ROMANY,

Let’s apply your principles to the Toben case. So far as I am aware Mr. Toben's sole transgression is denying the Holocaust. That is to say, he expresses the view that the Holocaust never happened.

Now this is plain batty. The historicity of the Holocaust is not in doubt. I can well understand that Holocaust survivors and people who lost family because of the Holocaust would find this particular display of lunacy deeply offensive. Personally I find Toben's views repugnant.

It seems reasonable to infer that Toben's views are formed by a pathological hatred for Jews.

However, so far as I am aware Toben did not actually express any hatred for Jews or anyone else. He simply denied the Holocaust.

Using your principles Toben should be free to do this.

I agree with you.

That is why I find Judge Lander's judgement so disturbing. We cannot allow free speech to be limited by the fact that someone may be offended by what the speaker says.

LEIGH,

To the best of my knowledge there is no statute in Australia that establishes a right not to be insulted.

Personal insults, ad hominem attacks, are another matter. I am not sure what the legal situation is there. Continued personal attacks would constitute harassment and perhaps even actionable libel. Prohibitions against harassment and libel are well-known and generally accepted limitations on free speech.

To the best of my knowledge Toben did not harass or libel anyone.

My apologies there should have been a comma between CJ & you. Sorry CJ

Steven,

Why is this case more important than a hundred others where the same principle is used? Why this one?
Given a noted propensity to float topics that have a not to subtle relationship to all thing Israeli spin. Add to that conversation(s) where you give a clear indication of your pro Israeli bias. I refer you to a conversation whereby YOU told me that unless I accepted what was logically dubious Israeli spin doctrine we had nothing to talk about. (isn't that shutting down a conversation?)

If my linking of the facts are wrong then I guess I will apologise but as yet I'm unconvinced. Your intelligence is undoubted but so is your bias.

As for being Pro censorship give me a break! I merely pointed out that the law is double edged. Try looking at the anti vilification laws... I have no problem with common sense or broader perspective being applied.

The Judge clearly saw that the Denier was using the law to cover what is clearly an indirect vilification. i.e. if it doesn't exist then the Jews are liars etc.
Likewise I would sanction some of the more extreme anti Islamic false hood. Deliberate over reading etc. designed to alienate by and large a law abiding a societal group.

We all give up “rights(?)” to facilitate relative community harmony. The lesser end of society always abhors someone who is different. Because they have no answer to the facts they indulge is victim hood to justify or ad hominem.

Like Romany says reject your stance not you.

Jewely,
Anything you say may be taken down and used as evidence against you.

Dear Steven,

I've just come across a website that explains
it much better then I ever could:

http://blog.oup.com/2009/03/free_speech/

"Liberty Not Licence."

It may clear things up for you - regarding my
point of view.

The right to exercise any right should be controlled
to an extent whereby it is not detrimental to society.
Freedom should not be confused with licence, as the
article points out.

Freedom of speech does not mean
freedom to slander, freedom to engage in false and
highly misleading advertising, and so on. Frederick
Toben is not just a person with an individual opinion.
He advertises his thoughts via books, lectures, the
internet, and he also teaches other people
at the Institute in South Australia. In this way he
is actively slandering a group of people, he is giving out
highly misleading information that may provoke violence,
or the destruction of property, he is vilifying - which
The Australian Jewish News has objected to.

I agree with another poster (on another thread) who said
that, "If the speech is a lie - it should not masquerade
as a right to free speech."

Steve, before making much comment on Toben you really need to check out his focus, what he wants to achieve. And check out those he appeals to.

His purpose is most certainly CALCULATED, to intimidate and give courage to those who hate and fear the Jewish people. Worldwide. He is not merely giving 'another opinion'.

Romany, CJ and Foxy posted well on this.

Wouldn't it be of greater value to explore the difference, as expounded by Romany?

KBM- don't waffle about the Netherlands or Wilders. Wilders hasn't been stopped from giving controversial viewpoints. He's a member of parliament (House of Representatives) for goodness sakes. He's diametrically opposed to the likes of Toben by the way. Toben: admirer of Ahamadinejad; Wilders: Iran is an evil state.

Controversial viewpoints generally encourage good debate and argument, both sides have to show cause why theirs is the more rational/logical one. The argument that is, not the person.

@examinator
"We all give up “rights(?)” to facilitate relative community harmony"
If you want to facilitate comunity harmony WE MUST BLOCK THE DISCRIMINATION!
Create a law which could help the victims of any discrimination to find their rights. Improve our rights, do not limit them!
Obama's first sign was on the law against discrimination in work places.
About 80? republican MPs supported this law!
According to this law a women, victim of dicrimination in her work place can claim her rights, 6 months from the LAST payment. In Australia if you are victim of discrimination you MUST CLAIM YOUR RIGHTS WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DAY THE DISCRIMINATION HAPPENED.
We have federal and state ALP governments, I do not ask them to act as labor government but at least to do what Democrats and 80 republican MPs did in USA. CHANGE THE UNDISCRIMINATION LAW!
You can not tell me that you are interested for the community harmony when in every day life you do nothing to stop the victimization of innocent people, to stop the discrimination, to change the law about discriminition!
About the trojan horse, you did two mistakes.
First we, you and me, do not belong to the same political group I am with victime's side, FOR ME THE SOLUTION OF DISCRIMINATION PLROBLEMS IS TOP PRIORITY.
Second many people lost their lifes or suffer because their leaders thought that they was trojan horses.
Any one who desagree with us does not mean that he is a trojan horse!
If I am so sensitive about the freedom of expresion is because I want to speak in the future and I want to be free to speak.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide