otb,

Let me get this straight - you know what
I think better than I do. Hmmm.
In that case the only one trying to mislead here
is you.
I shall leave you to it.

Dear SteeleRedux.

I think there is a difference between attending
a funeral and holding up placards at a respectful
distance to writting personal venomous letter to
family members who have just lost their sons
in battle. Of course that is my take on the situation.

As far as Freedom of speech is concerned - all societies
including democratic ones put various limitations on
what people may say. They prohibit certain types of
spech that they believe might harm government or
the people. But drawing a line between dangerous and
harmless speech can be extremely difficult. Most
democratic countries have four major restrictions on
free expression - laws covering libel, laws that offend
public decency by using obscenities or by encouraging
people to commit acts considered immoral. Laws against
spying, treason, and urging violence prohibit speech that
endangers life, property or national security.

The development of freedom of speech in most Western
countries has been brought about through the growth of
democratic governments based on the rule of law. In other
countries this freedom has grown slowly, or not at all.

I found the following article by Randa Abdel-Fattah very interesting

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2015/01/12/4160711.htm

Dear Shadow Minister,

Rather than a red herring this case was directly relevant to the issue of freedom of speech in this country and if you would care to temper a little of the belligerence you might be able to grasp some of the concepts.

Naturally if the Sheikh had hand delivered the letters he would not have faced sanction. In fact he came within one vote of getting his conviction squashed on the grounds that 'using a postal service to cause offense' was not constitutionally valid

“Just last Friday, Monis had been pursuing that legal battle in the High Court of Australia’s Sydney courtroom, 100 metres away from the Martin Place cafe.

Monis’s obsession was not about the truth. He never denied writing offensive letters to the bereaved, nor did he show remorse for doing so. Indeed, he pleaded guilty last year and received a sentence of community service and a good behaviour bond.
Rather, his obsession was about the law. He has always maintained that the federal offence he was charged with and sentenced under – using a postal service to cause offence – was unconstitutional.
His argument is similar to one made in the United States a few years ago, after a fringe sect, the Westboro Baptist Church, picketed soldiers’ funerals with banners such as “God hates fags”. The US Supreme Court bench ruled eight members to one that a civil claim against the sect’s members for damages undermined their right to freedom of speech. But Australia’s constitution is different. We don’t have a Bill of Rights and only a narrow “freedom of political communication”. Monis’s constitutional claim was no certainty.
http://theconversation.com/man-haron-moniss-poison-letters-split-the-high-court-and-laid-bare-a-flaw-in-the-system-35557

“The three judges who found the law invalid (Chief Justice French and Justices Hayne and Heydon) did so on the basis (1) that the law was aimed at preventing offense and (2) that preventing offense is not a ‘legitimate aim’ compatible with the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government.”
http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2013/04/26/stone-monis/

Do you understand the difference between causing offense and inciting racial hatred?

.

Charlie Hebdo

.

The sale of the resuscitated Charlie Hebdo got off with a bounce this morning. The 700,000 copies were sold in less than an hour of the opening of the newsstands. At 3 euros ($ 4.34) a copy, that makes a total of € 2.1 million ($ 3.04 million).

Another million copies are being printed today and will be in the newsstands tomorrow morning. The magazine plans to print 5 million copies in all. Normal production is 600,000 copies which usually take about two weeks to be sold and, even then, not all are sold.

The government has offered € 1 million to help Charlie Hebdo get back up on its feet but it is unlikely the magazine will accept in view of its policy of total independence from all outside sources other than its readers.

It is reported in the French press that The Weekend Australian published a cartoon of Bill Leak today (Wednesday, 14 January) illustrating a conversation between Jesus and Muhammad :

http://www.sudouest.fr/2015/01/10/charlie-hebdo-un-journal-australien-publie-une-caricature-du-prophete-mahomet-1792604-6092.php

During its session yesterday, the Assemblée Nationale (lower house of parliament) observed a minute of silence followed, spontaneously, by the singing of the national anthem.

The French jihadisists’ mentor, a young French Muslim who has been training in a public hospital in Paris to become a nurse, was fired immediately after the attacks. He had been sentenced to 6 years in jail (of which he served three and a half years) for his role as mentor of the jihadists to whom he gave religious lessons. He was interviewed on French television and said he had nothing to do with the attacks and condemned them.

He added that his former pupils were not interested in the Koran or Islam. All they ever talked about was combat.

.

Dear Banjo,

I came accroos the following: http://www.les-crises.fr/indecense-rendons-hommage-a-charlie/. I like especially the quote at the end: "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they prefer to avoid." [Sören Kierkegaard].

I gather the site represents a minority view in France. What do you know about it, what do you think, how negligible is that minority?