Foxy,

A few comments.

David Irving aside, so far as I am aware it is not a crime in Australia to deny the Holocaust. I hope it never will be.

Hanan Ashrawi,* defender of Holocaust deniers, deserves a "peace prize" about as much as the good Dr. Goebbels. However if the Sydney Peace [sic] Foundation choose to give her one that is their business.

The "Zionist Lobby" – like any other lobby – is free to, well, lobby. That is part of their right to free speech. On the whole governments should ignore lobby groups.

I know nothing about snoop dog.

I cannot understand why you give the activities of the "Zionist lobby" or the Howard Government as a reason for changing your mind about free speech.

Why should that influence you one way or another?

You write:

"The intention must be constructive, not to do harm."

Who decides what is "constructive?" Who decides what causes harm?

Above all, the harm caused by censorship exceeds, by far, any temporary harm that may be caused by the robust exercise of free speech.

But here is the most important reason of all for allowing DESTRUCTIVE free speech.

If we did not allow destructive criticism we'd have to take this show off the air and it's the best thing on TV right now.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/hollowmen/#/home



*Spare me the sanitised version of the Ashrawi biography.

CJ,
“What evidence does palimpsest have that viewing fictional graphics hurts anybody”
I’m curious about that, too.

Palimpsest,
If one wants to drive 100 one just has to choose a 100 road. Or one has to speed in one's mind- in one's mind one can go 10,000 on a 40 road.

Or one can use one's fantasy and create a computer game where one can drag race on any road one likes, at any speed one likes, running over twits and hysterical prats, just for fun.
Nobody will lock you up for it.

So really, think about it: who is going to get harmed when a paedophile, in the privacy of his own room, uses his imagination to draw/create an image of a nude non-existing child in a way that sexually pleases him?
If creating images of nude, non-existing children will reduce the paedophile’s need for real child pornography, which does harm children, then won’t allowing the paedophile his dirty little hobby help reduce the harm done to children?

I’m not saying that I have an established opinion on this particular idea, because this is the first time I’m giving it some thought.
Atm, I can think of a few pro and against arguments, including attacking CJ’s and my own argument above.

What I would like to do if we were going to discuss this normally is to just have a look at all the pro and against arguments that we can think of together.

Steven,
“Who decides what causes harm?”
I think that this should be a democratic decision. For example, discrimination against a particular group causes harm to that group.
Do we want to live in a country where some groups can be targeted, bullied or harmed? If not, we'd have to create e.g. anti-discrimination laws.

Steven,
When some of us say that any form of expressing is Ok just so long as it does not incite hate/harm we are saying that the prime value/shibboleth is human life.

But suppose someone belongs to a creed that sees the prime value as not being human life, but “serving God”.To such a mindset (if they are honest with themselves –& others) it would be better harm fellow humans than harm God. Do we draw the line to accommodate their values or our own.

Is it determined simply by whoever has the most children: the majority rules.?

And what happens when such people form the majority –does some international body such as the UN have the right to intervene and say ‘sorry! human rights are paramount we’re introducing regime/culture change’ ?

Steven,

So you would suggest only specifically worded incitement(s) to actual violence should be verboten? What about indirect instructions and/or procedural advice which would arguably provide meaningful assistance to those seeking to inflict the same?

Say for example (a) I write on a website 'THIS IS HOW YOU MAKE SARIN...'

Then proceed to provide an effective, step-by-step synthesis of the same, starting from easily sourced ingredients/precursors... But in this scenario (1) I do NOT provide details of how to deliver the same effectively and (2) do NOT suggest that this be used in certain areas in order to inflict the most harm/suffering.

In scenarios (b) & (c) I do provide either (1) or (2) respectively whilst in scenario (d) I provide both (1) & (2) along with the synthesis information.

In none of these scenarios do I suggest that the compound be used to target any one or any specific ethnic, language and/or religious group, all that would be involved is:

(a) providing dangerous information, but information which is already in the public arena;* and

(b) advice on how to commit a terror attack with WMD's; or

(c) advice on how to maximise the results of a terror attack with WMD's; or

(d) advice on how to not only commit a terror attack with WMD's but also how to maximise the effects of the same.

If these are within the pale, consider the result of swapping Sarin & WMD for (a) methamphetamine and dangerous drug, the advice being (b) how to distribute it effectively; or (c) how to maximise profitability; or (d) both.

There are specific laws dealing with the latter category(s) on the books in some Australian jurisdictions and they are used.

* The discussion should accept for the purpose of argument that it is established that no conspiracy laws could be brought to bear.

i'm for free speech too. in fact, i include pornographic pictures of children. we are free to prosecute the people that make them, that seems enough to me. and indeed, having the pictures available makes detection and prosecution easier.

unless, that is, oz comes to democracy. right now we are ruled by an elite and one of our (feeble) defenses against oppression is what passes for free speech here. if it's necessary to make a picture of a child in a pornographic act in order to publicize the presence of a government officer in that act, then it's in the public interest to make the picture and publicize it.

if the democratic republic of australia, through the mechanism of citizen initiative, outlawed child pornography, that's a different story. with no political elite, ordinary police and prosecution methods will work.

Dear Steven,

I'm not going to get into an argument
with you about Hanan Ashrawi and the
way the Australian Jewish News handled
the matter. If you want to hear another
version of the one you've bought,
try Antony Loewenstein's, book
"My Israel Question," to get a different
perspective on the subject.

The only reason I brought up the matter, is
because we were discussing free speech. And
the media plays a big part in what is presented
to its public (and how it is presented).

As I stated in my post, we can claim to believe
in the "Ideal" of free speech, but often the
reality is very different, even from a "thinking"
gentleman such as you present yourself to be.

We all have our character flaws, as you once pointed
out in another thread.

And that's a human trait. We can all claim to be
for the ideal of "Free speech" but if we're honest,
we would all admit there are lines in the sand that
we would not cross. Simply because "It's not right!"