PASTOR FRED PHELPS, GAY KILLING.
For the record, this guy, and his action are definitely NOT an example of anything but the most rabid extremist loony fringe of the Christian Spectrum. If gays were to be put to death, it would need to be State Law, not 'Christian enthusiasm'. So.. unless one wishes us to keep referring to Osama Bin Laden as the 'typical' muslim, please refrain from using the worst examples of so called Christian behavior to score propoganda points. If u want to pick on us.. examine JESUS.. he can handle it.

Hello All

“The anti vilification laws do not restrict debate they restrict vilification - NOT the same thing!”

I wish people who are against free speech (and therefore in favour of the government controlling what we are allowed to say) would come right out and say they don’t believe in free speech. Instead we get intellectual contortions of the kind quoted above; that vilification isn’t free speech, slander isn’t free speech, sedition isn’t free speech etc. Free speech is speech free from restrictions, if you believe the government should restrict what we can say then we don’t have free speech, and no amount of sophistry will alter this fact.

I stand by my previous point, we are each masters of our own actions. Suppose someone “incites” someone else to commit a crime by vilifying a hated group, knowing that the person they are speaking to has an inveterate hatred of such a group, and that his words may well inflame his passion enough that he will commit a crime. Although the agitator’s words are part of a causal chain, ultimately the person who commits the crime should be held accountable, to accept otherwise is to accept a world view that we are just all animals, our actions governed by outside forces and inner impulses we have no control over.

The best cure for abuses of free speech is free speech. I reiterate my previous point, parliamentarians have ABSOULTE free speech inside the houses of parliament, if it’s good enough for them, then it’s good enough for the rest. The reason given for Parliamentary Privilege, that it should be used to expose wrongs and injustices without fear of being sued for defamation or vilification, apply to us all. Free speech for all and forever!

Several posts make it clear that support for these Anti-Vilification laws is largely motivated by anti-Christian bigotry e.g. “There is no restrictions on Christians using words to brainwash their children, although if non Christians did the same thing it is termed abuse” (this comment seems like anti-Christian vilification to me, I wonder if the poster lives in Victoria…). In England such laws have been in place for several years, and so far have been used by militant atheists, pagans and Muslim to sue Christians. Typically the Tribunal that oversee such laws are staffed by anti-Christian bigots who often help complainants against Christians (see previous post) so in effect these laws become state sponsored persecution of Christians.

Others may be happy with this, but any fair minded person would have to find this repugnant to liberal values.

To be fair minded if you believe in anti vilification laws they should apply equally to everyone; we can bring back sedition (can’t vilify the government), we can ban vilification of political opponents, in fact any kind of vilification. Are we all happy with that? Is this the kind of Australia we want to live in, where we have to watch what we say, and anything we say could be arbitrarily deemed “vilification” on totally subjective criteria by a court or tribunal. The air of freedom is precious, and free speech is an important part of that, and should be defend at all costs.

In terms of government members having “free speech”, they must still be accountable. Otherwise a government member can stand in Parliament and say almost any type of nonsense if they are not censured or brought to account by the speaker, the opposition parties, or by members of their own party. Being brought to account by the voting public can of course take a very long time, so there has to be more immediate processes involved.

In the public area, I think that people can make statements they might not have wanted to say in retrospect, and a certain amount of tolerance becomes necessary. Words normally preceed actions and if statements are being repeated a number of times and they are blatantly threatening to someone else, or denying someone else their rights, then there must be some course of disciplinary action taken.

PC can be overdone to the extent that it acts as a barrier to communication. Right now I think the amount of PC in our speech is all we need, and no more is necessary.

My vote goes to Geoffrey.

Would you believe one could be arrested for telling lawyer jokes?

Don't laugh! It already happened.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lijoke124112175jan12,0,2936521.story?coll=ny-topstories-headlines