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.

StG: "He was jailed for contempt of court."

Yes, Toben was jailed for contempt of court, or in other words for ignoring the courts direct orders on numerous occasions. But to say it wasn't a free speech issue is just plain silly. The court ordered he shut up, and he didn't.

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

How can it be any other way? Even in that bastion of free speech, the US, bans some things. Anything that creates imminent danger is out: like yelling "fire" in a movie theatre. In Australia people are forbidden to talk about their deliberations while on a jury. That seems OK to me.

So there is nothing wrong with the standard. It is just where you draw the line. And for me, Houellebecq's thread "I feel, so you must change" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2746 summed it up rather neatly. That is where Steven Lewis and Peter Wertheim demand we draw the line; that is their basis for saying Toben causes harm. They feel Toben's opinions abhorrent, they are worried others might take them up, and therefore Toben must be forced to change.

There is little evidence that many things we censor cause harm. Porn, Simpson's cartoons, playing violent video games - there is no strong evidence either way. (Which is to say there while some studies show high porn exposure correlates to increased bad outcomes like rape, others show the reverse effect. Ditto for kiddie porn.) So if you read Clive Hamilton's arguments for censorship, they boil down to the fact that he asked people if things like porn made them feel uncomfortable. And guess what - to many people (particularly women) it does. Thus he says we should censor it.

So again it seems "They feel, so you must change". Like you I find such arguments nauseating. They lead to things like mandatory internet filters, a scheme that necessarily requires things be censored by moral guardians operating in secret. You'd think it self evident that cure is worse than the disease, but apparently not.

Yes, freedom of speach is a real double edged sword.
Did you see Four Corners last night ?

Someone circulated a DVD which purported to show that MI5 or other UK
government arm conducted the London Underground bombings.

It was shown at a mosque in London and the congregation was asked,
who believed that MI5 did it.
There would have 100 to 200 present and I could not see one that did
not have a hand up.
The BBC found the author who was an Irishman who believed he was God
and had authored similar stories.
He is being extradited to the UK.
Another person also has been running a conspiracy site on the
bombings as well as a Auschwitz Holocaust denial site.

The DVD said that the bombs were planted under the trains.
It did not explain how come the four moslems who arrived in London
together all by co-incidence all sat next to the bombs on three trains
and a bus.
Also the BBC did not pick up on that.

Really it makes you wonder if some of these people should be locked up
in a psychiatric hospital.

The BBC showed conclusively that all the DVD "evidence" was a load
of nonsense.
Now many moslems believe the DVD and some are promising revenge for
the bombers.

This is a clear case of freedom of expression being quite dangerous.

rstuart "But to say it wasn't a free speech issue is just plain silly. The court ordered he shut up, and he didn't."

No they didn't.

"The sentence follows seven years of Toben repeatedly ignoring court orders requiring him to remove racist material from his Adelaide Institute website.

His journey to prison began in 2002 when the Federal Court found Toben's website breached the racial-hatred provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act.

[...]

Toben is going to jail for contempt of court. He was ordered to remove the offending material and he didn't. He promised to remove the material and then reneged. He apologised to the court but then recanted."

He didn't go to jail over freedom of speech.

Bazz: "an Irishman who believed he was God ... makes you wonder if some of these people should be locked up in a psychiatric hospital."

He is clearly mad. But we lock mad people up in psychiatric hospital for their benefit, not ours. Maybe he is a perfectly happy mad man.

Bazz: "This is a clear case of freedom of expression being quite dangerous."

Bazz, you really need to take a hard look at your definition of dangerous. Driving fast is dangerous. A cleric urging Jihad, asking people to go out and kill their neighbours is dangerous. George Bush was really, really dangerous. But a nut case publishing a DVD? Ye Gods!

Still, I guess I should look on the bright side. If we are going to make the ravings of nut cases illegal that will improve the posts here no end.

Bazz: "Now many moslems believe the DVD and some are promising revenge for the bombers."

These people take the rantings of an obvious lunatic to heart, and you blame the lunatic? It seems to me they want to believe, indeed are longing for an excuse to go on the rampage. The lunatic has an excuse. He is after all a lunatic. What excuse do these Muslims, have? How about their community leaders, their religious leaders, the politicians who apparently tolerate this sort of crap blossoming in their midst?

rstuart; It does not really matter if the originator of the nonsense
is a lunatic or is just a sane malicious person, they are equally
dangerous.
It certainly raised in my mind whether the moslems in that mosque were
really very stable intelligent people as they so readily accepted the
DVD on face value without discussion just because the imman believes it.

I think most on here would want to know more ins and outs of the matter
before we en mass accepted it.
It is the ready acceptance by some that makes it dangerous.

Bazz: "It is the ready acceptance by some that makes it dangerous."

The central concept here Bazz is it is not the words that are dangerous, it is the deeds. No matter how bad the words, they can't by themselves do harm.

The question you must ask yourself is: if a reasonable person heard those words, are they likely to do something dangerous. In the case of someone yelling fire in a theatre, the answer is clearly yes. In the case of George Bush saying he had proof that Iraq harboured weapons of mass destruction, the answer is again clearly yes. So if you were calling for the banning of those particular words Bazz, I would understand and perhaps support you.

I expect we agree on this point. The disagreement is over where to draw the line. An example might make it obvious why I think you are putting it in the wrong place.

Let say we have a nut case going around saying the British Royal family killed Lady Diana and her boyfriend. Let us say he is famous, he owns Harrods, is very persuasive and worst of all is a member of that homicidal race prone to murderous rage - the Arabs. Clearly such a well educated, successful and polished man is very convincing. Surely therefore it is reasonable to expect his well published beliefs will send some fringe Arab group into a revenge fueled frenzy. So he must be silenced, locked up if necessary.

Well perhaps not. At least they hadn't lock up Mohamed al-Fayed last I checked. Perhaps this is because no reasonable person, Arab or not, would going around harming people on the basis of those words. But apparently, you are saying it is perfectly reasonable to expect practising Muslims to be thrown into a terrorist rampage by words from a Irish nut case who proclaims himself to be a god.

If so Bazz, at this point we must agree to disagree. I don't see anything reasonable about that whatsoever. It would make more sense to lock up Mohamed al-Fayed.

These anti-vilification laws leave the door open for Govt to jail someone for what they believe in.It is only one small step to change a few words to encompass protests against the State.There is enough photographic evidence of the holocaust to prove the reality.So why do we need laws that restrict freedom of speech?

Th US backed Plo Pot in Cambodia.He murdered 1 million directly and aonther 2 million died of hunger and disease.Over 1 million Iraquis killed.How many will die in Afghanistan?Could I be jailed in the future for stating these facts? 20 million died in the Russian revolution.Why do some in our religious/racial communities need special laws to protect them when others do not have such protection?

StG

You attack people for their beliefs all the time. You are attacking me now for my belief that free speech ought to be, well, free.

Politicians are mocked and scorned for their stated beliefs. Toben is attacked for his apparent belief that the Holocaust never happened.

But I'm not actually talking about attacking people. I am talking about attacking, satirising or heaping scorn upon the beliefs themselves. Should Islam be exempt from mockery simply because it is a belief that is labelled a "religion"? How about Christianity? What about Zionism?

Technically Toben was jailed for contempt of court. But the court ordered him to cease and desist from expressing a point of view in the first place.

Bazz, rstuart

Yes, free speech is a double-edged sword.

Here's the thing. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The danger of creeping censorship outweighs the danger of people expressing thoughts you may find repugnant.

Would someone be motivated to physically harm Jews as a consequence of Toben's hateful website?

Perhaps. But I suggest that those are people who probably would have attacked Jews anyway.

ONCE YOU NEED A LAWYER TO HELP YOU DECIDE WHETHER YOUR SPEECH MEETS THE "ACCEPTABLE" CRITERIA FREE SPEECH IS DEAD AND, ALONG WITH IT, DEMOCRACY.

The only acceptable limits to free speech are outright incitement to violence and outright racism. However in these cases incitement to violence and racism need to be very narrowly defined. So:

"Judaism is a stinking religion. Only a baboon could believe that stuff" is acceptable.

"Kill the Jews" is not.

The first is an attack on a belief system. The second is a call to perpetrate violence on an ethnic group.



Arjay, david f

You are both correct.

Once free speech goes, so does democracy. Free speech means the right to have your say without exposing yourself to the danger of heavy lawsuits because you have offended someone.

Personal vilification is covered by the laws of libel which are, I believe, too draconian anyway. But that is another story.

I tend to agree with david f, rstuart, arjay and steven. While we may find some views repugnant, laws that dictate paramaters for speech are dangerous to the tenets of democracy (as loose as they might be).

Who decides what is true or untrue? There are obvious cases like the Holocaust where there is overwhelming evidence and historical recordings for which most reasonable people can decide for themselves and Toben merely paints himself for what he is.

The case of the terrorist DVD is not new. There have been many circulated reports (papers, CD-ROMS and DVDs)of 9/11 and the British underground bombings conspiracies. Even Martin Bryant has his own Port Arthur conspiracy followers. You will always get those people who will immediately grasp onto any information of this type to fulfill their own feelings of global conspiracies.

As long as the DVD is not inciting violence or advocating terrorism it is not illegal. Asking a group of Muslims praying at a Mosque who thinks the DVD is true is cashing in on mob mentality and many a speaker can whip up a frenzy in a mob in the right circumstances. You only need a sense of entitlement and injustice in the minds of the audience and anything is possible.

If the Imam then incites bombings based on this DVD then he is committing an illegal act.

There are laws in place that already protect us without the need to further tighten freedom of speech.

stevenlmeyer

Is it ok for websites depicting adults raping children alright for free access on the net?.

Oh what the hell I'll be the fly in this 'ivory tower discussion'.

Rstuart
Are you really making the distinction between the 'word' and the act of speaking/publishing? Of course the spoken word does harm! Tell that to the victims of bullying and verbal abuse. Some on OLO even question the validity of derogatory name calling is a form of violence against an individual. As a wife who has a "stand over" husband if his words are a denial of her human rights and harmful?

Steven
I called this discussion “Ivory Tower" simply because it has no foundation in the reality of the human factor...and therefore my favourite...CONTEXT. How can any subject that involves people be anything other than Ivory Tower without a wider context of considering those who are most likely to be the aggrieved parties in a society? It's fundamental to our concept of justice.

Otherwise we could have "Univac" computer (Isaac Asimov)to dispassionately decide all cases on the Literal word of the law.

Wars have been fought over a lot less than someone criticising a belief structure.
It is sheer propaganda or wanton naivety to justified any of the so called “Rights” by theoretical, literal (context lacking) concepts alone ?

Let's get real 'freedom of speech' is and always has been both conditional and a compromise. Nowhere in the world is there or has there been or could there be absolute “Freedom of Speech”. There are always boundaries.

Absolute Democracy is by definition doesn't and can't exist if only because of human nature/failings. Consequentially There is always the conflict between the law and who make it.

Your assertions are not without merit but they are predicated on assumptions of a level playing field ...absolute equality (power, competence, capacity ability and fairness)...another logical myth.

The whole discussion so far doesn't consider the practical context on which “the compromise” is founded.
In reality “rights” are practically speaking, a compromise and in absolute... aspirational.

We've been here before, haven't we Steven?

As I said last time, you're quite correct - but I'm going to wait for a less despicable example before I protest about it. It doesn't bother me very much personally that haters like Toben (or indeed the 'Catch the Fire' idiots) are restricted from spouting their filth.

However, if you can find an example where someone who isn't an odious toad has their freedom of speech curtailed in this country, then I'll join any protest you might organise.

StG: "Is it ok for websites depicting adults raping children alright for free access on the net?."

Yeah, it is OK StG. It is all a bit hypothetical though, as I'd challenge you to find such a web site. That isn't because web sites like that are banned - they aren't in some countries. Its because no culture on the planet tolerates it children being treated in that way. When picture does surfaces of an adult raping on a child, the world hunts the adult down. Needless to say this is a pretty big deterrent. I hope it goes without saying I am a huge fan of this type of enforcement.

Your fantasies of a web littered with child porn aside, that still leaves the issue of why I think it is OK. It isn't because I want to stand up for the rights of some kiddie porn lover. It is because because if I don't, some devious prick will decide he can get away with some crime by twisting the censorship laws to hide it. The child abusing priests got away with what they did for exactly that reason. The church was above reproach in the era they operated. Just like your current views on kiddie porn, the prevailing thinking was we could not trust ourselves to say bad things about the church in case society fell into some moral abyss.

Nowadays we have DOCS hiding behind the "privacy of the child". I recall one example of a lady making the mistake DOCS worker was a little on the heavy side. The DOCS worker responded by taking away her child. The mothers efforts to publicise this met with heavy handed legal threats. DOCS had to protect the child from media publicity, you understand. Sadly its not an isolated case. DOCS has a history of twisting the media ban on reporting on kids to hide their own mistakes.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lawreport/stories/2009/2547132.htm

Oh what scoundrels such a walls of censorship protect. I suspect they do far more damage than some pervert looking at pictures on the web in his own bedroom ever could.

CJ Morgan wrote; However, if you can find an example where someone who isn't an odious toad has their freedom of speech curtailed in this country, then I'll join any protest you might organise.

Dear CJ,

The law should not play favourites. Odious toads should not have their rights curtailed. If it is acceptable to interfere with the right of an odious toad to free speech then it becomes acceptable to curtail the rights of others. The odious Toben has as much right to free speech as I have.

rstuart

"Your fantasies of a web littered with child porn aside..."

'Cuse me?. Watch what comes out of your head there chief. Anything else you said became redundant after that.

rstuart,

I apologise. I misinterpreted what you meant.

david f - I agree completely, but I'm afraid that so many other things seem to take precedence for me than worrying about a twat like Toben's right to spout hateful nonsense.

I'd sign a petition but I wouldn't march in the streets about it, if you get my drift.

The right of FREE SPEECH is best depicted in the quote "I may not like what you say but I will defend your right to say it".

On the issue of DoCS they hide behind the veil of the child & the Courts automatically close for family(i.e.DVO applications etc.) & child care matters but this is not the actual Law. If any Court Case can be shown to be in the best interests of the public then the Courts are to be left open.

On the issue of denial & acceptance the treatment of the Jews in WW2 is not that extreme of a difference to the Palestinian treatment by the Jews. The denial of a select few of the Holocaust what about Japans denial of their treatment of the Aussie prisoners & what really happened in WW2.

Thanks from Dave.

"The great advantage of freedom of speech is it makes it so easy to identify the assholes". -
...
Anon.

Further to my last comment, I would be very inclined to join a campaign to guarantee freedom of expression in Australian society. Indeed, the principle could well be included in the mooted Bill of Rights or whatever watered down version we end up with.

Yes, the Tobens among us should be free to promulgate their crackpot ideas. The idiotic Hilalys should be able able to preach their hateful drivel, and the 'Catch the Fear' nutjobs should be able to babble on about their Islamophobia to their hearts' content, etc etc.

Indeed, we should all be encouraged to attack vigorously each other's worldview, in as offensive terms as possible. A mechanism should be found whereby the right to disrespect each other is enshrined in the Constitution. A special Division of the Order of Australia should be awarded to the citizen who most successfully expresses communal hatred in its Australian context.

Seriously, anybody who knows me here will also know that I'm a staunch supporter of freedom of speech - but I'm not going in to bat for this tosser when there's so many more worthy causes around.

dwg wrote: "On the issue of denial & acceptance the treatment of the Jews in WW2 is not that extreme of a difference to the Palestinian treatment by the Jews."

Dear dwg,

There is a tremendous difference. There is no attempt by Israel to wipe out all the Palestinians. There was a serious attempt by the Nazis to wipe out all Jews.

David f,"no attempt to wipe out the Palestinians" I would say there is a serious effort to wipe out the Palestinians by the Israel & remove them from thier land.

I am not going to debate the Israel/Palestinian conflict as I am not in a position to change anything there although I would like to but I have more pressing committments here.

The issue with free speech is that it should leave gossip alone & stick to truth, that way we would have only the issue of truth & "the truth hurts but it is the truth", but so do does lies hurt but they are lies.

Thanks All have a happy day from Dave.

CJMorgan:"anybody who knows me here will also know that I'm a staunch supporter of freedom of speech"

Hahaha. You're a funny little man, CJ.

Just in this thread you've changed your mind about what you "believe" twice in response to what others have written. You've just possibly made the strongest case here for restriction of freedom of speech based solely on the gullibility of the audience being addressed.

Perhaps, instead of worrying about what someone says, we should worry more about the people he is talking to about it?

Now, tell me again how I'm "antiwomen" and "misogynist"and should shut up expressing my view that feminism is pernicious... you being such a "staunch" little fella and all...

CJ MORGAN wrote:

"...I'm going to wait for a less despicable example before I protest about it. It doesn't bother me very much personally that haters like Toben (or indeed the 'Catch the Fire' idiots) are restricted from spouting their filth."

It doesn't work like that. Freedom of speech is indivisible.

Technically Toben is being jailed for contempt of court. In practice it is for expressing an opinion. It is admittedly a repugnant and contra-factual opinion; but opinion is what it was.

Note that there have been no allegations of incitement to violence. Toben has not threatened anyone.

Now the precedent has been set. You can use the law to harass someone for expressing an opinion you don’t like. You can engage in "lawfare" as the Executive Council of Australian Jewry did with Toben.

The next target will be less extreme than Toben. And the next one less extreme still. So free speech, and democracy, faces THE DEATH OF A THOUSAND CUTS.

By the time we reach CJ Morgan's "tripwire" case, someone CJ Morgan considers worthy of defence, it is too late. Free speech has become so circumscribed that pundits can no longer express and opinion without worrying about the legal consequences. Self-censorship has become a frame of mind. Democracy dies.

I've seen it happen once – in South Africa. The consequences are not pretty.

Your approach is tantamount to saying I'll defend the free speech of someone who meets my approval.

The REAL test is this.

ARE YOU PREPARED TO DEFEND THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH OF SOMEONE YOU FIND REPUGNANT WITH THE SAME FERVOUR AS SOMEONE YOU ADMIRE?

If not you're not truly a free-speech protagonist. You're faking it.

EXAMINATOR

I have seen no allegations that Toben threatened anyone or incited violence. Therefore in this case your argument falls apart.

It is not me that is living in an "ivory tower" but you if you believe that free speech can survive an attack of lawyers.

No doubt you are essentially correct, Steven.. However, I think you are being a little harsh.
Lawyers in a court room may have to give at least the impression of being totally objective in the application of Law, but I think the rest of us will inevitably be a little more subjective.
If we use the quote attributed to Voltaire as a guide: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", clearly we fighting for the RIGHT, not the individual.
Still an'all, there are some whose rights I would rush to defend, and some for whom I would walk rather more slowly.
In the case of lawyers, should we think more highly of those who so vigorously defend the rights of notorious gangsters, that justice is evaded, or should we question their morality?

Antiwomen, I think you have every right to post as much boorish and offensive drivel as you like. As Grim said, "The great advantage of freedom of speech is it makes it so easy to identify the assholes".

stevenlmeyer, what exactly have you done to defend Toben's freedom of speech, beyond prattling on about it on OLO?

A corollary of my previous post is to suggest that because the fact that absolute freedom of speech neither exists or could exist in a orderly society was suggest a change in emphasis.
By that I mean getting hot and bothered about the absence of 'absolute' freedom of speech but to enter a meaningful discussion on WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE.

A recent example of irresponsibility of absolute freedom of speech was the instance where a news paper publish a story about multi state raids on drug dealers prematurely potentially compromising the police action.
The paper cried freedom of speech. But in reality they were protecting their 'scoop' with no regard to the possible consequences.

Even the Delabosca case is another example of does the people really need to know or was this simply crass commercialism regardless of the consequences.

Consider the circus that surrounded Lindy Chamberlain question FOS serve any good/justice/fairness? In short it simply stirred up prejudices and passions and made victims of those who were already victims. The question I pose here is when is it too much.

In reality FOS in our society has more to do with civil order and fairness. The notion of absolute freedom is absolute fantasy.

examinator: "Are you really making the distinction between the 'word' and the act of speaking/publishing?"

I don't understand what you are saying. There are two very different concepts you seem to be mixing. The first is the distinction between private speech and public speech. We apply different standards to each. If Toben web site had been password protected so only his private fiends could see it no one would have cared and I doubt we would be having this discussion today. But it was a public web site, so here we are.

Then there is how those thoughts are communicated. There are lots of options - say yelling in the theatre, by web site, letters to the newspaper, by bomb threats to the airport. I suspect regardless of how Toben did it, provided he was persistent about it we would end up about where we are do today. So whether it was by spoken word or not is immaterial.

If you are asking whether I am making a distinction between public and private speech - the answer is no, I didn't mention it, but I believe there is a big distinction. If you are asking if I was saying spoken word should be treated differently to other forms of communication the answer is again no, I didn't mention it, but I believe when it comes to issues surrounding free speech they should be treated no differently.

examinator: "Tell that to the victims of bullying and verbal abuse."

More confusion. Bullying and verbal abuse usually happen in private, for the obvious reason that society frowns on it and the perpetrator. Private speech isn't the issue being discussed here. If bullying did happen in public and wasn't frowned upon, then we have a problem. I don't think it is a free speech problem though. It is not the speech that is the problem. It is the bullying. There are many ways to bully, verbal bullying is but one.

RStuart,
I accept the differentiation between P&P. I thought the conversation was about public speech.
Experience that that bullying and verbal abuse/put downs isn't always in private private.
I was questioning your statement "No matter how bad the words, they can't by themselves do harm."
I have some concerns with the topic's underlying premise that Tobin's words can be separated from the probable consequences.

Grim:"In the case of lawyers, should we think more highly of those who so vigorously defend the rights of notorious gangsters, that justice is evaded, or should we question their morality?"

Good question. Notorious gangsters are still entitled to a reasoned defence, by the "thin end of the wedge" argument. What is sufficiently "notorious" behaviour to justify removal of the right to a fair and well-argued defence? Being a bikie? Perhaps being Asian and living in Cabramatta? Being male in Australia?

A barrister's stock in trade is reasoned argument and the greatest challenge is a weak case. On that basis alone we should laud those who can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, legally speaking, but there's more. We should also give them our thanks for making sure that the "thin end of the wedge" isn't permitted to slide a little further under the law. Any time a Westminster government tries reducing democratic freedoms it is down solely to the lawyers to stop it. The anti-terror laws and the Haneef case show how important good legal process is for democracy.

If a "notorious" criminal evades "justice" for a particular crime, it is entirely down to inadequate prosecution, which means the defending lawyer has done a public service by pointing it out. All in all, despite my reservations about the Family Law and the role of ambulance-chasing lawyers, good criminal barristers are a jewel in our civic crown.

CJMorgan:"Antiwomen"

thanks for that little fella. Always predictable, never original, eh?

CJMorgan:"I think you have every right to post as much boorish and offensive drivel as you like"

Absolutely correct, little fella, except for the "think" bit: we all know you wouldn't dare do anything so controversial. Besides, my posts may be offensive, they may even be boorish, but unlike anything you've ever done, people actually enjoy reading them and even learn something occasionally, I suspect

Poor inadequate little fella.

Fair point, Antiseptic.

>>my posts may be offensive, they may even be boorish, but unlike anything you've ever done, people actually enjoy reading them and even learn something occasionally, I suspect<<

Everyone by now will have learned that you are a jerk.

Except that I'm sure it is only your online persona.

In the real world, I suspect you are a feisty but frustrated housewife in Altona, whittling away at the boredom by developing this deliberately obnoxious avatar, using it as an outlet for your aggression until hubby gets back and gives you a black eye for not having his dinner ready.

That's the wonderful thing about the internet. You can be anybody you want to be.

Pericles:"Everyone by now will have learned that you are a jerk."

Hmmm, let me see...Comic-book guy in a "Flash" costume?

"That's the wonderful thing about the internet. You can be anybody you want to be."...

Let's face it, old son, your little mate is just plain dull. Occasionally you rise to "dull but worth reading in case". It's nice that you try to look after the little fella, but all it does is lower your own average.

Dear Steven,

I admire your support for 'freedom of speech,'
however as Adrienne Stone speaking to Damien Carrick
on ABC Radio National - 19 May 2009 stated about
Frederick Toben:

"...this kind of highly offensive, untrue material
levelled at someone because of their race, ethnicity
or religion, or some other like characteristic is
not valuable in free speech terms and indeed may
even undermine those values which freedom of expression
is directed to..."

Frederick Toben cloaks his vilification in a thin veil
of 'historical inquiry.' Yet he targets a particular
group of people and the message of hate is so clear that
it can't easily be avoided. Harm was committed in
this case and rights had been violated.
Toben used freedom of speech as an excuse for vilification
- and the Court ruled that Toben's website
vilified the Jewish people and ordered Toben to remove
the material. Toben had violated Federal Anti-Vilification
Laws.

Toben repeatedly ignored a 2002 Court Ruling that prohibited
him from publishing his rants. There were 24 charges of
Contempt - a failure over a 7 year period to comply with
those orders - despite promising to do so. That's why
he was arrested. His current arrest was not for his views
on the Holocaust but for his breaking a Court Order.

People who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty to
respect other people's rights. A person's freedom of
speech is limited by the rights of others. All societies
including democratic ones, put various limitations on
what people may say.

I know you can't legislate any form of bigotry
out of existence. But, I am concerned that
these vilification laws may turn those who are persecuted into
martyrs for Freedom of Speech. Had Toben been allowed
to go on ranting - he may have stayed simply as a nutter -
on an obscure website - now with all the publicity -
and exposure he's succeeding in achieving his ends.
That is what bothers me!

Like Grim said...

Excellent quote that ;)

pericles, thanks for the only laugh I've had all day.
If you notice a slightly paunchy bald guy, wearing blue trunks over pink tights zooming a little erratically over your roof tonight... What can I say? It ish Friday night, y'know.
CJ, that wasn't my quote. I distinctly remember giving Anon the credit.
Bottoms up.

examinator,

I'll make your point "speech not is harmless" for you with this link: http://bit.ly/16p1ZK

I have absolutely no sympathy for Toben. Not that he needs any. He wanted to go to jail; to become a martyr for free speech, probably so people like us would talk about him. Witnessing the system and ourselves be manipulated so effortlessly by such a man is probably what makes Foxy uncomfortable.

So my position is not about Toben, or about any "right" he might have to free speech. My championing free speech is purely selfish. Its about my right to listen to what he says, and make up my own mind. I happen to believe it is critically important to our political system that everyone has the right listen to all facts, all opinions, all points of view, and make up their own mind. I view people who say I must let them protect me from false, dangerous or politically incorrect speech with deep suspicion. Whats more, I assume every thinking adult feels the same way. Don't you?

But there is another side to this coin no one hear discusses. With right to listen to what everybody has to say comes a responsibility. You can't use the words of an Irish nut case who claims himself to be god as an excuse to go on a rampage (as Bazz described above). You actually have to take the trouble to be informed, to resist being manipulated. It is not a big ask of an adult voter.

It is too much to ask of a 13 year old girl of course, which is where it all went wrong for Megan Meier and why Lori Drew should be in jail. Its also why I don't see that particular incident as a free speech issue, or indeed any incident involving bullying of a young person.

For an illustration of how these things can really get out of control when kids play with speech, try this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/aug/24/broadcasting.tvandradio

I think when you get down to it, this is another example of 'Ratbag Rules'.
It seems more and more legislation these days is directed to catching or restricting that 1 ratbag in a thousand, at the cost of restricting the freedoms of the other 999.
Could this be just another example of the inevitable disadvantages of overcrowding?

Observations for all.
I don't disagree with RStuart in idealistic principal.

My concern can be clearly seen in what RStuart said

>>"My championing free speech is purely selfish. Its about my right to listen to what he says, and make up my own mind".<<

and then reversing what Grim said

>>"legislation these days is directed to catching or restricting that 1 ratbag in a thousand, at the cost of restricting the freedoms of the other 999."<<

i.e. Legislation is directed in protecting 800 people who will believe that 1 ratbag and 600 WILL and the rest MIGHT act on it. Be that aggressively or those with a latent undercurrent waiting for a trigger, that 1 ratbag.

I have no doubt that Toben's rot will strike a chord with the right wing undereducated, under-skilled and over-emotional scape goaters.
It will encourage/justify in their minds their antisocial views and corresponding attitudes and behaviour.

I have no doubt about the overall good will of people as a whole it's their thinking skills their worry me. Simply look at what rates on TV.

I also wonder if Toben's obvious rot and his/our FOS isn't being used as a stalking horse for some to open up prejudicial broadsides on Muslims in general.

Steven has a history of raising Toben specifically and bias in the Israeli/Palestinian context. Few believe Toben but many are inclined to believe Islam/Muslims are at least potentially more evil (Sic)...this irrational perspective is emotional but would help Israel in its PR war.

I was a bit torn in my opinion on this at first but in the end I think that Free Speech has indeed proven that it really does have the benefits of shining a light on the truth. This conspiracy theory put up by Frederick Tobin as the truth and subsequently being shown for the utter delusion that it is by Four Corners has probably done more to make people look a bit harder before jumping to conclusions.
So instead of inciting trouble as he no doubt intended it has been a learning curve for those people who accepted it blindly. An example of how free speech does indeed reveal the truth by allowing people to speak freely what other people may also be thinking so that it can be brought out into the open and debated thus revealing the errors in thinking.

Having come down in the end on the side of free speech I still think that there was an intention to stir up trouble between the Moslems, and the British Authorities and the Jews by Frederick Tobin. If it had succeeded in causing another terrorist attack as it may well have by inciting hostility in the Moslem population then it fits the criteria for publishing inflammatory material. Note that he used a Moslem name when publishing, to make the Moslems think he was their friend. This also suggests an ulterior motive.
Herein lay my dilemma when trying to decide about this. The fact that it turned out to be beneficial but it could also have just as easily provoked violence in those Moslem fundamentalists who believed it to be true

Sharkfin wrote: Herein lay my dilemma when trying to decide about this. The fact that it turned out to be beneficial but it could also have just as easily provoked violence in those Moslem fundamentalists who believed it to be true.

If we allow free speech the persuasive liar, the unscrupulous demagogue, the insidious racist and other destroyers may appeal to enough people to destroy freedom and tyrannise the population. It's a risky business. If we ban free speech we have transformed the risk of losing freedom to a certainty.

To lower the risk of losing freedom education should promote critical thinking and encourage the questioning of authority whatever the source. There are many in our society who oppose such questioning. The opposition may be in the education business, the religion business, the advertising business, the government business, the military-industrial business or any other business that wants reliable, unquestioning customers. We must recognise the opposition to keep a free society.

Hear Hear, Sharkfin.
Examinator, I can't believe you have such a low opinion of Humanity. Clearly, 80% of the population is not rushing around hoping for the opportunity to shake Tobin's hand, or 60% throwing Molotov cocktails at Jews (at least, not in this country, or because of Tobin's rants). The main response I have seen is: "what an asshole!"
I don't feel the need to be 'protected', nor do I feel qualified to protect others.
I have never censored or even monitored my daughters' internet activities. If they are interested in naughty bits, it's probably better they find out at home, than behind the girls toilets.
When they come across a view they don't understand, or which bothers them, they have never hesitated to talk to us about it.

examinator: "I have no doubt that Toben's rot will strike a chord with the right wing undereducated, under-skilled and over-emotional scape goaters. It will encourage/justify in their minds their antisocial views and corresponding attitudes and behaviour."

I don't recall seeing the usual pro-censorship argument put so brazenly. But in the end, it always ends up at this.

"We, the elites, can see straight through these lies. But the common man can not trusted to do the same. Therefore we must protect him. We must filter speech, so his only sees our version of the truth."