PALE:
OK I get what you mean that sometimes people fail to see that live exports/animal welfare does have a connection with certain other topics.
There must be a misunderstanding that made you think that RObert has the special privilege of unrestricted posts… I think we all have the same rights as OLO users.

BD
I’ll pour some water on the burning stake by saying that I support the list of things you hate but to be able to fully support it, I’ll have to make a slight change: I’d replace the words ‘doctrinally based’, with ‘all’.
And yes, anyone should have the right to criticise and question (a) religion.
Many beliefs that people hold are ‘brainwashed’ such as racism, sexism, homophobia, religion, and should be open to criticism.
I wholeheartedly agree with CR when he said, “…speaking about it and being challenged about it.” And yes permitting people to speak will expose wrong ideas.

Having said that, I am glad that Australia has Racial Vilification Laws. I believe that having these laws will elevate free speech because making horrible, racist comments will contribute to oppression of certain races/ethnicities. All races should have equal free speech.

I was quite annoyed when I read that the United Nations Secretary-General said that free speech should respect religious sensitivities.
I don’t agree, why should religion be singled out as something so special that it is granted respect more than other irrational beliefs such as homophobia or racism?
If someone would say: “Free speech should respect racist’s sensitivities” there would be outrage!

Celivia, babe,

You go girl!

Of all beliefs, we are expected to be "oh so polite" around religion - people scrutiny astrologers, wiccans and other believers in the supernatural, so why not religion?

And, don't they get into a right old tizzy when non-religious point out the irrationalities in the bible. BD et al love to dish it out, but they sure as hell can't take it.

Love

JR

Celivia,
I quite agree with you when you say if PALE wants to use its name on posts here, or anywhere, it should expect critisism from those who disagree with the stated views.

The only reason PALE would allow its members to communicate their personal views on various subjects is because they think PALE benefits from having their name spread around.

I wonder if they have considered the risk of litigation if someone takes offense at something stated in PALE's name.

No matter how much I may agree with what they do, I would have no part of an organization that allowed members to use that name to air personal views. All members assetts are at risk and I have worked too damn hard to put my assetts in such risk. I also do not see how critisism of PALE could impact on the RSPCA as that is a separate organization.

Incorporation may give protection to members assetts. When last I had much to do with an organizations administration, we had to ensure that INC was used after our name. Now things may have changed but I haven't noticed INC in anything to do with PALE. So maybe it's members assetts are vulnerable if litigation was successful.

RE: PALE's posting practices-

I agree totally that the username should only post on issues of Live Exports and that this would make their message stronger and far more professional, but frankly, we've been down this road on another long winded thread.
For reasons myself and others found somewhat spurious, the people behind PALE decided that they wanted to continue posting in this manner.

It would appear they are not to be deterred and I think PALE and most of the rest of us are pretty sick of the whole issue.

Though yes. They've got to wear any consequences that may flow from their decision. Again, we're aware of that, but I think it really is time to move on.

And back in regard to the issues of free speech - I think the discussion would be more productive if it was focused on issues outside of posters here in the forum.
As I put forward in the last post, nobody is actually being censored here unless they breach the forum rules, which have a great deal of leeway. Thus, the only thing which tends to occur is a point of view is put across, and is often strongly criticised - which is as it should be.

So what are the wider issues of free speech we face in Australia?

Taboo subjects - should they be taboo? Sometimes, I think, if it's racial vilification, then yes. Religious vilification is a grey area. I think it depends on urgings of violence.

As an example I wouldn't object to boaz's right to post on the violent nature of extremist Islam, though I damn well refute him, especially when he draws the whole religion under that brush and calls Islam 'evil.'

What I'd be interested in hearing from posters is not when they need to have the right to free speech - that's often easy.

What I'd like to know is at what stage each of you thinks the authorities should silence people's free speech - is it just on urging violence, or would Nazi propaganda be included as well?

Graham, thanks for clearing that up.

TurnRightThenLeft, I can't answer your question but I would like to discuss some of my thinking on this.

In part any answer to your question depends on how you define violence. The definition would need to include more than physical violence. The post and corresponding SMS that PALEIF and others have discussed elsewhere is one that does not appear to encourage future acts of physical violence but it is clearly an act of emotional violence against aboriginal people.

It appears to encourage hatred for a group of people and specifically a group of people where what defines the group is racial characteristics rather than a set of attitudes, beliefs etc.

I find myself with mixed views regarding having those views silenced. On the one hand as was pointed out elsewhere sometimes that stuff needs to be there so we can all see it as an object lesson.

On the other hand it is clearly and quite reasonably hurtful to those it targets. It's not a matter of put on sensitivities to silence critics, it is by any reasonable measure offensive. It's ongoing presence may provide opportunity for those who would mimic it or reproduce it elsewhere.

Mostly I think that stuff is better faced out in the open, rebutted and exposed for what it is.

Driving it underground does not necessarily make it go away but then it was not my racial group targetted so I can't really relate to the pain it causes. I've seen plenty of nasty things written about white Australians but they have rarely impacted directly on my life so again it's difficult for me to weigh up the balance and the pain the presence of that material causes aboriginal Australians.

The question is a difficult one and I've not found a satisfactory answer.

R0bert

Robert, TRTL

I have been doing some thinking on free speech but I’m constantly frustrated by my own mixed feelings and lack of knowledge/insight on these matters.
Please understand that my opinion may be temporary for that reason.

Free speech should be silenced when it becomes racial hate speech. I can’t see a valid reason for allowing speech that oppresses and deeply hurts others and/or contributes to discrimination of certain groups. With freedom of speech comes responsibility; when people utter hate speech, they should be held responsible for it.
Where free speech limits other people’s freedom and equality, then this could be the cut-off limit.

I feel the same about religion: there should be freedom of (and from) religion but if there’s a point at which a religion imposes on other people’s freedom, then this should be the cut-off point of their freedom of religion. In cases like this, freedom of speech would have to be utilised to make sure that any oppression would be exposed and criticised, hopefully leading to consequences for the imposers/oppressors.

On the other hand, limiting freedom of speech does not at all guarantee that certain issues which are on the mind of people, will disappear, and isn't it better to be aware what’s on the mind of people than not- discussion on issues may resolve them.

Our previous government banned “The Peaceful Pill” by Dr Philip Nitschke which I thought was an abhorrent attack on freedom of speech/print as well as humanity. Does the need for euthanasia evaporate with the banning of this book? Will the banning of this book prevent suicides? Not likely. Much discussion on euthanasia is still needed.

If free speech would possibly urge violence then I am inclined to think that the speaker/artist isn’t responsible for the violent actions of opponents.
Violence as a reaction is a primitive attack on free speech. Having to limit our free speech for the fear of violence is a very anti-democratic way of limiting each other’s speech.
Nobody HAS to resort to violence; there are superior ways to respond to hearing something we don't like.