Steven, Polpak, &others
I must admit that on the surface it would seem as though I am dealing in punditry or simply having a bob each way. Perhaps I assumed too much in my piece.
• There is a legally established test under law called ‘the reasonable man test’. In the final analysis it is a Jury that decides that certainly not me as an individual.
• However, under law there are “precedents” (decided cases) which act as guide lines for whether a case goes to court by the prosecution or not.
• From these guidelines the police have their rules as to what is or is not potentially a breach.
• There is of course interpretational lee way for police on the ground to decide on if a protest of say 50 grannies protesting about pensions taking their outer clothes off is a risk to public order or not(actual event)….all that meat and no potatoes Compare this with 50 Nazis, 50 rabid racists you decide?
• For THESE reasons I was somewhat concerned about lumping the examples under FREEDOM OF SPEECH issues.
I was in fact differentiating between freedom of speech and some of the charges that could apply and simply supporting established Australia’s legal system.

Using this perspective many of the seeming conflicts with freedom of speech can be avoided and the ‘offences’ picked up under other charges e.g. 50 grannies in ‘witch’s britches” is hardly in the same threat category as 50 Skin heads screaming death threats and racist comments is it? As I said CONTEXT determines the level of action and hopefully the charge.

If YOUR concerns are that you’re unhappy with the way the system works then that is a different issue altogether… perhaps another post?

I get the impression that some people here have no idea what free speech is.

Free speech is NOT the freedom to do or write or say whatever one wishes. That's ANARCHY.

Anyone here under 60 or so is part of the prosperous, self indulgent "me" generations. It's all about "my" rights, what "I" want, it's about "me" "me" "me" and "my" needs. Many posts on this topic show that.

Freedom of speech, taking into account libel, slander and child pornography is also problematic. One person's slander is another person's truth, one person's porn is another person's art. That's why we have laws to restrict certain forms of expression. If you don't like the law, then you can exercise your freedom of speech to change the law. Now THAT'S freedom of speech.

Another point, if someone has the right to do or say anything with the depiction Christ, child porn, Allah or the Holocaust etc etc in ANY way they choose (and this is some peoples' broad definition of freedom of speech), then do people who find that offensive have the right to do or say anything in opposition? If this version of freedom is "truth", then surely it must apply to ALL beliefs and ALL opinions; what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Of course this is a skewered "version" of freedom that's designed solely to satisfy individuals' needs and opinions. It's not freedom at all.

I find that some people are all for total freedom....UNTIL.... they're personally and directly confronted with something they find deeply and irreconcilably offensive. Then it's, "I'm still for freedom, but.........".

Freedom to do or say or write as one desires is NOT freedom. That's ANARCHY, which is the OPPOSITE of freedom.

It's a shame, that in a free country like Australia, more people don't understand the meaning of freedom of speech. I support freedom of speech 100%. I oppose anarchy 100%. Some people need to understand the difference between the two.

PERICLES.. (and Steven) YES.. actually... I also can agree with the 'in gallery/sell tickets' proprosal because for the purpose of the exercise, it wouldn't make a scrap of difference to the outcome.

When a play suggesting Jesus was homosexual was performed in Melbourne.. Muslims were up in arms... along with Christians being rather outraged.

My view is.. "What a great opportunity to capitalize on the publicity to give the biblical call to repentance and faith" (including repentance from homosexual behavior)

My goodness, you can't put enough of a dollar value on publicity like that!

So... the mind of Morgan is into kiddie porn ? hmmm as long as no minors are involved in it's production? CJ.. that's something in BIG need of repentance I'm afraid.. turn now before it's too late for you.

Now Steven touches on one of my favorites of Hate speech...

PERMITTED: Jews are filthy, slimy and untrustworthy.

FORBIDDEN: Kill the Jews.

Indeed.. and in the hadith quoted (nice for someone other than me doing this..specially a JEW who would bear the brunt of the hadith concerned)

The HADITH says "UNLESS.. the Muslims KILL... the Jews"

Now.. some analysis is worthwhile.

this hadith connects the HERE and NOW.. to a FUTURE event.. where that future event is dependant on SPECIFIC action.. namely
KILL JEWS.

Now..I can think of a number of possible 'rationalizations' which Muslims might try to use to defend this:
such as:

"Oh..this means Jews who will be attacking Muslims in the last days"

Or.. "This is a weak hadith"

Well.. back to 'interpretation 101'..and we must ask.."On what basis/evidence" can they say this? Of course it would need to be clear and documented.

So...I invite any Muslim reader to do just that!

The fact that it is in total harmony with the mass slaughter and exile of all Jewish Tribes from Arabia should give us a hint as to what interpretation is required. In each case the Jews are blamed and the Muslims are claimed to be innocent.

Dear Polycarp,

I am starting to suspect that you Sir,
are a salesman.

Nothing more.

And the sad part for you is, nobody's buying!

Polycarp,
I contacted a long-term friend of mine and WELL qualified (he has doctorates from Oxford and Harvard) who could provide the information you say you want to set up a meeting (oh yes he’s a Muslim).

But after reading a number of your comments to get a feel for what you might ask and what he might need to provide. He made comment noting the way you assert your ‘limited knowledge’ of his faith then politely declined the offer. Telling me that “it would be a waste of your time." when pushed further he said "It would like teaching blind man to fly a plane…it would end badly"

Porkycarp: << So... the mind of Morgan is into kiddie porn ? hmmm as long as no minors are involved in it's production? CJ.. that's something in BIG need of repentance I'm afraid.. turn now before it's too late for you. >>

Boazy's obviously getting desperate. This is because he's made an arse of himself on other OLO threads, where he's been shown to be as dishonest in his current incarnation as "Polycarp" as he was in his former OLO identity of "BOAZ_David".

Typical boazycrap, let's move on..

Haganah Bet makes an interesting point. I would think that the sort of scenario s/he describes is another exceptional case where freedom of expression might legitimately be restricted.

Foxy: << 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!" >>

Sorry Foxy, it's not that simple. You have to say why something is "not right" in order to win an argument, rather than "simply" asserting that it's so.

With respect, examinator and samsung should read more widely. Nice ideas, but they only connect tenuously with reality.