The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Free speech protects against extremism > Comments

Free speech protects against extremism : Comments

By Jim Wallace, published 11/1/2005

Jim Wallace argues that our freedom to debate threats to society exposes them to scrutiny.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
All anti-P.C people are bigots. Why? Because, whenever they complain about P.C they are pushing an agenda loaded with prejudice - always. It's an old trick; pretend you're a victim of mythical enemies and equate your attacks with spiting that enemy, rather than you real intentions. Hitler was a master at this. Anti-P.C people are P.C too, but when anti-P.C people are P.C it means 'prejudicial correctness', "whatever my prejudice, I am correct." It's Orwellian that the author of the article mentions Newspeak when he himself engages in blatant omission and plays language tricks such as pretending that opposing hate speech, which leads to violence and attacks on the freedom of others, is just being "politically correct", something that should be derided as he connotes the terms.

The author would let Hitler off the hook, since he was only an authoritarian figure who incited racial hatred and gave spoken orders for others to harm people. He never personally engaged in violence. Using Mr Wallace's reasoning, Hitler isn't guilty or responsible for anything, just exercising free speech.
Posted by paulx82, Friday, 14 January 2005 5:40:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd like to make a correction. There are two types of complaints about P.C:
1. Trivial - which doesn't really involve a criticism of P.C, rather a humorous look at the eccentric actions of those wishing to avoid giving others offence or taking offence. Having a laugh at this stuff does not make you a bigot.
2. Serious - like the one in Jim Wallace's article. You are a bigot.

Just to inform those who might not have proper knowledge of what P.C is:
"Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation." - Dictionary.com

Seeker, those men were arrested for breaching the peace, not lawyer jokes. This article is less misleading: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/270572p-231704c.html
Posted by paulx82, Friday, 14 January 2005 5:59:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
paulx82 Making people in a queue outside a public building laugh by telling jokes is "breaching the peace"? Sounds like a joke itself, but the way things are going in the US and here, the joke will be on the community in general. We won't be game to open our mouths in case someone sues us or the VCAT gets a "vilification" complaint and sends us broke with legal costs. That's the PC agenda. Who gave them the authority to decide what's "correct" or "incorrect" They are arrogant. It's time to say "enough" right now and challenge this draconion law.

If the verses from the Qu'ran were accurately quoted by the Pastors, their comments could well have been true and reasonable. Just what WERE in the verses quoted? The Bible gets criticised [and misrepresented] often, but Christians don't run whining to the Government to prosecute someone. If Muslims think they have the goods, let them stand up and defend it by logic, not legal persecution of Christians.
Posted by Big Al 30, Sunday, 16 January 2005 10:20:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoffrey you say that as a webmaster you could make a moral decision not to publish information such as child porn. But you cannot deny someone acccess to a resource as you would be discriminating against them and denying them their access to free speech. A web hosting company can't deny a company or individual access to their service because they don't agree with the content that would otherwise be legal. So would you be happy with being a webmaster and being forced by law to publish child porn in the name of free speech? Not me!

A few limitations on what people can say is required to keep some extreme members of our society in check. I don't know that I am fully supportive of this judgement but I do see some value in it. Would the Christian community react in a similar way if I went around preaching Christianitys support for slavery and environmental contempt (Leviticus 25:44, Genesis 1:28)? Maybe not to the courts but they would certainly react. Probably use the media to denounce such claims - a resource that minority groups do not have a similar level of access to.

Particularly with the current events re sept 11 Iraq etc. such misleading and hostile comments are only intended to incite hate, distrust, and encourage segregation amoungst Australian citizens based on their religion. And that is [self-censored] and wrong!

Political correctness can go too far, and already is in an increasing number of cases. But at the end of the day we are the ones responsible for it doing so. Remember laws are merely a representation of a majority of opinion.

Complete free speech - no, but limits on it should be limited.
Posted by Mr_Torch, Tuesday, 18 January 2005 1:07:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have a read of this link read it all the way through before passing judgement on Islam. Like the other big three it's all a matter of the context.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20opinions/April/30%20o/The%20Universal%20Declaration%20of%20Human%20Rights%20and%20the%20Quran%20By%20Omar%20Edaibat.htm
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 20 January 2005 12:28:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I favour the free speech model where the opportunity to use free speech is similar but get really concerned when Governments use it to villify sections of the community.

A classic is the villification of men in various Government publications regarding Domestic Violence. You might remember the recent "Violence against Women - Australia Says No" campaign which totally ignored violence against men and children. I recently came across the following gem on the Queensland Health web site http://www.health.qld.gov.au/violence/domestic/default.asp

"DOMESTIC VIOLENCE is the physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse of trust and power between partners in a spousal relationship.

Most (85% to 98%) domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women."

Read the definition and then think about the statistic - very unlikely. Few studies would support that rate even for physical violence let alone emotional or psychological.

Where is the right of reply when the Government uses tax dollars to villify groups (men in this case). Does not the publication of the above contribute to women feeling more afraid than they should and to men finding very little support when they are the victim.

Where are the pages which make an issue of the appaling rate of Child Abuse and Neglect in Single Female Parent Families (42% of all substantiated child abuse and neglect in Qld http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/content/child_abuse_2.asp#). Is it not a form of villification when we are constantly exposed to coverage of child sexual abuse to the point where it appears there is an epidemic (6% of all substantaited child abuse and neglect in Qld) and yet no media attention is given to the 42% figure (Single Male Parent Families are only slightly better at 6% when the number of children in such households is considered).

Free speech is great provided that some mechanism exists for those with contrary views to get them across. Muslems can hold their own seminars and talk about Christian atrocities but how do you get a rebuttal on a Government Web Site or fund a campaign of television advertising when it is the government abusing it's power?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 20 January 2005 1:01:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy