Poirot, "And others have a right to respond by agreeing or disagreeing"

Political correctness is wearing very thin with the public.

That might not be so evident to leftists in their echo chamber.

"That might not be so evident to leftists in their echo chamber."

Lol!...says the fella who marinates in the right-wing echo chamber of OLO.

'Absolutely!... as have the families of the hundreds of civilians slaughtered in Syria by US and French air strikes in the last few days.'

Oh yeah Poirot I seem to remember not long back the Syrians were begging the West for action.

Sonia Kruger is allowed to feel whatever she wants, as are
we all. However, we have to be prepared that we may have
to deal with people
who do not agree with our point of view and will react to it.
Especially if we happen to be a media personality, as Sonia
Kruger happens to be - whose words possibly carry more clout and
influence, and more media opportunities.

However, 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. Democratic societies put various
limitations on what people may say. They prohibit certain types
of speech that they believe might harm the government or the
people. However drawing the line between dangerous and harmless
speech can be extremely difficult.

Most democratic countries have four - major restrictions on free
expression. 1) Laws covering libel and slander. 2) Laws that
offend public decency (using obscenities or by encouraging people to commit acts considered immoral).
3) Laws against spying, treason,
and urging violence.
4) Laws the invade the rights of people. For
example a local bylaw might limit the times when people may use
loudspeakers to make announcements in the streets.

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

What I would like to see in the national discourse on this subject
is less personal insults, labelling of people, less generalisations,
more facts, and a greater
representation in the media of many viewpoints. Especially from the
Muslim Community.

If Sonia Kruger wants to join Pauline Hanson's little group of scared people who let the few violent terrorists get to them, then she has every right to do that.
However, like Pauline, she has to take the fallout about the stance she has taken.

Sonia can't expect all her viewers to agree with everything she says, and so maybe she shouldn't be in that job anymore if she is going to be so delicate about it all?

Fox,

So you would be opposed to fascism and all sorts of reductive ideologies of which Islamofascism and its obvious actual harm to innocents is by far and away the best current example? You would want spruikers and apologists for Islamofacism and its toxic creed, associated traditions and political system censored?

Or does anyone, who can claim non-white discrimination even (especially?) Islamofacists qualify for a 'get out of gaol free card'? That would be in accord with the extreme political correctness that is systemic in Oz.

Just trying to understand the limits of who can be offended.

There are one-sided restrictions, read as bans and censorship, as in the UK and Oz (Section 18c) for example.

There is also atheist religious fundamentalism, but that is OK strangely enough for the liberal apologists for Islam, which qualifies for protection. Hence we must never offend an Islamist,

Islamist
"An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists" [Wikipedia and ors]

What about 'progressive' Islamists who nonetheless practice elements (which ones are never specified of course) of Islam that most citizens of the developed world would find horrendous, such as Halal meat, certifying as it does that the animal has been subjected to ritual slaughter.

What about 'progressive' or 'moderate' Muslims who support Islamic law? Say what! What are they thinking?

It is time for moderate Muslims in the developed world to take a stand against those elements of Islam which do not fit with the democratic societies of which they are part. Here is the woman who should be the model for Muslim moderation and progressivism,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib8r4-OhyRA

It is only freedom of speech that can help educated Muslims of good will who are pushing back against Sharia Law and Islamism. Apologists knowingly set them back.