I wonder how the practices of the advertising, PR and marketing industries are reflected in Mr. Lippman's words quoted above: "... where freedom of speech is no longer respected as a procedure of the truth and becomes the unrestricted right to exploit ignorance, and to incite to passions...".

If we are going to regulate communication to attempt to ensure that it is always well considered, in good faith, free of any exploitation of ignorance or incitement of passions, we have ahead of us a task of mammoth complexity and extent. Where will all the censors come from, who will ensure that THEIR decisions are "well considered, etc." and how?

Hello All

Several points need to be answered. It is true that there is no country on earth that has absolute free-speech, however the USA comes very close. The only restrictions are defamation and obscenity, in the first case the plaintiff must prove the defendant's statements were maliciously false, in practice it is almost impossible to prove this, so successful defamation actions are very rare, and the Supreme Court has taken an very restrictive view of what is obscene, so these are rare as well. In real terms, then, there effectively exists absolute free-speech in United States, and just because it exists nowhere in a pure form doesn't mean you shouldn't fight for it or resist any restrictions on it. 70a% free speech is better than 65% free-speech and not as good as 80% free speech.

if someone says something objectionable the correct responses is to exercise your right of free speech to criticise them, or publicly denounce them and to show why their remarks are wrong and hurtful. In other words, the best corrective for abuses of free-speech is free speech!

To Jasper and George who accept restrictions on free-speech, what you in effect have said is the government has the right to determine what we can say, and we the people have no such right. Once this power is granted then there is no limit on what the government may choose to restrict, and those who accept the government can do this can't be heard to complain when the government restricts something they hold dear. It is always possible to raise utilitarian arguments as to why this power should not be exercised, but utilitarian arguments are wonderfully malleable things, for every argument you can advance as to why free speech shouldn't be restricted the government can advance the counterargument as why it should.

Take a close look at the men and women who make up our governments, they are mortals just like us, subject to the same passion and prejudices. If they have the right of absolute free-speech inside Parliament ( parliamentary privilege) then why can't we. If it is good enough for them then surely it is good enough for us. Others may be happy for people like this decide what we can and can't say but I'm not. Free speech for all!

democracy does not fuction at all,with this comes freedoms and with it comes freedoms that are extended beyond a democracy right,you say well informed society,half this counrty should not be informend in anything,based on the fact the information obtainend,wheather debated or not,under so called democracy,under so called freedoms,is then used agianst certain groups of society in all aspects of thier lives including socially,spiritually,financially.

some ideas should not be competting in the public domain,and talk dictatorship,this would not hurt australia at all,there are a few citizins in this counrty that have two much freedom and its about time a old -fashionend dictatorship was established to bring them into line,back into a australian reality.

freedom of speech is alive,when challenged,fight.freedom of speech can be absulute in this country,speak what you will and then fight for those words in which you claim

and when it comes to muslims,yes they wish to take over the world,in this counrty they should have no ''passage of faith'' more then a christain or a cathlic,no special rooms to pray ,no special treatment,no special food,etc,etc,it is a religion based on hate for others and hate for other societys and must never take hold of our great nation.

it must be suppresed in all forms and be made illegal and the involved must be re-educated on morals,esp tollerance of other ideas.

muslims may not turture and rape australians etc,etc,however they will gain traditions in this counrty that will result in discrimination such as dress,special areas to dwell,segregation(exactly what they claim happens to them,they want to obtain anyway),this that or the other,you cant have your democracy,as well as muslim traditions in a country with none,but then surpress any debate to it,this is a democracy,this is australia,and the quicker the muslim faith is destoyed,the quicker man can inprove the world,and no longer will a evil ''sect' hold the world ransom to its needs and domination,and finally,other religions have killed and commited mass murder,however if your a christain visiting a muslim nation dont you have strict rules to folow (people have been killed not observing muslim laws)well this is australia and its about time muslims shut thier mounth,obayed the laws of the commenwealth,obayed our christain catholic heritage and become australians,if not we have plenty of airports and shipping ports in which you can leave.

Jasper, I'm still here, haven't baled out. The reason why I think the verses from the Koran [or is it Quran?] are the starting point and must be known is this: Much has been written about the comments which the Pastors made. I know of one person at the hearings who contests some of the Judge's statements. Be that as it may, they are given as the reason for the conviction. Ask youself what were they commenting on? What was in the verses to prompt them to react with those comments? I've seen some verses quoted in the daily Press,some time previously, and they would make one's blood run cold, regarding forced conversions, and death if conversion was not forthcoming. Now maybe the verses concerned stated something like this, in which case the comments may well have been TRUE and REASONABLE. I repeat, what WAS in those verses?

Might I add, until we know the actual words the Pastors were commenting on, how can we judge whether their comments were completely out of line or a reasonable and true reaction to the contents of the verses?

BIG AL......
u are on the right track....instead of just responding to the opinions of Mr Waleed Aly who expresses himself in rather 'balanced journalistic' terms.. u want to get to the facts of the case. Well I'll help you. Take this link
http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256902000FE154/Lookup/decisions/$file/islamic_council_of_victoria_v_catch_the_fire_ministries.pdf

A submission by CTF is found here.. in response to the allegations.

http://www.catchthefire.com.au/pdfs/Catch%20The%20Fire%20Ministries%20Submission%20to%20EOC.pdf

But let me also say, there has been a sad lack of understanding of the sub cultural/pentecostal 'way of doing things' in meetings. They are quite the "woop it up" type... lots of 'AMEN's and HALELUJAH's and 'YES LORD's" it goes with the territory. When one wishes to determine if the pastors are making HATE speech.. it HAS to be interpreted in THEIR subcultural value system NOT the secular one. As one of the 'spies' found out when he asked the Pastor (not telling he was a muslim) 'how should Christians treat Muslims" ? Pastor replied to his face 'THEY SHOULD LOVE THEM' I grant, that the terminology of some things they said, was a bit more than I would prefer to have heard... the main one being 'Muslims are demons' if that was correctly recorded. As for the rest.. well u can decide for yourself, the references provided by the Pastors ARE VERY SPECIFIC and comprehensive. I'll take just ONE other accusation. "Muslims will torture" Ok.. where would they derive such a thought from ? Simple.. by adding 2 facts together. 1/ Mohammed is held up as a ROLE model. "Our beloved prophet" they say. Now.. see how he treated some people who stole his camels and killed his shepherd.

Before showing that tradition, here is a quote from the INTRODUCTION of the book of hadith of Muslim (a highly regarded source)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Western scholars have indulged in a good deal of mud-slinging on the question of the use of the sword in Islam. But if one were to reflect calmly on this point one would be convinced that the sword has not been used recklessly by the Muslims; it has been wielded purely with humane feelings in the wider interest of humanity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you see that.. 'purely.. with humane feelings' ? hold that thought..
Now..contrast this, with a tradition contained in that book itself
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Book 016, Number 4131 <== SOURCE find it at this link
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/016.smt.html

Anas reported: Eight men of the tribe of 'Ukl came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and swore allegiance to him on Islam, but found the climate of that land uncogenial to their health and thus they became sick, and they made complaint of that to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: Why don't you go to (the fold) of our camels along with our shepherd, and make use of their milk and urine. They said: Yes. They set out and drank their (camels') milk and urine and regained their health. They killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This (news) reached Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and he sent them on their track and they were caught and brought to him (the Holy Prophet).

He commanded about them, and (thus) their hands and feet were cut off and their eyes were gouged and then they were thrown in the sun, until they died.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now.. as far as I know, there is no such prescribed punishment in Islamic law apart from cutting off hands for theft.. and if there is, it would be in my opinion disgusting.

But this, according to reliable tradition, is what Mohammed actually ordered directly himself. One has to think a bit about how it would be, to have ur feet cut off, etc... no eyes.. bleeding.. dying.. a simple execution would have been HUMANE... note that word ? U recall what I said above about 'hold that thought' from the Introduction ?

Now.. having said all that..and having tried to be as factual as possible, with the least amount of spin and interpretation. I just invite you to ask a few basic questions about all this, and perhaps.. u can begin to see why the CTF pastors.. were so adamant and passionate in their criticism.

Before anyone jumps on me as being 'anti muslim' I would remind them that these are simple facts, which generally but for obvious reasons, do not show up on 'Introduction to Islam' pages on Islamic web sites.. The real "HATE" sites use a rather large number of additional adjectives to add color to these incidents. I prefer not to do that. This is definitely public interest.
Hope this helps