Straw man. One doesn't have to "speak in favour" of reprehensible speech in order to be against its suppression. Manny at least has to make the argument that such suppression has a beneficial effect. He has not done so. He then sets up a second straw man, by sliding into a discussion of who we should "invite into our homes".

As I have mentioned before the availability of pornography feeds the lust of the paedophiles and child abusers. Many still argue their right to watch perversion in private even though it obviously has a detrimental affect on society.

Author writes freedom of speech is invaluable but I will judge what is good and evil etc.

It's evil to let Islamist "terrorists" push their case but it's fine to have Bush declare war and deliver a sheer rain of bombs on innocent people, as well as "evil" people. And have 24/7 TV coverage of that war, including repetetive loops of mombs destroying target, hopefully, buildings and sites.

I am shocked but not awed and neither are those in Iraq now, the visitors that is.

Sick, both, my opinion.

What's the difference? Only you opinion of course. There is no firm right or wrong, in anything.

Another Islam tripe item. Badly done and porrly argued.

See this is where the problem lies:
The author, who i assume has seen the DVD and is in a position to judge it, is giving his opinion about it and why it should be banned. If it is now banned, all i have to go by for my own personal judgement on the matter, is this authors opinionated words about it. Hardly the bare facts. If i took the authors words as fact i would not want the DVD circulated either, but how do i know that the author is being factual, how do i know he is unbiased, how do know i can trust him and accept the dvd to be banned on his assessment, therefore denying me the chance to form my own judgement about it based on the actual facts - the DVD itself?
Censorship substitutes an individuals responsibility to make up their own mind about something, with some authorative body granted the power - often without their permission - to do it for them.
Now i would probably not want to see this DVD after reading what the author has written, but i do not want the choice to see the DVD taken away from me either.
Classification is fine because it is a system of recommendation and guidance. It does not sacrifice choice. Maybe a new label is needed, "Warning: inflammatory content" giving it a stronger rating.
The best way to counter destructive ideas and harmful speech is to show them for what they are, speak out loudly about it as the author is doing, while also providing consistent education and guidance on the social, good sense and sane ways of thinking and behaving. Only a very few opt for the destructive ideas, so why curtail the many for fear of the few?

I agree entirely with bushbasher. It's a straw man argument.

But there is a deeper issue here. Freedom of speech is the most fundamental freedom of them all. Because without free speech ALL the other freedoms vanish.

Unfortunately there are no free lunches. Anal cavities like Feiz Mohammed, as well as pornographers, will take advantage of free speech to publish their murderous male bovine excrement.

So can we stop the "bad" stuff while allowing the "good" stuff to be published?

Nope, we can't. Pass laws that rein in people like Feiz Mohammed and the usual gang of self-righteous multi culti groupies and their lawyers will use them inhibit frank discussion of everything from Islam to Zionism. It will become too risky to publish anything that may cause offence to anybody.

In practice the only way to ensure the free flow of ideas is to make their publication risk free. That means free of the risk of having to defend yourself in a lawsuit.

An exception might be incitement to violence NARROWLY DEFINED. Speech that EXPLICITLY directed people to harm or kill a specific individual or group could be banned under such a law.

So, to put it bluntly:

"Judaism is a false religion and its practitioners will burn in hell" would be allowed.*

"Kill Jews" would not.

* For the record, I do not subscribe to such a bizarre point of view. But I would defend the right of someone to say it.

No doubt depraved kiddie tamperers get their rocks off to a department store kids catalogue too. Better, ban that sort of advertising. Such rights of the normal folks to look thru those catalogues must be curtailed as it obviously has a detremental effect on society (whatever that is).

Its the old adage... dont throw the baby out with the bathe water.

Freedom comes with the burden of personal responsibility for what the individual does with that freedom. Unfortunately some cant handle it. If we then deprive the responsible masses of those freedoms then we dont have freedom.

Qualify freedoms at your own peril.

Because when you dont like the unfree world you end up living in you know who to congragulate.

Most folk cannot handle freedom, hemce their desire to control/limit it. Its easier to follow than lead.

Why we blame the speaker of words that someone elses uses as an excuse to validate their own motivation is beyond me. Maybe we should hold a person accountable for their actions.

If l told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it. If you do it, is that my fault.

"Sticks and stones...".

"supporters of an unfettered right of expression do not accept that there are absolute core values that must be protected in a multicultural society"

By Manny, many of those who would support your arguments are completely opposed to Australia remaining a multicultural society.

Great article - freedom of speech is not absolute and is restricted by the harm and offense principles. The posts above seem to be full of hot air, feel good, Voltaire wannabes, mindlessly repeating the non-quote of the Voltaire-mantra without any understanding. Living in a world of moral equivalence is probably easier, don't have to think too hard as evidenced from the above, but leads to anarchy. But then again, that's probably what these posters want.

Irfan, define multiculturalism. If it's a community of multiple tribes with different laws, social values, morals and ethics accountable only to themselves - which is where we are heading, then yes, many of the people who agree with this article will also be against multiculturalism. If it's a single community made of up people from various cultures living under one legal system, social value, morality and ethics accountable to the whole community, maintaining the flavour of the culture and throwing out the 'bones', then, no, most agreeing with this article would support this type of multiculturalism. The latter is how multiculturalism started and gained popularity; the former is developing now and causing problems.

Personally, I think that if we don't extend freedom of speech even to people with obnoxious views, even possibly to advocating violence, then we don't have free speech at all. That extends equally to islamo-fascist jihadists and obnoxious rightwing shock jocks.

Irfan, I'm intrigued. In a recent article you argued that:

"(Alan) Jones didn't have to read offensive and racist emails on air. He didn't have to mention bikie gangs gathering at railway stations. If anything, Jones and 2GB got off lightly. They should cop the effects of the law, just like the rest of us do."

Would you say that Jones' advocacy of violence should be illegal, but but Feiz Mohammed’s should not?

The harm principle and the offense principle. If you're going to argue the harm principle, you have to argue the harm, AND compare it to the harm of censorship. Manny does not do this.

As for the offense principle, responding to "offense" by censorship is simply being precious.

Let's not confuse the freedom of expressing one's opinion with the right to incite violence in the name of one's opinion.

Yes, we should all be free to express our opinions. But inciting others to take up arms or commit acts of violence has nothing to do with expressing an opinion. It's an act of violence and it should be prohibited as such.

Opinions and discourse promoting hatred should not be allowed to be expressed publicly either.

It's way too easy nowadays to broadcast one's opinion to the entire world (ref. this very Forum!).

We, as a 'civilised' society, should never tolerate anyone broadcasting calls to violence or hatred in any way, shape or form.

Just for Chrissie, here's a few quotes from Voltaire.

. Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

. Judge of a man by his questions rather than by his answers.

. The secret of being boring is to say everything, and my favourite (half right),

. If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

I agree man invented the deity but the other bit, no.

Any of these apply to your own views Chrissie?

I wonder how many from the left of politics condone the violence by those in France who can't accept a democratically right wing elected government. Socialist like some extreme religous groups react violently to those who don't share their view of the world. Its ironic that the Muslims and Socialist are at one in this violence in France at the moment. They not only object to free speach but democracy itself.

I think that most people are missing the point here. Notwithstanding their apparently vile content, I can see no reason why such videos should not be available through normal channels - except that the PG rating seems absurd. Make them R or X rated, the latter probably being a better classification because they would then only be legal in, or distributed from, the ACT. There's a squillion other legal DVDs out there that promote all kinds of hate and violence, but their distribution is theoretically constrained by our censorship ratings. Why not this one?

Put it out there so people can see it, discuss it, rant about it, lampoon it or whatever. I think that "Borat" could have a field day with material like this :)

CJMorgan, it is obvious to you and I that Sheik Feiz Mohammed is a fool but that is because we don't take the Koran or the Islamic religion too seriously.

The real questions are - how many Muslims DO take Sheik Feiz Mohammed seriously? What are the likely outcomes of this? And should we be concerned?

That is, what percentage of Muslims (probably young male) are adversely affected by the Sheiks ranting? Zero percent? 5 percent? 10 percent?......

There is also another key point to remember here. In Western societies Muslims are fighting a public relations battle to convince everyone that Islam is a "religion of peace."

YET Muslims like Irfan seem to condone such moronic and aggressive behaviour by their obvious refusal to consistantly condemn men like Sheik Feiz Mohammed.

Irfan's vague post in this thread is a typical example of Muslims shooting themselves in the foot.

Go on Irfan (or other Muslims out there), say it; "Sheik Feiz Mohammed is nasty facile bigot. We condemn his words and actions as they are contrary to the peaceful teachings of Islam and slander its good name."

Philip Ruddock is proposing to ban material which praises terrorism. That's praises; not just advocates or incites. It's not surprising the states have refused to support him.

The definition of 'terrorist act' in the Criminal Code is so broad, it includes the bombing of Nagasaki and of Dresden. Yes, those actions were wrong. But if the RSL wants to defend them,to praise them, they should not be liable to prosecution, or dependent on the Attorney General not to authorise such prosecution.

I should be able to read Mein Kampf, in order to understand Nazism. I should be able to read what Neo-Nazis write, so I can argue against their views.

I should be able to read material which advocates violent action against tyrannical governments. I should be able to read defences of the Iraq war (wrong though it is). (What was shock and awe but an attempt to terrorise people into ceasing to resist?)

There is already a law against inciting violence.

The views espoused by Sheik Feiz Mohammed in the “Death Series” DVD should not shock Manny Waks as he was only preaching from the Koran.

In the book ‘The Wisdom of Jihad’, printed in Malaysia and sold openly, the ‘moderate’ Muslim author (Abuhuraira Abdurrahman) defined jihad as ‘..waging a just and holy war against infidels [non-Muslims] with the motive of keeping the word of Allah supreme.(p. 22)’ He appealed to the Koranic verse,

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not.(2:276)”

He went on,“More Koranic verses are so emphatic on the necessity of armed-jihad.(p. 10)”. The author is correct because the Koran has a whole chapter dedicated to jihad, Al–Anfal (in Arabic) or ‘Spoils of War’ in English.

The Islamic cleric brought out the ultimate aim of jihad, “..unless… a full-fledged Islamic State with Koranic constitution is established, the Muslims cannot exercise freedom in all aspects of their lives.( p.49)”

The issue goes far deeper than the freedom of speech, it is about the Koran and what it stands for.

This is a most important issue.

watching Christians being torn to pieces by wild animals was once considered 'MA15+' at the local footy ground, but that was a long time ago. Faiz would have us return to that kind of 'sport'?

This is not an issue of "supressing truth" so we can send Muslims to the Colossaeum, it is about illuminating some truth which would otherise be getting our 'infidel' throats cut by Muslim children.

TALIBAN, YVONNE RIDLEY and why I campaign so hard.

For those with a desire for truth, please view this link/video, and you will see why I was present at the Islamic conference in Melbourne recently, (intending to 'protest' but ended up simply chatting on this occasion)

Ridley was 'captured' by the Taliban, was amazed at their 'kindness' to her, went back, read the Quran and became a Muslim, now promotes Islam to the world.

Here is the Taliban which captured Ridley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-UkS6NcZjY
(Video posted by former Muslim of 18yrs who's cousins were beheaded in Iran without blinking an eye for having a 'Bible' under their beds.)

Before anyone suggests this is 'misrepresenting' Islam or its prophet, they should read this link from Islamic Hadith.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/016.smt.html scroll to number 4131 and read.

"Teach them this,” he says in one of the series, referring to the children of viewers: “There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid (holy warrior). Put in their soft, tender hearts the zeal of jihad and a love of martyrdom."

Faiz... teach them? by showing a 12 yr old Taliban boy how to carve the head off a grown fully conscious man.

CHALLENGE. The main problem is not so much the proliferation of such DVD's and ideas as Manny says, but our OWN lack of alternative proclamation.

If anyone feels passionately about their atheism, or their Buddhism, or Hindusim -by all means preach it, but proclaim your own faith independantly, just as I would.

UNITED FRONT. The one thing which can bind us all together, is the exposure of the truth about Islam.http://www.Islammonitor.org

PERNICIOUS DECEPTION. JIHADISTS IN AUSTRALIA.

Look 'closely' at this:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21554201-601,00.html

Sheikh Swaiti of the Canberra Mosque

"God grant victory to the mujaheddin in his name in all places," he called out twice in ARABIC over a microphone at Abu Bakr mosque in Yarralumla in front of about 500 worshippers.

"God grant victory to mujaheddin in Palestine, and Chechnya and Kashmir and Afghanistan and Iraq."

Although Sheik Swaiti translated his sermon into English for non-Arabic-speaking audience members, the imam of Canberra's only mosque OMITTED the praise for Islamic jihadists in the English version.

NOW.. note the 'rationalization'.

"After the 20-minute sermon, the Palestinian-born cleric, who works at the tax office in Canberra, denied he was referring to Muslim holy fighters when he praised mujaheddin. He said Islamic jihad referred not only to fighting but also to self-discipline."

IN this, we see the 2 faces of Islam.

1/ The "oh..Islam is peace, its about overcoming bad habits" version.

2/ The TRUE version which is about violent military Jihad.

The same is in the Quran "No Compulsion in Religion"
Then "MAY ALLAY DESTROY THEM" (Christians and Jews)9:30

2 Faces. One religion

THE CONVERT and the 'PEACEFUL' JIHADISTS.

Kurt Kennedy a Muslim convert of "Lets form an Islamic Political Party" 'fame', was attacked by the 'Jihadis' ..Sheikh Swaitis supporters including his son, 9 men.

So, Sheikh "Jihad is all about personal struggle" Swaiti now morphs into 'The Terminator' seeking to beat the living daylights out of Kennedy.

KURT.. word from the street mate. "Join a violent religion, don't be shocked when it BITES you in the bum"

The playing of scenes of naked muslims at Guntunamo Bay receiving nothing but a bit of humiliation the way I see it, repeated over and over by the Western media caused the rioting of muslims that resulted in the deaths of innocent Westerners in some countries.

The Western media however did not choose to balance this with scenes of the Arabs cutting their prisoners throats on national television nor have they said much about the torturing of prisoners with electric drills until dead by the Arabs but they have gone on and on about the supposed mistreatment of prisoners by America.

This supposed freedom of speech by the Western media was directly responsible for the killing of some of their own people as the Arabs took out their anger on them. We have laws in this country against sedition. It would seem to me that this DVD contravenes this law. It should be censored on the grounds of sedition.

The Western media needs to put the safety of their own people before its so called (biased) freedom of speech. The long term safety of our society and whether we stand or fall may depend on the medias willingness to not jeprodise our security by inflaming our enemies and to not continually hamper our armies ability to fight by demanding the impossible of them in a war situation.

Quite frankly, I'm against banning DVDs such as this for a number of reasons.

1) Freedom of speech isn't really a sliding thing. You have it or you don't. I suppose you can put caveats on things such as urging acts of violence, but go much further and you run into some pretty significant risks.

2) From a practical standpoint: if we ban these, the people behind them stop making them, or they go underground. Either way, we no longer know who precisely is making these messages. Isn't that riskier?

3) The author speaks about permissible discussions, such as do we want to go down the road of discussing the merits of ethnic cleansing and so forth.
My answer there is quite simple - that's up to us. If someone was to do such a thing, they would be hounded and their views would not be accepted. This is as it should be - the alternative is somebody deciding the rules beforehand. I don't like that idea at all. I'd rather these issues were decided by consensus, which is pretty much what you have in a society of free speech.

4) As I understand it, the film in question doesn't actually describe how to undertake a terrorist act. I'm not convinced something like a stupid DVD would radicalise anyone that isn't already in an environment where such an influence can take hold. In relation to it being likely to instigate terrorism, I think that's pretty damn unlikely when weighed up against the implications of limiting free speech. Somebody could just as easily watch an action movie and decide to replicate the villains. For more on the risk of terrorism for videos such as this, see point (2).