Jayb,

Certainly not threatening anything.

But I'm wondering how many men in a real life situation could resist biffing a transgressor who, as a finishing flourish to a robust discussion, chooses to insinuate that his opponent's mother was a tart?

Dear Poirot,

Oh dear.

Loudmouth displayed his nasty speech impediment...
his foot.

poirot: Certainly not threatening anything.

Certainly sounded like it to me. Then you claim that it would be justified. Strange. Two messages in one. Which one do I believe. You being a moslem supporter an' all.

Dame Margot,

Flap-flap - anything but the topic. Look ! something else over there !

My recollection is that George brought up his mother, and I was simply denying having any familiarity with her. I strongly deny that she is, or ever has been, a tart, as you suggest. Still, I wish her well and regret that she has been brought into this important discussion, in order to divert it.

So back to topic :)

Foxy,

I thoroughly endorse your initial opinion:

"From news reports coming out of Paris,
there are however some people who feel that the editor
of the satirical magazine should not have poured
oil onto the fire by deliberately knowing that his
actions would provoke an extremist reaction. I would
like to see what others here think - did the Editor
go too far. I don't think so, but then that's only
my opinion."

So what's your opinion these days ? Attitudes evolve, I know, they mature, become enriched and, yes, sometimes are modified. Have you modified yours ?

Joe

Back to topic

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Much has been written and said on this topic.
However the key question raised to all of
this - as Michael
Gordon points out in The Age, Saturday January
17th 2015 is "...how do you best protect
freedom of speech, a critically important feature
of our society, while recognising the need to
protect people from vilification and potentially
violent provocation..."

I used to think that freedom of speech was more
important than anything else - however logic
now dictates that the answer is not as simple as
that. If we know that there are groups in
our society who feel that they are not able to defend
themselves or express themselves, to taunt them and to
push them to their limits surely is not very wise.

Of course I still support free-speech. However,
clearly, our response requires a balancing act.
I agree with Michael Gordon
that Australia has managed "to get the
balancing act right, more or less, most of the time".
This is because so far we do have laws in place
that act as safety valves
to protect our society from the consequences of hate
speech. Our
PM has stated - "We have very robust free speech in
this country," however, Michael Gordon points
out - "...but the challenge of responding to the
threat of terrorist acts by those who invoke the
name of Islam remains with all its dimensions."

Loudmouth,

"My recollection is that George brought up his mother, and I was simply denying having any familiarity with her. I strongly deny that she is, or ever has been, a tart, as you suggest. Still, I wish her well and regret that she has been brought into this important discussion, in order to divert it.

So back to topic :)"

Love it! - every time Joe is caught out floundering amongst the dregs of his own rhetoric, he scurries for his beloved BTT life jacket.

But we are on topic - Freedom of Speech.

You gave a wonderful example of such. Your craven and insulting parting remark to George was a superb example of using language to impugn someone's honour. You didn't breach any specific rules, even though your provocative indulgence was off topic, uncalled for and contrived as schoolboy taunt. - which, by the way, any man of integrity would consider beyond the pale.

So, to sum up, there's nothing to stop you highlighting, through your freedom of expression, just the kind of fellow you are.

We now have a good idea.