It is only by accepting responsibility for the consequences that any “freedom” can be truly exercised.

Anything less is simple rabble-rousing or self-indulgent hypocrisy.

If some indolent buffoon wants to promote the practice of shop-lifting, let him. Then let him be sued by shopkeepers for the outcome of his advise.

If someone wants to promote the illegal occupation of private property in the name of “student squatters squalor” – let them – and they too can face the claims of aggrieved landlords for restitution.

However, if someone promotes the growing of drugs and drug dealing, both illegal pursuits, then let them face criminal charges of incitement and face a future with a criminal record and appropriate diminution in career prospects; remembering, if I were writing the rules, for such heinous crimes, the second offence would warrant the death penalty.

So let them all write and waffle on as much as they want. Better clear and well tested rules for breaches of civil and criminal codes than censorship of any sort. For with the practice of censorship comes a lot more insidious and subversive curtailment of individual freedoms.

Markdmark “that civil dissent and disobedience contributes to the flourishing of a democracy.”

“Dissent” is common throughout all democratic processes. In a democracy the “minority” are those who are traditionally identified as holding the “dissenting” view.

However, “civil disobedience” contributes only to a state of anarchy. It has nothing to do with any form of “democracy”. It is, invariably, demanded by those who want to exercise greater influence than their democratic numbers warrant and is most often perpetrated by the “rabble” who collectively comprise the “mob”.

“Mob rule” and anarchy are the antitheses of democracy.

Combining the two words (dissent and disobedience) in the same sentence is obvious nonsense. Whilst I support your right to express complete and utter nonsense, do not expect me to allow it to go unchallenged.

Markdmark,

If you want some dissenting opinions and radical plans, go to the Menzies Research Centre's website. No students there - I promise - and yet some very interesting contrary positions.

"I don’t think it is for government bodies to implement moral protocols that distinguish between right and wrong."

So you don't think it's a governments duty to implement laws against murder, fraud, rape, tax evasion, neglect, or endangering the lives of others? Of course it's the government's job to distinguish between right and wrong!

Also, we must obey our society's laws as we owe a debt of piety to society... we have no rights independant of it, and thus owe it our very existance. These rights are not ours because they exist in a vacuum, but are given as a priveledge in exchange for our abiding by the law. The least we can do is obey some pretty simple rules. Seem we cannot claim rights by virtue of our being. By virtue of our being - if one proscribes to a Christian world view - we have duties towards others, but no right to claim a right without the correlative responsabilities and obligations.

markdmark, "So If I didn't vote for the Liberals, why should I respect or adhere to the laws proposed and implemented by Howard and Co." - for the same reason that the rest of us had to (and in most cases still do) obey laws proposed and implemented by Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Goss, Beatty etc. Thats the way democracy works. If that was not the case you'd find me voting for a party that had no chance of forming a government so that I could pick and choose how much tax I paid, which laws I obeyed etc.

Feel as free as you like to protest against laws or government expenditures you believe to be unjust, unreasonable etc but obey the law until you can get a government to change the law. So an article pointing out the pitfalls of capitilism is fine, an article advocating the breaking of the law is a different matter. Cols suggestion of liability for harm resulting from such publication rather than censorship has merit but I suspect that regularly proving that a specific article contributed to a specific crime or a specific amount of damage would be difficult to achieve without seriously damaging concepts like burden of proof.

You do make valid points about idea's being canvassed in other media outlets, again though hard to keep the biases of the editorial staff from impacting on this.

R0bert

Col Rouge,

So the anti-Vietnam war protests (particularly conscription-card burning), the suffragette movement, or Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement are all illegitimate cases in the democratic process because of their anarchistic nature? You seem to have a very narrow view of what civil disobedience entails. Some forms of anarchy in the past have commanded the democratic future you live in today. Its radical views, which challenged the rule of law, have indeed led to democratic change, which you seem to be intolerant of.

You might as well start your own mini kristall-nacht by burning the anarchy-tainted literature of Thoreau or Ghandi. In a democracy, you have the opportunity to read or refuse these items as “antithetical to democracy”.

May I suggest you read Juergen Habermas’ “Civil disobedience: Litmus Test for the Democratic State” or “Citizenship and Obligation: Civil Disobedience and Civil Dissent” by Allan TRS (or maybe just judge his work by the title, as he apparently uses the words ‘disobedience’ and ‘dissent’ in one sentence).

I hope this sheer non-sense is challengeable enough to enlighten your kind.

Hey markdmark - there's a bit of difference between Martin Luther King's struggle for basic human rights and some unwashed student paper editor advocating drug use and stealing.

Martin Luther King was a great man motivated by an acute sense of justice and love. Your little heroes remind me of my kids - whisper the words "bum" & "willy" behind their hands and then giggle away. They're just naughty little nobody's who demand rights with no responsibilities. Your attempt to draw comparisons between King's struggle for human dignity and the right of losers to advocate criminal behaviour just demonstrates the silliness of your argument.

MarkdMark “You might as well start your own mini kristall-nacht”.

If you have read anything I have ever written, you would realise how deluded your suggestion is.

I challenge you to point out from my posts any “intolerance” toward individuals use of free expression and exchange of views.

As for suggesting a “kristall-nacht”. Nice manipulation, recruiting fascist icons and rhetoric. You would go far in that sort of corrupt state where all power is enshrined in the central committee and dispensed through malignant officialdom who eat first from the communal trough.

As for “And Its radical views, which challenged the rule of law, have indeed led to democratic change, which you seem to be intolerant of”

“Radical” is not necessarily “anarchistic” and “anarchy” is not necessarily progressive. More legislative and social changes have been achieved by the democratic and peaceful pursuit of reasoned debate than by a bunch of ratbags tearing down barriers throwing darts at police horses and destroying other peoples property.

Finally “I hope this sheer non-sense is challengeable enough to enlighten your kind.”

You do not know what “My Kind” is.

You have simply classified and catalogued me based on your own twisted and immature perceptions.
You have then grouped me together with others who, based on your malignant classification have challenged what you perceive as “your kind”.

That is how Hitler classified people. Then he put all the same kind together in ghettos prior to liquidation.

That is the sort of “civil-disobedience” which you are promoting.

That is why you cannot “tolerate” people of “My kind”.
Because “My Kind” challenge your attempts to dominate and intimidate our lives with your version of civil-disobedience.

When you start to respect people as “individuals” you will come close to understanding what “My Kind” really is but such notions would undermine your sense of “levelled” security derived through a ruthless and despotic state in which your place at the trough is assured.

Bozzie – you are spot on! – but do not expect the obtuse to understand the difference.