I find Steven Lewis' and Peter Wertheim's self-righteous piece in The Australian of 18 August 2009 NAUSEATING.

See:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25942955-7583,00.html

I am not writing in defence of Frederick Toben. His Holocaust denial, his comments about the "Jewdiciary" are repugnant to any decent person.

Quote:

"The suggestion that Toben…should be able to say whatever they like regardless of how hurtful, inaccurate and ugly it might be, goes to the heart of our …belief in freedom of expression."

Yes it does.

Speech is NOT free if you are prohibited from saying what others may regard as hurtful.

Quote:

"But does this sort of commentary, publicly attacking people because of their race, ethnicity or religion, really constitute community debate?"

Note the conflation of race and ethnicity with religious belief. Race and ethnicity are conditions of birth. People should not be attacked on the grounds of race or ethnicity.

But religions are belief systems. In a secular democracy any belief system must be a legitimate target for critique, analysis, satire and scorn.

Quote:

"Like all freedoms, the proper limits of free speech are exceeded when it is about causing harm."

Who decides whether it causes harm?

A group of high priced lawyers?

This is tantamount to a licence for those with deep pockets to censor those who cannot afford to defend their rights in court.

"Whether it's Jews, Muslims, homosexuals or women, the public vilification of entire groups of people can only undermine, and ultimately destroy, their sense of security,…"

Note the authors elide the important question. People ought not to be attacked on account of their ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender. But is that the same as VOLUNTARY ADHERENCE to a BELIEF SYSTEM?

Note that Toben is being attacked for his (excremental) beliefs.

However it goes further. Muslims as a group ought not to be a target for "vilification".

But does that mean that Islam is to be immune from attack, analysis, satire and scorn?

The jailing of Toben is not a triumph for truth, justice and the Australian way. It is another nail in the coffin of free speech.

What gives you the right to "attack, satire and scorn" someone because of something they believe in?. Freedom of speech?...no, you have NO right to make me feel vilified, humiliated, or victimised JUST because I find comfort in something you don't.

That is a road to something horrible, and you're FOR IT?.

"The jailing of Toben is not a triumph for truth, justice and the Australian way. It is another nail in the coffin of free speech."

You're kidding me right?. Sorry mate, you're just as twisted as that bag of 'horse poo' (DAMN YOU OLO CENSORSHIP...ironic, eh?) if you think what he was proposing fits ANYWHERE in freedom of speech. The lines are getting blurry for you my friend. Try some humanity on for size instead of trying to kill everything around you that you don't agree with. You won't change the world, try understanding and co-existing with it. That'll make you a better, and happier person.

...and he wasn't jailed based on anything he said. He was jailed for contempt of court. You know that just as well as I do. So that makes YOUR comments purely based on personal agenda using any examples of 'breach of rights' your can find. THAT, my friend, makes you a bigot of the worst kind.

...and the other thing that wedges in my crack, is you try to pass yourself as educated and 'enlightened' but you CHOOSE to ignore the FACT that its people doing the wrongs, not the religion. People use the faith of others for their own agendas. PEOPLE do it, not the faith. What you should be doing is attacking the symptoms of terrorism, as an example, and not the book they're carrying while they do it, but here you are championing the 'rights' of a person drive by pure HATE, instead of advocating tolerance, understanding, and ACTUAL enlightened thinking on the subject freedom of speech.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

I agree with you. There is a danger that people may believe and act on the remarks of Toben. However, I believe there is a greater danger in shutting Toben up.

Speech that is loathsome to some must be protected if we are to have free speech. Speech which presents an immediate danger is prohibited under common law. It is incitement if a person harangues a mob to lynch a person. Toben's site does not do that.

As a Jew I find his comments loathsome. However as a Jew I value a free society where a person is free to express whatever opinion that person has however wrongheaded it is. Justice Holmes of the United States Supreme Court would only restrict speech where it presented a clear and present danger such as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre. I also agree with Holmes.

Toben spouts poison. However, he should be allowed to spout. It is the price of a free society.

Aaah, don’t be so negative Steven.

Messrs Lewis and Wertheim being as they are lawyers, are bound to be motivated by things beyond our ken, first they'll help sanitise Mr Tobins website–I have heard it does move some to tears ( though I think more from disbelief that anger).

But thereafter, Messrs Lewis and Wertheim I expect will take the blow torch to some of our holier books -- which there is little doubt-- have moved some to want to bomb or maim (practically) anyone in sight.

And after that, I have it on good advice, they intend to extend their campaign to whoever questions the official version of 9/11 –and particularly those variants that lay blame on the Americans or Jews.

Think of it as just the beginning of a whole new enlightened age.

I agree with stevenImeyer. If Toben's ranting is restricted, it suggests to his adherents that he has some sort of truth which is being suppressed by a Jewish conspiracy. Far better that his statements are out in the open for due mockery and destruction.

That said, there has been a rush to conflate his jailing for contempt with jailing for his statements.

And good one for bringing an article from The Australian for discussion here. Letters to its editor are carefully cherry-picked to favour only one side of the story.