Foxy: I suspect that there will be posters on this forum who will argue for "freedom of speech," rights.

Yes there are & so there should, otherwise some people will try to outdo one another as to what they find offensive. PC gone wild.

Foxy: However, as we know, people who enjoy the rights of free speech have a duty to respect other people's rights.

& Those overly PC Latte wowser people MUST also have a Duty to respect the right of people to speak freely. I must say that PC type people offend me deeply. I feel what they espouse offends most people. Unfortunately, most people are bullied into submission & don't speak up against these PC latte people. I do. They are a blight on society.

Come the revolution!

They are a blight on society.
Jayb,
And they're all Lefties !

individual, "And they're all Lefties"

I think parts of the religious right have a enough history of demanding limits on other peoples rights to free speech that I'll disagree with that point. Not so much with christian's at the moment but I have no doubt that given a little more sense of power some laws about "not taking the Lords name in vain" would go down well with some.

The desire for the control over others is not something thats strongly tied to Left/Right in politics, rather statist vs personal liberty. Both sides seem capable of abusing those same freedoms they espouse when it suits as well.

The word "rights" seems to carry different meanings and loadings for different people, especially around the idea of the state having the right to grant us rights. The trickier part is the balance between rights and responsibility and how we deal with that (apart from sending everybody off for National Service). There is nothing about those vans that I see as acting responsibly with the right to free speech, rather its deliberate and pointless offensiveness.

I don't like the idea of legal censure for bad manners but have no problem with others "flipping the bird" in whatever legal form that takes to anyone keen to make a display of their contempt for the responsibility that goes with freedom of speech.

R0bert

The pervasive, systemic and intolerant (its intention!) political correctness that is now a feature of Australian culture is a fitting target for satire. There is a dreadful authoritarianism abroad that insists on the severe rebuke and public humiliation of even an girl minor for inadvertently stepping on a PC land mine: large adult football player 'gutted' he says, so the child is ritually sacrificed, despite all knowing full well that the child did not even comprehend let alone intend the slight taken.

On the other hand some who claim to be offended by silly, legal graffiti on vans applauded when a reputable citizen, a journalist doing his job, was depicted fornicating with a dog. This citizen's only offence was that he questioned and reported. He was thought to have a differing political opinion and a mainstream one at that. The same supporters saw nothing wrong with taxpayers' money being used in defence, or that the offending service provider did not apologise up-front.

How does that figure?

The Wicked satire may be 'low brow' and vulgar, but so what? I would see it as more undergraduate, the blunt offence of student newspapers (if they were not so uniformly and unreservedly leftist).

PC is so prevalent and deeply ingrained in Oz society that even where defending the right of speech as I have done on here I nevertheless always must note that it isn't language I might use and I do not necessarily agree with the messages either.

Wicked is having a shot at political correctness and behind that the tiresome self-titled political 'Progressives' who are anything but progressives where freedom of speech and democracy are concerned. To those who put their feet on the streets in the Sixties freedom movement and risked harm and arrest it all seem like a return to the censorship of post WW2.

Political correctness is the antithesis of freedom of speech. PC is the scourge of modern times. Self censorship is its aim. Wicked's satirical humour is mild when the offence of PC and its thought control are concerned.

Writing is supposed to communicate a message to its readers. When the readers are other motorists with different values then the message only is relevant in the mind of the writer and offensive to the reader, and reveals the low social standard of the writer. In the mind of the writer it is done purely to offend, otherwise the writing would be on the inside and hidden from the public.

Would Dave Allen at Large be welcome on Oz TV 2014?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5-vCDmF_s

What about the bicycle song?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeHCq6fFkNo

Or a weather report?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3M_k9kaHWE