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.