Prof. JOHN MEARSHEIMER - The Israel Lobby
http://www.youtube.com/live/Uj2zbuIBHQg?t=30
- Watch for 3 mins until Australia is mentioned.

The number one threat to free speech is Netanyahu.
The number two threat to free speech is the 'following the path of the Brits and Europeans'

The EU are dictating democracy, anti-populist, anti-nationalist and conduct lawfare against undesirable candidates that deny the people chosen representation, as well as attacks on Musks X platform trying to control the discourse and the Brits will send you to jail for the slightest step out of line on social media.
http://www.youtube.com/live/T4XU9O3vEQA?t=1628

The real question you should be asking here Bezza is this:

'Is the collective West becoming authoritarian?'

Take Russia and the USA for example.
In Russia there's many western journalists on media like Sputnik, but even in the US they'll place sanctions on Russian media.
- Even social media companies like Meta ban RT.
And I'm sure googles search algorithms have bias against Russian media as well, favoring western results and omitting Russian ones, to control the discourse and ensure the majority of people remain uninformed.

- The west is far from being the bastion of freedom it claims to be.

Hi Bezza, I've been negligent and should have replied earlier. The terms and conditions of this website are that you are subject to the laws of Queensland. That doesn't, however, mean that some interstate, or even international, court might decide they have jurisdiction.

These sorts of laws are a threat to everyone everywhere in that they may chill speech, even when it cannot touch the speaker.

Anything said on here is subject to the general law. So if something is an offence in Queensland at a state level, or Australia at a federal level, then there could be repercussions.

Do you all understand what free speech is essentially all about?

It's not about the freedom to say the things everyone agrees with.
It's about about being able to say things which others disagree with.
Things that others might find offensive or distasteful, or that which an authoritarian (Or captured) government might oppose.

(There was historically no law against being offended, now I'm not certain)

It's like this:
'I may not agree with that which others say, but I will fight and defend their right to say it.'

It's the right of one person to say whatever they think, no matter how ridiculous, but includes a right for another person to either agree with them or tell them it's ridiculous.

Thanks Graham. As usual some go off at a tangent from the subject.
If I was charged for instance could a claim be made to a court in Victoria that the Qld computer can be read in Victoria so that's it ?
What if a Victorian offended someone in Victoria ?
This a bit like the Federal government wanting to force Facebook to
remove offensive posts.
I think someone has opened a can of worms !

Everyone seems to have missed the point !
If I write something that offends a member of a group, then in the
consideration of the case the reasonable person factor becomes only
a reasonable person of the same group as the complainant is considered.

You can build many examples of this;
eg I say that Islam is a problem.
A moslem complains and the police charge me under this Victorian law.
The judge used take into account if a reasonable person would object,
under this law it has to be if a reasonable moslem would object.
See the problem ? Apparently some barristers do see the point.

I used that example because of what I have written on this site.
As Graham said as the computer is in Queensland no case could be made.
However someone in Victoria could argue that the offense appeared on
their computer in Victoria.
Anyway it seems to be a nibble at free speech.