close to assault. It would be the same if Atheists stood outside your church every Sunday with signs accusing you and your god of terrorism and forcibly handing out leaflets explaining why your beliefs are insane.
You vile bigots need to get your noses out of other peoples lives Posted by mikk, Saturday, 27 April 2019 12:59:31 PM
| |
Hi Jim Dowling
1. Do you believe that Britain should have continued its anti-war appeasement policy throughout World War Two? Did Chamberlain's negotiations of niceness with Hitler work? ____________________________________________ 2. In the 1970s should Vietnam have allowed Pol Pot to continue his genocide of his own people [1]? Were Vietnamese Forces right in invading Cambodia [2] thereby stopping Pol Pot's mass killing? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Kampuchea#Explaining_the_violence (somewhat later) work? [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_War Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 27 April 2019 4:41:08 PM
| |
yep seems obvious that just like the Nazis were brainwashed into believing Jews were not human so the secularist/feminist have brainwashed many others into denying the humanity of the unborn. Atrocious biology and totally dishonest. These fools should be charged not those holding up actual pictures that highlight their lies.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 27 April 2019 5:29:03 PM
| |
Thankfully free speech is NOT dead, but it is under serious attack by those with closed minds and a propensity to reject reality in favour of a world of fantasy and childish ideology, driven by a lack of maturity and a lack of courage to face the 'real' world.
I have always explained that everyone should be allowed to speak freely without fear or favour. The notion that the utterance of words in a particular fashion or order can be 'harmful', is an absolutely moronic concept, driven by absolute morons. We must NOT be influenced by these 'sick' people. If there are people out there who are offended by something someone said, whether at them or in general, too bad! The problem is not the speaker but the listener, and that being the case it is obvious to me and other open minded, objective folk like myself, that the problem lies squarely at the feet of the listener. If the speaker intended to offend, that is his right, for whatever reason. If the listener is offended, one must ask the question, WHY? is he offended. Either way, it matters not, on one hand someone is being offended for a reason, on the other hand someone 'feels' offended, for 'their' own reason. As the speaker is not familiar with the person being offended, he is doing no wrong. Where a person intentionally offends someone, he also is doing no wrong, because his intention was to offend them. Posted by ALTRAV, Saturday, 27 April 2019 6:57:55 PM
| |
A High Court decision has stopped anti-abortion
activist protesters from harassing women seeking medical treatment. The law in all of our states (except for WA and SA) bans protesters from communicating within the "safe zone" (150 metres)of a clinic that would reasonably cause distress or anxiety. The law plays an important role in protecting women during a time when they are vulnerable and making difficult decisions. Before "safe zones" access, women accessing reproductive health care, including abortion, were intimidated and harrassed. As were staff who worked in the clinics. The High Court has decided that no woman should have to run a gauntlet of abuse and harrassment just to see her doctor. The protests in the past have included graphic signs and material, being handed around (as well as a blood-spattered doll in a pram). Australians do have a right to political communication but that according to the High Court - certainly is not a licence to harm others with impunity. As stated earlier - 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. All societies, including democratic ones, put various limitations on what people may say and do. They prohibit certain types of actions and speech that they believe might harm. We have laws covering libel and slander, public decency, urging violence, inciting hatred, and so on. We even have laws that forbid speech that invades the right of people not to listen to it. For example, a local by-law might limit the times when people may not use loudspeakers to make announcements in the streets. In this country our civil society is governed by the rule of law. Of course we can try to change the laws that we consider unfair. However in the case under discussion here, the High Court made its decision. Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 27 April 2019 8:09:47 PM
|
Has he no shame?" by plantagenet
I presume this is facetious. I reckon all pro-lifers by definition should be anti-war. In fact everyone should be! Some people are just more likely to think we can stop war by going to war!
In reply to Armchair Critic and Foxy: It is illegal to stand within 150m of an abortion clinic I am not aware of anyone standing in a carpark with pro-life signs, usually people are on the footpath.
While your story is tragic, and I am sorry for your friend, there are many more stories of women being traumatized for life by their abortion. There are also many stories of women changing their minds after being offered help by pro-lifers. The point is the law is pro-abortion not pro-choice.
Also, it is the only issue where people have no right of protest near the relevant place. People can hold signs all day outside military bases where people are suffering PTSD, outside logging camps where people are totally stressed, and potentially violent, about possibly losing their jobs, outside abattoirs where people are called murderers.
But this is the thin edge of the wedge.
As I said at the end of my article, paraphrasing Martin Niemöller, now "they have come for the pro-lifers", why not all the others who they claim are causing anxiety?
Then when all are silenced, we can have the peace of the grave.