Freedom of speech is a safeguard against unjust rule.
People should be free to criticise the laws of their
community and the policies of their government. A
government is less likely to impose unjust laws on
people who can openly criticise its decisions. Without
freedom of speech, people can't have complete political
freedom.

In a democracy constitutions guarantee people the right to
express their opinions freely because democracy is
government of, by, and for the people. People need
information to help them determine the best political and
social policies and the governments need to know what
most people - and various minorities - believe and want.

However, having said that - 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 - for example their right to maintain
their good reputation and their right to privacy.
All societies, including democratic ones, do put various
limitations on what people may say. They prohibit certain
types of speech that they believe might harm the government
or the people. Drawing the line between dangerous and harmless
speech can of course be extremely difficult. However laws
do exist covering libel, slander, public decency, urging
violence or hate speech and so on.

I am amused that Shadow Minister is criticising the current
government (no surprises there) for "silencing dissent?"
when as we all know John Howard did precisely that during
his term in office.

BM and Poirot,

Please feel free to repost my "rants", none of my comments there contradict anything said here. So put up or shut up.

I questioned the adulation given Assange being the "champion of free speech", considering he was just republishing stolen information from others. What do you think of the "Girlfriend Revenge" site where you can view the intimate photographs of ex girlfriends without their permission? You must then support it as free speech?

Lexi,

Please show how Howard silenced dissent. You are making this up.

The attitude toward free speech in Australia is not good.

Lionel Murphy has a reputation for fairness, defense of freedom and concern for the oppressed. Perhaps his chilling words which were quoted in support of the proposed antivilification legislation were made on an off day. Nevertheless, they illustrate the state of free speech in Australia. On page 3886/3 in the Current House Hansard of 16 December 1992 he was quoted as saying, "Free speech is only what is what is left after due weight has been accorded to the laws relating to defamation, blasphemy, copyright, sedition, obscenity, use of insulting words, official secrecy, contempt of court and of parliament, incitement and censorship..." Is "due weight" not given to free speech? "Only what is left over" means free speech has no value in itself. Any other consideration can override it. Hopefully, this is not the prevailing attitude to free speech in Australia. "Only what is left over" is consistent with the value of free speech in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or Khomeini's Iran. People in all three countries had the right to say anything the government didn't ban them from saying. Free speech points out the wrongs in our society and protects cultural expressions that differ from the prevailing view. It has great value in an open society.

As we have come to expect from OLO's "Shadow Minister" - pure unadulterated spin, distortion and misrepresentation.

SM, no need for me to "put up" your rants, you do it yourself - numerous times.

In your latest retort you attempt to change goal posts to "girlfriend revenge", typical dross (your word).

Dear Shadow Minister,

Again, your accusation that I am "making things up,"
regarding Mr Howard, is wrong.

I strongly recommend that you read the book:

"Silencing Dissent: How the Australian government
is controlling public opinion and stifling debate."
It a collection of essays written by quite a few
authors.

"Silencing Dissent," uncovers the tactics used by
John Howard and his colleagues to undermine discussion
and independent opinion. Bullying, intimidation,
public denigration, threats of withdrawal of funding, personal
harrassment, increased government red tape and manipulation
of the rules were all tools of trade for a government that
wanted to keep a lid on public debate. The victims were
charities, academics, researchers, journalists, judges,
public sector organisations (CSIRO) and even Parliament itself."

And as Tor Hundloe confirms in his book, "From
Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability." :

"In Australia in 2006, leading climatologists with the
country's pre-eminent public research organisation, CSIRO,
were forbidden by the organisation's management from
publicly discussing the implications of climate change.
Management was acting on behalf of the government. And
Australia is one of the standout countries in terms of human
development status. It is not corrupt. Its science is world
class. None of this mattered. In 2006, the Australian
Government's position was to cast doubt on global warming
and refuse to enter into UN agreements such as the Kyoto
protocol..."

BM,

Compared the lies and innuendo that drivels from your posts, I am a rank amateur.

I guess that you went back, realized that your earlier posts were complete drivel, and decided that a pure ad hominem attack was required due to your complete lack of facts.