I've recently read a very interesting article in
"Psychology Today" by Prof. Arthur Dobrin on the
topic of "Political Correctness vs Free Speech."
I thought it might be an interesting topic for
discussion.

Prof. Dobrin in his article states that - "On one
side there are those critical of political
correctness and defenders of free speech and on the
other side - those who believe that words have power
and therefore need to be used with care."

He tells us that "Even those who oppose political
correctness would agree that a teacher who refers to
females by derogatory words (or males) shouldn't
be in a classroom."

"Critics of political correctness wouldn't go so far
as to accept shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Even
the most expansive view of free speech recognizes there
are limits to it."

However, shutting down the open explanation of sensitive
subjects is a bad move.

"There would hardly ever be a discussion about the nature of
God, for example or books that explore sexuality. If
students' comfort levels determined classroom material all
that could be taught would be that which was acceptable to the
hypersensitive."

"There wouldn't be much to teach in the liberal arts and
humanities if the criteria for inclusion was that which
didn't challenge pre-existing ideas."

The Professor tells us that -

"Words do matter and good people want to use them to
foster a better world."

"How to decide when words are destructive to society is a
matter of judgement."

What are your thoughts on the subject?

One of the biggest problems now is as a few people on here have pointed out, some people are just too sensitive or want to be the victim so are offended by things that the majority would not care about.

Also who decides what is offensive?

It is not only free speak that is being questioned.

Social media is also the problem as it allows the minority a very large voice, it is almost a daily event to see on MSM stories of how someone is offended by this or that.

One just from this morning.
Pubs across Britain remove Saudi Arabia flags from World Cup bunting after offended Muslims complain that drinking is banned under Islam.

The flags represent countries, nothing to do with drinking.

Dear Philip S.,

Thank You for that.

Here's an interesting link that discusses does political
correctness infringe on free speech?

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2017/06/does-political-correctness-infringe-on-free-speech

""How to decide when words are destructive to society is a
matter of judgement."

And there's the rub. Who does the judging? All modern societies have those who been given the right to judge. They always, always censor those things they don't like and excuse those things they do like. That's why its necessary to keep the powers of those who censor to an absolute minimum.

"Critics of political correctness wouldn't go so far
as to accept shouting fire in a crowded theatre."

Well it depends on whether there is, indeed, a fire.

What ever happened to "Sticks & stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me". As kids we were tough enough to live by this simple rhyme, why not adults today?

Today those who don't want to are using political correctness to silence their critics. Anyone noticed it is the left that push this stuff as so much of their agenda is unable to stand up to any reasonable criticism.

You can see this in their global warming fraud, with some lefty academics calling for anyone criticising the fraud to be jailed. Anything to cover up their lies.

It's when pc stops the truth being spken it becomes dangerous. Free speach is already banned when it comes to analysing Islam, Immigration or a range of other issues. High domestic violence rates of dv among 'gays' and sexual abuse in Indigenous communities are also no gone zones. Vulgar putried racist language is only allowed by the left.

Dear Hasbeen,

Children chant, "Sticks and stones may break my bones
but names will never hurt me." But they aren't
completely right about that. Teenage suicides and
bullying is a real problem in our society today and
we need to confront these problems not deny them.

Words can hurt - and hurt dreadfully. People can
stick the knife in without leaving a telling gash -
they do it with words. The scar is that much deeper.

Dear mhaze,

You ask who judges?

It's pretty subjective.

It's the court of public opinion that holds sway.

A court which is notoriously emotional and fickle.

I don't usually agree with professors, but I agree with this one.

Free speech must never be restricted in the private space, including within the premises of one's own business, but when it comes to the public sphere, there is no moral ground for preventing the restriction of speech.

Should the public decide that they wish to feel comfortable in public spaces where certain types of speech (also certain types of noise/music) make some of its members uncomfortable, then it has the right to prohibit such types of speech [in public spaces] for the sake of the welfare of its members.

Most people are confused about what PC means.

Some people would have us believe that they are under
attack for not being "PC" and that they are somehow
the ones with courage for speaking their
minds. This according to articles on the web - is a
strawman defense. We're told that it isn't the word
choices, the tone, or the subject matter that threatens
some people. It is the ideas themselves. The attack on PC
culture is simple.

Privileged classes bemoaning the idea that they can no longer
feel, do, or say (or legislate) whatever they want about
anyone with impunity.

One of the less talked about aspects of privilege is just
how blind it makes one to perspectives other than their own.
It isn't sinister. In many cases it has simply rendered
people incapable of seeing how their words or actions affect
other people. Privilege is a collective narcissism.

Instead of bemoaning the "PC culture" people might be better
served if they stopped and considered how - whatever it is they
are intent on saying might make someone else feel.

Political Correctness is a self-imposed restriction that has no real basis in fact.

It's origins are not from sensitive tree-hugging hippies but from conservatives during the Reagan era who feared moral standards were slipping and required some sort of controlled limits.

The problem is that people attribute it some sort of mystical power and make unilateral decisions about what can and can't be said.

The fact remains that except for threatening, racist or particularly offensive language, nobody has ever been arrested, charged or gaoled for saying something deemed (by "somebody") to be Politically Incorrect.

You can still publicly use the feared "n word" or freely refer to cripples or midgets without fear but it says more about the person speaking than the spoken to.

PC gets it's phoney power from those who take it as some sort of genuine legal restriction but it simply is not and never really was.
In short, the power comes from anybody who complains about it being something real.

All we really need is mutual respect, consideration and manners to do a better job.

Anyone recall what the suppression of free speech did to the world in the late 1930's !
It was frighteningly similar to today's PC.

PC? not a fan in fact at a country wide question and answer poll held to investigate why Keiting lost his election ALP voters in big numbers said they, like me, are sick of it

Free speech? Really?

The right whingers in this country who bleat on about free speech really are complete and utter hypocrites. As soon as the words like “Lest we forget (Manus)” came off a tweet you all went completely bananas. I have never seen such high bloody dudgeon cause by 4 such innocuous words.

The only people you want it for is yourselves. There was no standing up for Yassmin's right to free speech. There was no standing up to her right to offend. You wanted her to be politically correct, especially as she is both a woman and a muslim.

Snowflakes the bloody lot of yer.

I support the right to free speech.
Yassmin can say whatever she wants but she must also accept that other people too can also say whatever they want.

- And I think she was disrespectful and out of line, offending the nation who have her citizenship by hijacking Anzac Day and 'Lest We Forget' for issues she was advocating, and she shouldn't have said it.

She can criticise anything about this country she wants but nobody gets free pass to lessen the Anzacs on Anzac Day.
She crossed a line.

If I get the dynamics of PC right. It seems to be a reaction towards outrage. Basically someone says something or does something that makes another outraged, so then the first person (or other people preasure the first person) to avoid those words or actions. Get enough of those reactions and the agreed upon restrictions in one culture, and you get the focus of being PC. Basically don't do this or that because it rubs people the wrong way.

One huge problem with PC is that it leaves the door wide open to restrict other people's lives and behavior because they had a temper tantrum. So more and more people complain and feel "outreated" instead of dealing with situtions they don't control. And those temper tantrums are respected almost without restraint. I remember a time when a person complained about the world, one of the response was either "deal with it, that's the world we live in," or "toughen up and grow a pair."

The irony is that PC (the collective grouping of agreed on restrictions) is in itself a topic that is gaining outrage towards it.

My opinion is to deal with each issue on it's own and leave the collectively grouped PC issues on their own. If it's treated any other way I don't see any help removing topics and language out of the PC pile of issues. Indivually any topic and any issue can be discussed whether it's extreem to restrict behavior and speach because of that topic or if that is the right thing to do. Talking about PC as a collective is too general and probably won't remove any issue from the circus we have now because of uncontrolled PC.

My thoughts exactly, SteeleRedux. Here’s just some of the outrage that feature on OLO at the time:

“Those who say that Yassmin was simply execising her right to free speech are scum. You do not have the right to hijack 'Lest We Forgot' for your own political activism purposes on ANZAC day.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7750#238525)

“Why are we not sending this snotty young man hating, Australian hating female to prison for treason?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7750#238449)

“We cannot just ignore the offence and let her walk off scot free, smirking behind our backs ... I would deport her to anywhere outside Our territory and her name never mentioned again ever…” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7750#238453)

There are people on both sides of the political spectrum who would love to silence those with whom they disagree. It is, however, much easier to portray your side of politics as the champions of free speech when that’s where all the ignorant and offensive remarks are coming from.

--

Armchair Critic,

It sounds like you’ve softened your position from the first quoted comment above (which was yours).

<<Yassmin can say whatever she wants but she must also accept that other people too can also say whatever they want.>>

Yeah, well, that’s kind of the whole idea. Unless political correctness is legislated for, there is nothing to complain about. Yet, when some ignoramus is censured for their abhorrent beliefs, the right STILL kick up a fuss and claim that it’s an attack on free speech. Just look at the Folau incident, for example.

The balance between the right to express ones thoughts/beliefs through free speech, and the rights of an individual or group not to be unfairly malign in a way to cause hurt and/or insight hatred towards those persons is a fine line indeed. No one is so untainted that they could be the arbitrator of whats reasonable and what's not. The best we can hope for is where society strikes its own balance in law and morals as to what is acceptable as freedom of speech and what is not. For some the parameters are rather narrow, for others like myself the boundaries are much wider.

Steele and AJ give the perfect example of "outrageous offence" being taken by one section of OLO, the forums hard right conservative mob when one of their taboos (attacking ANZAC and old diggers) was seen to done by Yassmin Abdel-Magied. Equally an opinion column by Piers Akerman (Murdoch press) which described Yassmin Abdel-Magied as a “silly Muslim woman”, “a fool” and “halfwit” has been cleared by the Press Council, as being opinion and in the interests of public debate. I agree with Yassmin Abdel-Magied right to say what she did, and I also agree that Piers Akerman has a right to his opinion, which did not constitute hurt to Yassmin.

Dear Paul,

«The balance between the right to express ones thoughts/beliefs through free speech, and the rights of an individual or group...»

I agree that balance needs to be maintained, but your argument holds no water since it speaks of "rights".

There are no such things as "rights"... at least science hasn't yet detected any signs of them in nature.

What we have in reality is, people who are initially free to do and say whatever they like, opposed by others who seek to silence them, using even physical violence if necessary.

Are they morally justified in doing so?
I am not saying that they are not, but what then morally allows some people to prohibit others from doing or saying certain things?

In the example of the ANZAC march that you mentioned, people may be empowered to prohibit certain types of speech on the grounds that the road where the march passes, is theirs: they are the public (or represent the public), the road is public, therefore they can restrict what can be done and said on that road, similar to how you may restrict what is done and said in your own home.

The argument could now come down to the question of ownership: whose road is it? whose truly is the land on which it is built?

Some will be surprised by my views on this subject, let me explain, ALP for life, and from its ruling faction the right, I know voters think for them selves,and that, like me they HATE PC it is a tool the very few or lost use to try to forces us all in unwanted directions, take the idiotic anti Capt Cook statue crowd,without doubt, they in at least one first nation community, get the same treatment an out of town tree siting group got,a midnight visit,within the right of my party lives the common man, and he/she has views in common with most Australians,PC is unwanted and not respected, unless you vote green

Hi SR,

Like you, i support Jasmin's right to have opinions. All of us should have that right. But once we express an opinion, especially in the media, then it is open to analysis and criticism, de-contruction if you like.

And since everybody else has a similar right, they have the right to make comments on Jasmin's opinion. And vice versa, of course. That's what free speech means.

I don't know if Jasmin was penalised solely for making that stupid comment, but she certainly had the right to express it - and others had the right to 'comment' on it.

Let genuine free speech reign. That's an essential part of democracy. I'm sure you would agree.

Of course, if you don't, you can freely express that opinion. And assume that others have the right to criticise it, just as you have the right to criticise their opinions.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi AJ Philips,
Well, it's not the kindest analogy, but I sometimes think about 10 or 15 years ago when young millennials would often get around saying "I effed your mum", trying to act tough and cool.

Now if someone says that it can go two ways; you can take it as a joke or be offended.
You can't control other people's actions, you can't stop them from saying it, but for the person that does say it, they do so 'at their own peril".
Because if they say it to the wrong person they can expect a punch in the face as a valid and reasonable response.
Yassmin used her free speech 'at her own peril' and the rest of the nation used theirs as well, no big deal.
So you see there's no golden rule and it does require some measure of discernment, and there is a 'at your own peril' clause.

I think Aussies probably took more offense because she was foreign born and an outspoken Muslim, but criticism and objection to her comment on Anzac Day was still reasonable.

She can't take what she dishes out.
I think plenty of Aussies were just itching for a reason to use their free speech against her anyway, and she foolishly stepped in a pile of crap.
Maybe she was still young and naive and foolishly thought there were no lines she couldn't cross.
It's the left's fault for empowering her against the general consensus in the first place.

You can't have 'Free Speech' unless everyone is included; except those in gaol, who lose those rights. But every other legitimate citizen 'MUST' be included whoever they are, otherwise how can it be 'Free Speech'.

But it cuts the other way as well. If some 'touchy feely' individual or groups, likes to speak against others, but become aggravated and try to stop, when others rebut them. Then that's not Free Speech.

There can't be 'untouchable or sacred subjects'; and at the same time, enjoy free speech. If on ANZAC Day, the day itself offends somebody, he should be able to express his views. But because he lives here in Australia, good manners should dictate that it might be more prudent, that he delay his opinions, until after ANZAC Day has passed - otherwise we don't enjoy Free Speech.

It's just this destructive & malignant 'Political Correctness', one of the greatest intellectual diseases ever to confront and infect Western Culture in contemporary times. It stifles, and strangles our conversations. Where all we've ever needed in the past, was the observance of basic good manners, nothing else. No more of this 'tinkering' with our language; man, woman, boy, girl, dog, bitch, ram, ewe; etc. These nouns have stood us in good stead for yonks. So there's no need to ever, vary them. Political Correctness should be destroyed as all vestiges of it, as well! It has become a major disease of our Western Culture.

Steel Redux,
Yasmin's comments didn't fall into the category of free speech, there were hate speech of which you pretent to be an opponent.

Every one of us is an individual, with probably unique opinions, some of which are probably bound to be offensive to at least someone else. I don't think I would agree 100 % with anyone on OLO, but there have probably been occasions when I have agreed with each contributor, even Poirot of fond memory.

As an ex-Marxist, that's enough for me to believe that an all-conforming socialism, or anarchism, is not only impossible but a direct slide into fascism. It's no coincidence that freedom of expression is/was, as a matter of course, totally forbidden under fascism.

So, according to my simple-minded logic, if there lack of free speech is characteristic of fascism, then complete freedom of speech is a characteristic of full, noisy, messy democracy. I'm sure AJ would pick holes in that comparison, ad nauseam, but that's my opinion. Please feel free to rip into it, I won't get offended :)

And even if I did, so what ? By definition, any opinion may be offensive to at least someone. So a corollary of the freedom of speech, to criticise, say, my opinions, is my obligation to either defend my opinions robustly or suck it up.

Joe

We currently have Sonia Kruger and Bernard Gaynor before the Anti Discrimination Board for ideas they expressed in the Media. Facing huge fines for speaking their concerns. Ideas also held by millions of Australia, but ideas that some want silenced. We are loosing the right to express our thoughts, and if we do say it we face huge fines. It is becoming equivalent to North Korea or other totalitarian states.

Nowadays it's fairly standard to find that when something
problematic happens and people complain about it, there's
almost always one person who says, "but what about
free speech?"

Freedom of speech is, of course, the phrase used to
describe the fact that in most countries people are free
to say whatever they want. And that's fine. Nobody is
disagreeing on that one. But sometimes however, free
speech can shift into the dangerous territory of hate speech.

Free speech as stated means you can say whatever you want -
hate speech is when people say things that are outrightly
harmful, to a particular group of people - eg. racism,
sexism, homophobic, et cetera. A lot of people would
argue that because we all have free speech we should be
allowed to listen to people who say these things.
In principal yes, we should always consider different
opinions and different world views.

However free speech works both ways. If your free speech
becomes hate speech then some of us can use our right to
free speech to complain and critique.

cont'd.

Foxy,
Freedom of Speech allows us to speak ill of others. It happens all the time here on this Forum. Conflict and criticism is welcome in a free society. We can be offended and defend our position but there is no silencing of the offender. However since Islam is rising in Australia we are not allowed to debate its conflict with our culture.

Which is the discordant conflation here.
1. chalk and cheese,
2. hammer and nail
3. manus and anzac

Dear Josephus,

It would have been terrible indeed if we needed a right in order to express our thoughts. In Australia however, we always had and still have the freedom to express our thoughts - all that may have changed is that we are asked to not express certain thoughts in public because they are likely to hurt some of our listeners. Your freedom to express your thoughts in private, on OLO or from the pulpit are not affected and I fully pray that they never will, so where is the need to express them specifically over the media? Who needs or listens to that media anyway?

Hinduism's first preliminary spiritual principle, is 'ahimsa' - non-violence.
Second to it comes 'satya' - truthfullness.
Later come others: non-stealing, non-possessiveness, containing-sexual-energy, cleanliness, contentment, austerity, self-study and surrender-to-God.

Whenever the first and second principles conflict, the first prevails: one must not tell the truth if this is going to hurt others - better stay silent, then perhaps look for a way to tell the truth later in a situation where it will not hurt.

Is Christianity different?

You could be right, but better be wise!

cont'd ...

A line needs to be drawn when genuinely harmful things are
being said. If something is plainly hate speech it
shouldn't be given a platform.

In a world where everything is becoming increasingly public
we need to take more responsibility for what we say and do.
We need to be better judges on what is harmful and gauging
the difference between banning someone's right to free
speech but also avoiding the promotion of hate speech.

Everyone can say what they want, but if you want to promote
something that's harmful, then don't get angry if you're
shut down by people who don't want to hear it.

I disagree with you there, Armchair Critic.

<<...if they say ["I effed your mum"] to the wrong person they can expect a punch in the face as a valid and reasonable response.>>

I don't see how physical assault would be in anyway a valid, reasonable, or proportionate response to such a flippant and immature remark. The only way one could elicit such a response from me with mere words would be if they threatened my family. But that's just me.

Either way, your point is wasted on me because I've already agreed that people need to deal with the social repercussions of exercising their freedom of speech.

<<Yassmin used her free speech 'at her own peril' and the rest of the nation used theirs as well…>>

Same with Folau, yet there were cries of free speech being under attack just because he was dealt the repercussions of saying something that many others obviously find so offensive.

<<I think Aussies probably took more offense because she was foreign born and an outspoken Muslim...>>

Adding an element of xenophobia to the hypocrisy of some on the right doesn’t help your argument, I’m afraid. At least if such limitations to free speech were held consistently across the board, then they might have an air of legitimacy to them.

<<...but criticism and objection to her comment on Anzac Day was still reasonable.>>

I’m not saying it wasn’t. Like SteeleRedux, I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who think that they are champions of free speech by mere virtue of being on the side of politics from where, funnily enough, most of the ignorant and offensive comments come.

<<It's the left's fault for empowering her against the general consensus in the first place.>>

No, the hypocrisy of rightists who thought she should be silenced is the fault of no one but themselves. Nobody else can take responsibility for another's hypocrisy.

Hey AJ Philips,
"Adding an element of xenophobia to the hypocrisy of some on the right doesn’t help your argument, I’m afraid."

Well I'm not always right, but I do like to consider all the pro's and cons of things.
I wondered if she might've gotten less criticism if she was Australian born.
She may be a Australian citizen but would we have been more tolerant and less critical of her comment if she was born here?
Or should she have known better?
Would we have been more tolerant and less critical of her comment if her ancestors were Anzacs?
Would we have been more tolerant and less critical of her comment if she wasn't a Muslim?
Would we have been more tolerant and less critical of her comment if she wasn't a leftwing role model pushing the boundaries of progressive ideology as opposed to a regular nobody?
Would we have been more tolerant and less critical of her comment if she said it on a day other than Anzac Day?

Honestly I think I take extra offense because she's not Aussie born, and has been disrespectful when we gave her citizenship.
Secondly it was also more offensive saying in on Anzac Day that if she said it any other day.

Loudmouth makes a fairly decent argument.
"So, according to my simple-minded logic, if there lack of free speech is characteristic of fascism, then complete freedom of speech is a characteristic of full, noisy, messy democracy."
As does O Sung Wu, with his mention of 'basic good manners'.

Dear Foxy,

I fully agree.

However, when you say: "where everything is becoming increasingly public we need to take more responsibility for what we say and do", apart from being sensitive and taking responsibility for what we say and do, why not also try to reverse this trend and make the world more private again?

Oh, I definitely think you’re right there, Armchair Critic.

<<Well I'm not always right, but … I wondered if she might've gotten less criticism if she was Australian born.>>

I think also think there would have been far less criticism if she wasn’t a Muslim or brown-skinned, too. The fact that she’s an obnoxious twat wouldn’t have helped either.

The year before last, Scott McIntyre posted something far more offensive about the diggers, and, as SteeleRedux and myself once pointed out, there was barely a peep on OLO about it.

<<Loudmouth makes a fairly decent argument.>>

Obviously I’m missing something there then because both of you appear to expect me to disagree with that and I have no idea why. Perhaps there is something between the lines there that I’m not reading?

Or perhaps an inability to separate caricatures and stereotypes from what I’m actually saying is causing some to read more into my position than is really there?

Bit of a stretch, Foxy, and perhaps a red herring: of course, what you call 'hate speech' should be called out and savagery criticised, to face legal penalties if necessary, goes hand-in-hand with the full expression of civil, free speech.

I like ice cream. But if I ate an entire 2-litre container in one go, I would face unpleasant consequences. Everything can be taken to excess, including free speech.

Love notwithstanding,

Joe

I've said it earlier that instead of bemoaning the
"PC culture people might be better served if they
stopped and considered how - whatever it is they are
intent on saying might make someone else feel.

Some people would have you believe that they are under
attack for "not being PC" and that they are somehow
the ones with courage for speaking their minds.
People bemoaning the idea that they can no longer feel,
do, or say (or legislate) whatever they want about
anyone with impunity.

These people are blind to perspectives other than their
own. They are incapable of seeing how their words or
actions affect other people.

I've already mentioned - children chant, "Sticks
and stones many break my bones but names will never hurt me."
But they aren't completely right about that.
Words can hurt, and hurt badly. People can stick the knife
in without leaving a telling gash - and often they do it with
words. The scar is that much deeper. Teenage suicides and
bullying is a real problem in our society today.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion
but of course this opens
up their opinions to criticism. Free speech works both
ways.

If your free speech becomes hate speech then some
of us can use our right to free speech to complain and
critique. If your show gets cancelled because you did
something offensive - that's not cutting off your right to
free speech - you're not being thrown in prison - you
can still express your views elsewhere. But the network
provider has a right to deny your expressing your views
on their network if you're spreading hate speech and they
disagree with that.

Dear individual,

You wrote;

“Yasmin's comments didn't fall into the category of free speech, there were hate speech of which you pretent to be an opponent.”

What an utter snowflakish PC rubbish is that? Next you will be reeling out the charge of 'cultural appropriation' because she used the word ANZAC.

In fact that may just be part of your lot's angst just you haven't sorted out a different name for it.

You blokes are a riot.

Foxy, my problem is, what I see as someone’s right to express their feelings or beliefs can be labelled hate speech by others.
Some people sincerely believe that interracial marriage is wrong. I believe they have the right to express that belief, even though I don’t agree with them.
Others believe homosexual behaviour is wrong. Same deal. They should be free to say that.
Ditto with the right to abortion on demand or euthanasia. People should be free to disagree without being called out for hate speech. Same with concerns over levels of migration from cultures incompatible with ours.
Because it’s not hate speech, it’s an expression of their personal beliefs.
Hate speech would be someone promoting violence towards some one or some group because of their difference or belief

Hey AJ Philips,
No there was nothing in between the lines, I just thought Loudmouth made a good argument why all speech should be accepted just as O Sung Wu made a case for 'simple good manners'.
- Nothing more to it.
Regarding Scott McIntyre, he has said and done worse than Yassmin Abdel-Magied, and on Anzac Day too.
Also after being sacked he sued SBS for unfair dismissal and settled out of court, so taxpayers have actually paid him for the right to abuse Anzacs on Anzac Day.
I don't know the mans politics or what he has to gain but some people truly believe that destroying the nation's identity and pushing socialism and PC is the way forward.
I think it's total lunacy and social engineering by the corporate elite and these people are all collaborators that should be put in a gulag now.

All people have right to say what they want but people must not say things that harm other people.

I liked Foxy's first post on this thread - generally I find Psychology Today very much a mouthpiece of "Identity Politics" of which Politic Correctness is one of their weapons. This article seems less extreme. How Prof. Dobrin frames the issue implies conflation of possibility with probablility when he says "free speech" on one side "use with care" on the other. It's also important to look at the proportions. Social Science does this a lot. Soc-Sci isn't objective or scientific (see Kant - Four Fold Root Of Reason). The research community still don't understand the brain and anthropology due to their complexity. Bob Whitaker says Soc-Sci is self serving he seems to believe that they are the drivers of the Identity movement. If you go to a movie theatre and shout "movies are stupid" this is inapproapriate "context" for free speech. You can be fired for private conversation - this power over peoples beliefs is concerning. Some governments seem to be adopting symbology that is recognised as part of gay minority culture. If you are not gay obviously you are not part of gay culture doesn't mean that you attack them in the street - but you have the right not to be forced to identify with them if you don't. One day at work someone said I was homophobic because of the colour of the clothes I wore. Most people in society are not homosexuals so obviously they don't want homosexual behavior. Does that mean they are homophobic, depends on the definition, possibly it does - does that mean its bad to be homophobic? Sounds like blaming the victim - I certainly felt victimized and intimidated.

Intersectionalism is strong affirmative action and open to exploitation. Everyone is a minority and sometimes others just won't be able to understand us. People will say things that hurt us. To ask the majority to be like us is probably worse than, the majority asking us to be like them - you could call them both bigotted. But if we save our minority-ness for our minority-communities we can be happy and live in peace. You can't have minority communities in a multicultural society because of laws on discrimination. That is the burden and the beauty of individuality. The world doesn't care I'm a snowflake that's ok as long as the world lets me do my thing in my own space with people I let in.

If you annoy everyone around yourself and then you become afraid of them who is to blame?

Hate speech is part of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law". The bill drafted in 1956 adopted in 1966 but not the US until 1992. There has been concern by various sources that the principle is too broad also controversial USSR lobbying. The long term see the UN and EU as un-sustainable. Its concerning that law is being created that isn't directly subject to public review through the ballot box. A countries legal juresdiction and precedence is interesting - in Australia Fed Law trumps State and Council law but in the US Council and States trump National Law - I find a bottom up approach fairer. It keeps power closer to the people and gives communities self determination. Multiculturalism is part of Identity Politics and is still experimental. When societies meet there is a dominance competition. We see this in multicultural countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia (riots against ethnic Chinese businesses) and horrifing Indian machette politics. The US has had ethnic problems for more than 200 years from the slave trade which needs fixing by segmentation.

If everyone is from basically the same ethnic group as even if there is shuffling between the middle class and the elites there is still stability. Multicultural societies will be a battle for dominance. The way that global businesses and socialists see the conflict in the world is similar and I suspect they welcome this conflict as they believe they'll precipitate. Without formal legal structures to protect traditional community structures such as cultures and families we will be subject to the tragedy of the commons like a supernova collapse. The only thing stopping implosion is Nuclear Weapons. It'll be interesting to see which monocultures end up holding the nuclear weapons. If Australians are not dominant in Australia they're submissive they'll be bred out. The way that the UN and League of Nations ensured world peace was to set the rules and act against bad players. Nuclear nations can't really act against each other - stalemate - hence the perm members. Being a perm member means that they can be more powerful than other countries but not more powerful than each other. Russia's economy collapsed and needed to be bailed out but those with the weapons were never really desperate. According to Elon Musk the future looks very dim and our only hope is space.

When in Rome do as the Romans. Be a good guest in someones elses home. Australia is my home. It will become a cultural battlefield in less than ten years. Australia has its own ethnic issues with native cultures. Every culture should have their own country. Aristotle talked about tyranny of the masses as being bad - but its better than a tyranny of the few.

I believe that the UN shouldn't be interfering with laws within countries but only between them. The UN was created to prevent global war it should stick to its brief.

In the end its always about Power. Who wants it and who's got it. It's a mistake to think Political Correctness / Hate Laws are about fairness.

Dearest Foxy,

So would you call "Behead All Those Who Insult The prophet" on a placard at a demo, acceptable free speech, or hate speech ? If someone objected to that, yet pointed out that it would be sanctioned by the Koran, along with many, many approving references there to mutilation, torture, slavery and the inferiority of women and unbelievers, would that also be hate speech ?

To point out that some people believe, on the basis of their religious texts, in such abominations is surely 'free speech' ?

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I think you know the difference between free speech
and hate speech - from whichever religious group
it comes.

Dear Canem Malum,

Your posts really add a great deal to the discussions.
Much food for thought. Thank You.

Dear Big Nana,

We should all have the right to express our beliefs
I don't think many would deny that. But sometimes
however, free speech can shift into the dangerous
territory of hate speech. Free speech as stated means
you can say whatever you want - hate speech is when
people say things that are outrightly harmful or
offensive to a particular group of people - eg,
racism, sexism, homophobic et cetera. Now some people
would argue that because we all have free speech we should
be allowed to listen to people who say these things.
And we should engage in healthy debate. And in
principal, yes, we should always consider different
opinions and different world views - but free speech
works both ways. If your free speech becomes hate speech
then some of us can use our right to complain and
critique.

The line needs to be drawn when genuinely harmful things
are being said.

Instead of bemoaning the "PC culture" people might be
better served if they stopped and considered how -
whatever it is they are intent on saying might make
someone feel.

Free speech expresses and debates ideas on religion and politics, hate speech is directed as a person or groups with the intention to harm. Much of the Koran is hate speech as it teaches intention to harm infidels, Jews and Christians. We witness the outcomes of actual harm by devout readers of the Koran of persons they do not accept. https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/06/05/12/04/islam-tearing-family-apart-infidel-mum-a-current-affair

Foxy, you need to define what you mean by feelings. How one feels to a difference of opinion, and how one feels if threatened by physical harm. Just by being offended is not sufficient to say it is hate speech, so we should not say things that offend is the denial of others freedom. I've been offended by name calling often in the past, and for things I defend and believe. However none of those I class as hate just because I felt offended. I would call it hate speech if they were coming at me with a knife and saying, "I will kill you". The definition hate is not if it offends, but if it has a deliberate intention to do physical or psychological damage.

Dear Josephus,

You seem to understand quite well the difference between
free speech and hate speech.

You seem to know that hate speech is - promoting violence,
harming or denigrating groups of people and so on.
We have the right to speak out to reduce the negative
impact on others. We need to ask ourselves - does it harm
or substantially disparage the identities of others. Does
it constitute harassment. Is it bullying? I'm sure that
you shall agree that speech or special acts that denigrate
groups of people and promote hate or violence - action should
be taken.

Foxy - Thanks for your feedback.

In regards to free speech / hate speech - if your talking about politics your going to offend someone.

Most of the time if someone is complaining about something, whether its sexuality, or whatever, its probably because they feel victimized.

PC is a way of the sponsored minorities to attack majorities from the dark.

Like the bitter person in a wheelchair that bites the nurse - they use their status to justify unacceptable behavior.

Increase wages - the employers will be offended. Government spend more money people complain about more taxes - yin and yang. I liked the Disability Fund though maybe this model could be used more

Dear Canem Malum,

Many people would have you believe that they are under
attack for "not being PC" and they are somehow the
ones with courage for speaking their minds. This is a
strawman defense.

It isn't the word choice, the tone or the subject matter
that threatens people. It is the ideas themselves. The
attack on PC culture is simple. Privileged classes
bemoaning the idea that they can no longer feel, do, or say
(or legislate) whatever they want about anyone with impunity.

One of the less talked about aspects of privilege is just
how blind it makes you to perspectives other than one's
own. It isn't sinister. In many cases it has simply
rendered people incapable of seeing how their words or actions
affect other people.

Privilege is a collective narcissism.

Cheers.

Foxy,
Might I implore you to please watch this video?
http://youtu.be/ao2VlpxGFe4

It will tell you a lot about freedom of speech and where this nation is headed, by those who actually know.

It doesn't take privilege for bias - everyone is.

I've read enough.
All those who believe that PC has anything to do with being polite and not offending anyone, are way off track.
And those of you who believe FOS has anything to do with not offending anyone, are equally off your meds.
Just as I offend quite regularly, on OLO, so it is that I do it with purpose and conviction.
Because this medium and others like it are in the written form, so it goes that to put a certain inflection or intensity to a word or phrase to best get the true meaning or message across, it must be supported by the use of capitals or other measures in written form to emulate the message as if it were made verbally.
To quote the dictionary; 'The modulation of intonation or pitch in the voice'.
So it is that one must create a way to get his message across as accurately as possible.
Free speech must be left exactly as it is called, 'free'.
It is a fact that any incursion of PC in a debate or discussion will seriously affect the outcome, to the point that the end result will not be the correct one, rendering the debate or discussion moot.
If I feel the need to offend someone for saying something which is clearly wrong and after many attempts to correct them, they persist, I then will not hesitate to inflict whatever thoughts I deem appropriate in an attempt to sway that person or correct them.
All too often free speech becomes personal on these forums, and that's ok with me.
I don't get offended, I merely point out that they have strayed off topic and that I am not the topic.
Everything goes back to normal, the train is back on the tracks and the debate continues once more.
The worst that happens is I am judged/criticised and we move on.
The mere thought that I have to guard my words because I 'might' upset someone is absurd and totally un-acceptable.
People must be allowed to speak their mind without fear or favour.

The proponents of PC & Free Speech would be well advised to get meaningful employment so as to support themselves instead of hanging off the taxpayers apron & stifling anything that is positive.

Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, known by the pseudonym Tommy Robinson, and previously as Andrew McMaster and Paul Harris,is a far-right activist, who co-founded and served as spokesman and leader of the English Defence League.

A mate of your's Canem Malum?

Sorry Canem Malum,

A mate of your's Armchair Critic?

Hey Paul1405,
Nobody on this site will ever completely agree with everything another forum member says.
We're all own own people.

I don't really like the idea of being part of a gang or of being defined that way.
Gang mentality means you'll be defined by what the 'gang' does and you'll be compelled to act as a team, speaking and acting as the team does, and expected to tow the line.
You see examples of this kind of behaviour with politicians, feminists and many other groups.

I prefer to deal with the pro's and cons of each and every issue on its own merits.
I'm just too much of my own person in my beliefs that nobody would likely ever agree with everything I say, and why should they?

It doesn't hurt to have like minded people holding similar beliefs.
I suppose it could be said that if like minded people don't hang together,
They all hang seperately.

//Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, known by the pseudonym Tommy Robinson, and previously as Andrew McMaster and Paul Harris,is a far-right activist, who co-founded and served as spokesman and leader of the English Defence League.//

Who was found guilty and accordingly sentenced for contempt of court. Banged up fair and square, like the common criminal he is.

Funny, where were all these outraged activists standing up for Moutia Elzahed's freedom of expression when she was found guilty of contempt?

Bloody hypocrites.

For what's it worth, I think they're both twats who deserved their contempt charges. Contempt rules are there for a good reason, and watering them down for the likes of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (or Moutia Elzahed) is a BAD idea.

Of course, if one was to take the views that the contempt rules are bad laws, and that forcing people to show display respect for the Courts when they may not actually respect them is a clear example of coerced speech; then I might have a bit more respect for their stance being based on some sort of principle, even if I don't disagree with it.

But when they're whining that some deadbeats and not others should have special privileges to disrespect the Courts, that's just hypocrisy. And trying to dress it up as a case of 'political correctness gone mad' is just pathetic.

I'll leave you all with the favourite comment of I've heard so far on this subject, from Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle:

"This week Tommy Robinson was sent to jail for 13 months, where he's currently trying to form the Anal Defence League - against strong opposition."

Tommy Robinson was doing nothing different to the Media as they chased Rolf Harris or George Pell on their way to Court. Just he was not presenting it on Left Wing TV, but rather to his facebook fans. Because he is a critic of Islam he is harassed as extreme. His right of freedom of speech has been denied. He has expressed what most English are concerned about, child brides and sex slaves of kafir girls are sanctioned in the Koran and Hadiths.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/women_slaves.ht

Foxy, taking into account how words make someone feel works both ways. The person making the comment may well feel that their beliefs are being denigrated and disrespected.
Calling someone a racist, sexist or homophobe or god botherer May make that person feel bad just because they have certain personal beliefs.
Everyone has the right to their own beliefs. To deny that is mind control.
Saying that you don’t believe in abortion or euthanasia or homosexuality or casual sex etc. is not hate speech, it’s simply a declaration of someone’s beliefs and to be honest, who is to say they are wrong anyway?
In 100 years time society may well have flipped in the opposite direction and changed its stance on any or all of these things.
The PC. brigade don’t give a damn about anyone’s feelings if they don’t agree with them.

Dear Big Nana,

Free Speech works both ways.

People have a right to voice their beliefs and others
have a right to criticize those beliefs. Its only
when the comments on either side are disparaging and
do harm or promote violence or hatred - that problems
arise and we should have the right to limit that
speech to reduce its negative impacts on others.

For example - in a US school a student was wearing
a t-shirt with the following message -

"Be Ashamed. Our school embraced what God has condemned.
Homosexuality is SHAMEFUL!"

The plainly impinged on the rights of other students and
the student was given the choice of taking off the t-shirt,
or covering the message. He refused and spent the day in
the Principal's office.

The Principal explained that the t-shirt's message also
went against the school's policies and values of inclusion.
Therefore although the student was entitled to his beliefs.
The school was entitled not to hear them.

Dear Foxy,

"Therefore although the student was entitled to his beliefs, the school was entitled not to hear them."

Do you want to re-phrase that ? Are you aware of what you actually wrote - that an institution can stop anybody from expressing their opinions if they vary from its own ? Isn't that a sort of textbook definition of censorship ? Of institutional repression ?

Surely that's precisely NOT the way to go ? Surely people have fought against that sort of power for centuries, at least in the West ? And been burnt at the stake, etc., for it ?

I would even support the right of Islamist students to express their views, to give people the opportunity to criticise those opinions and engage in robust debate. Or Christian students for that matter. It's an important way to expose a rubbish argument to polite ridicule.

Somebody expressing support for the Brisbane Lions ? I don't know, you have to draw the line somewhere. What happened to Riewolt will long be remembered.

Love,

Joe

Freedom of speech in schools?

Jesus, Joe, I dunno where you went to school... but at my school, freely expressing one's opinion - even on highly relevant and important matters like the usefulness of visual arts teachers, or simply remarking upon the staggering resemblance between PE teachers and shaved apes - was an excellent way to earn yourself a detention if your speech was too free within earshot of the wrong people. Even just the harmless use of certain words - the 'naughty' words - was punishable.

I don't know where these utopian schools that aren't highly restrictive of their students speech are supposed to be. Steiner schools maybe? But the State and Catholic systemic schools with which I'm most familiar have always been quite restrictive when it comes to speech. I'm not sure why you'd think they wouldn't punish a student for wearing an offensive shirt to school. I know that when one of my brother's mates showed up wearing this T-shirt on an out of uniform day:

http://img.cdandlp.com/2016/10/imgL/118335729-3.jpg

He was made to take it off, and was punished for wearing it in the first place.

Isn't that a sort of textbook definition of censorship ? Of institutional repression ?

Or is it reasonable to forbid a student wearing what is, after all, a shirt that expresses a sentiment which many people in our society would regard as extremely offensive and deliberately provocative? Even if he does think homosexuality is shameful? Or that Jesus is a c$%t?

Dear Foxy and Joe,

At home, you should be able to say whatever you want.
As a guest at other people's home, you should respect your host's policies as to what can be said and what cannot.
Likewise at school, you should be able to say only what the school allows you to.

There is just one problem:

As a guest, you may leave at any time and go home.

- And so it should be at school. One should never be required to go there against their will to begin with.

Whoa, Toni, I'm one of the most liberal and outspoken comentors on OLO, I thought, and I have to say, mate, WOW, no way.
Look things have gone beyond the pale because of these PC twats.
I live next door to a catholic school and I can tell you things have changed dramatically since I went to a catholic school.
The language, the abuse, the insults, and these are sometimes directed at the teachers.
You say how do I know this? Because at times they are yelling when they spray their abuse so it is hard not to hear it.
I won't go into why discipline should be re-introduced at school again because I'll only have to suffer through the PC brigade and all their pathetic reasons why it shouldn't.
In short, I'm pleased someone had the stones to grab this filthy arrogant little smart arse grub and remove him from the rest.
And I'll bet he thought he was the duck's nuts too.
Idiot.
What this idiot did is a clear example of what is not PC but merely attention grabbing simply for self gratification and no other useful purpose.

Well put, Toni Lavis.

As I often point out when freedom of speech and gay wedding cakes are discussed, there is a level of disingenuousness to the concern shown. No one would care, for example, if the student was told to take off a t-shirt that said:

“Be Ashamed. Our school accepts Jews. The Jews KILLED Christ!”

But because we can’t stand those filthy poofters, and because it’s alright to not like people for what they can’t help so long as it’s sexuality, suddenly freedom of religious expression trumps basic standards of decency.

When thinking about the need for political correctness, imagine for a minute that until recently, black men had created all knowledge since the beginning of time. Then change it to Muslim men wrote everything we ever knew. Now change it to gay men have been the experts on the world and how we live in it since time began. Now change it to women being the writers of all books on human existence.

If you thought about that deeply, you’ll now realise why we need political correctness. Because the humans who have really dominated human existence, white heterosexual men, have completely neglected the needs of the rest of us. PC means they can’t bully or overlook anyone any more. What a richer existence it will be.

Because we have this nonsense presented as fact; "Because the humans who have really dominated human existence, white heterosexual men, have completely neglected the needs of the rest of us. PC means they can’t bully or overlook anyone any more. What a richer existence it will be". The above comment is clearly racist. No understanding to why intelligence and discovery happens in a free society, unlike undeveloped mind of the oppression in totalitarian societies.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Students do have free speech rights, but they are more
constrained than those of adults. School districts can
limit them in the interests of maintaining a disciplined
educational environment. And schools can regulate speech
that, as the Supreme Court put it, "intrudes upon ... the
rights of other students."

The t-shirt mentioned earlier was regarded as doing just
that. Advising a young high school or grade school
student while he's in class that he and other gays and
lesbians are shameful and that God disapproves of them strikes
at the very core of the young students dignity and self worth.

Indeed, however heartfelt, this type of speech is poisonous
stuff. And I agree that school administrators must have some
latitude tp prevent in school speech intended to vilify
minority individuals and groups.

//In short, I'm pleased someone had the stones to grab this filthy arrogant little smart arse grub and remove him from the rest.//

And why are you pleased, ALTRAV? Is it because you're glad somebody censored something that you find offensive?

Funny how those that claim so stridently to be opposed to censorship are suddenly all in favour when it's censorship of things that offend them.

That colour of skin pigment equates to dominance as Forwardplease states, just shows his racist ignorance. That the oldest living society happens to be black, and never dominated by anyone let alone a white shin person; and never developed in 40,000 years beyond spears and bark humpies does not make them leaders in the World Community of Nations. Greece, Egypt, China and Rome have only been nations in 3,000 - 5,000 years and have given us developed civil societies. Their values have demonstrated how to live in a modern World. The development of abstract thought, reasoning, creative thinking and implementing into reality ideas by work, makes a society dominant; not colour of skin.

Toni, are you having a stroke or suffering from some ill?
No one should have to respond to your sick notion that the 'T' shirt in question was appropriate for ANY school.
Why?
Because schools have children in them!
Now you have just stepped right in it my friend, because if you think I object to this 'T' shirt because it offends me, HUH you are so way off track.
Mate I have mixed it with the best of em and the worst of em, and I tell you the youth of today are way out of line.
Do I want to censor things that lead children away from a safe and informative path which ultimately, when they have reached the end of that path, will be viable mature adults, unlike so many on OLO?
You damn well better believe it.
Toni, take a moment to reflect on your stance on this matter, and please never challenge another question about children and your sick idea of free speech.

'white heterosexual men, have completely neglected the needs of the rest of us'

WHO THE FUKKK FORGOT TO LOCK THE GATE?

Special Delivery, what do you mean? I'm not up with modern day speak.

Special Delivery says,"white heterosexual men, have neglected the needs of the rest of us." Obviously he sees himself as "the rest of us black", and he is not white heterosexual male. All his comments are racist ignorance, as there are many dark homosexual males who are intelligent and wealthy. It sounds like he has just crawled out from his dark cave and is envious of what he sees, "You owe it to me". With hard work and imagination he might be able to raise his standard of living rather than blaming the skin colour of others. He ignores the philanthropic contributions the wealthy white men make to improve the living standard of primitive communities.

Hi everyone,
I think the right to free speech is a double edged sword that is not limited to 'not being offended'.

I was upset over Yassmin Abdel-Magied's comment, thought it was disrespectful and in bad taste delivered on Anzac Day.

But if I take away or limit her speech which many would argue was offensive to Anzacs and Australians, could she not argue that my opinions are not often offensive to Islam?

If I said that I as a defendant of Anzac have the right to criticise where she as a foreign born does not, then we get into a real ugly situation of who does and who does not own the 'rights' to a certain topic.

- Like 'only blacks can comment on racism' because of 'white priveledge'.

That said, it's a slippery path and we should follow common ethics.
If it's ok for her to insult Anzacs on Anzac Day, then therefore it's ok for me to hold a bacon festival across the road from a mosque and put up signs saying Muhammad was a pedophile on their holy days.

Fairs fair.

*decendant not defendant.
- Thanks for being so useless Google.

Foxy, you stated that your example shirt plainly infringed on the rights of other students.
I know I’m old and a bit slow at times but exactly what rights were affected?
There is no right not to be offended, in fact freedom of open debate is pretty well always offensive to someone.
The shirt is simply stating one persons beliefs. It’s not threatening or coercive, merely insulting to some.
It would be a very different case if the Tshirt read “ Behead all those who insult the Prophet”.
Now that I will agree is not acceptable because it promotes violence.

Dear Big Nana,

I thought that I had explained this case fully on
page i3.

The t-shirt mentioned earlier was telling a young high
school or grade school student while their in class
that they and other gays and lesbians are shameful and
that God disapproves. That strikes at the very core of
the young student's dignity and self worth and no matter
how heartfelt this type of speech is poisonous stuff.

The school administrators must have some latitude to
prevent school speech intended to vilify minority
individuals and groups.

If you're still unclear - go back and re-read my
statement on page 13 - and what functions school
districts perform and why.

What happens when one group use their 'free speech' to try to silence another's 'free speech'.
Case in question:
1. The term Anti-Semitic
2. Leftists protesting conservative speakers they don't like and forcing businesses and venues to cave in to PC pressure.

I don't know what the turd sandwich (Hillary) meant by weaponising free speech but this seems more like the truth of her lies.

Hey Foxy,
'God hates fags' is different to 'Behead those who insult the prophet's.

- '
"One of these things is not like the other one", C'mon, sing along...

Both will offend, but ones an opinion and an expression of free speech, the other a 'call to action' using violent means (decapitation).

Did you happen to view that video I posted for you by any chance yet?
- The Tommy Robinson story 'in his own words' (no lies or corporate media narrative)

Free Speech is found within the Independent media.
Why? Because it can't be bought.

TO Josephus
who obviously can't recognise a rant made by Forwardplease especially when he saw fit to quote it himself, in his post following it, and then goes on to make a total horse's patoosie of himself by introducing half baked summations based on his perception and interpretation on what he thinks I said.
Josephus, English language comprehension obviously not his forte, in as much remember what he himself has said, sought to graduate as a moron and passing with honors

Obviously Forwardplease wasn't the only one who escaped into general society when someone forgot to lock the gate.

Thanks for helping me make my point Josephus. You wrongly assumed that I was a black male for my comments about the domination of white, heterosexual men but I'm actually a female. I can imagine your surprise.

Toni Lavis, you might want to ask those black communities you mentioned about their thoughts on the domination of white men throughout history.

Armchair critic, you denigrate this site with your need for foul language, to clearly compensate for your lack of vocabulary. Keep it intellectual please or if that is beyond you, why not try talkback

Dear AC,

A school has the right to limit the speech to reduce its
negative impact on others. Speech or acts that
denigrate groups of people should not be given a
platform. The school administrators must have some
latitude to prevent in school speech to vilify minority
individuals and groups. Student have free speech rights,
but they are more constrained than those of adults. School
districts can limit them in the interests of maintaining
a disciplined educational environment. And schools can
regulate speech, that as the Supreme Court put it,
"intrudes upon ... the rights of other students."

Now if the student had worn a t-shirt that said -
"Be Happy not Gay," that might have been acceptable.

Instead he wore one that said - "Be Ashamed. Our school
embraced what God had condemned. Homosexuality is
shameful!"

That plainly is making a judgement call and impinges on the
rights of others. Advising a young student or grade school
student while they're in class that they and other gays or
lesbians are shameful and that God disapproves of them strikes
at the very core of the young students dignity and self-worth.
It is poisonous stuff.

And BTW - the outmoded word "fag" is no longer acceptable
to most decent people.

Foxy, you are not doing your cause a favour by your last post.
Your whole point flies in the face of free speech.
Many have written that if free speech offends, too bad.
If one cannot say what they feel for fear of offending, then he is not free to speak or engage in free speech.
I am saying this because I obviously believe in it and practice it. You cannot and must not even attempt to justify stifling free speech on the basis of the possibility it may offend.
One way of looking at it is why is the person offended.
Is it the language, (swearing)?
Is it an accusation?
Is it a verbal threat?
Each one of these factors have a different base and so it is that each one has a different response.
Any mature adult will not care or be offended,unless they are being threatened.
On the other hand if your are weak of character, you may find discomfort in certain situations and comments.
Do we inhibit and restrict our right to free speech because of these few princesses or do we remain true to ourselves and to hell with the fairies.
I am not offended by personal insults and slurs, but I am annoyed when I read how submissive some people are and quick to suck up and show their needy side, exposing their lack of backbone and self worth.
And yet still promoting themselves as worthy of opinions, when their opinions and comments are clearly not so, because of their fear to offend.

cont.....
Foxy, please, stop preaching.
If someone wants to call someone a fag or a poofter or a queer or a maggot, so be it.
It is not within your purview or authority to censor someones right to free speech.
Which, if I am not mistaken, is what this topic is all about.

Dear ALTRAV,

What was being discussed was the rights of students
in a school. And as stated quite clearly students
have free speech rights but they are more constrained
than those of adults. School districts can limit them
in the interests of maintaining a disciplined educational
environment.

All this and more was explained in my posts. I have
nothing to do with the policies of the schools.
However I agree that school administrators must have
some latitude to prevent in-school speech that is intended
to vilify minority individuals and groups.

Everyone can say what they want (outside of schools) but
if you want to promote something that's harmful, then
don't get angry if you're shut down by people who don't
want to hear it.

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier - nowadays its fairly
standard to find that when something problematic
happens and people complain about it, there's almost always
one person who says, "But what about free speech?"

Freedom of speech is, of course, the phrase used to
describe the fact that in most countries people are free
to say whatever they want. And, that's fine. But sometimes
however, free speech can shift into the dangerous territory
of hate speech.

Free speech as stated means you can say whatever you want -
hate speech is when people say things that are outrightly
harmful to a particular group of people.

Free speech works both ways. If your free speech becomes
hate speech then some of us can use our right to free
speech to complain and critique yours. The line needs to
be drawn when genuinely harmful things are being said.
If someone is plainly using hate speech we have a right
to complain and not give it a platform.

Instead of bemoaning the "PC culture" people might be better
served if they stopped and considered how - whatever it is they
are intent on saying might make someone feel.

No Foxy, sorry, but absolutely not.
I will draw the line at disgusting comments, in school or anywhere for that matter, but I don't care for restrictive, censored speech, anywhere, especially schools.
Those of you who conveniently highlight the words 'hate speech' are in fact guilty of hate speech by even suggesting it.
People are what they are.
They are who they are.
It is not for you or anyone else including the law to demand that someone stop being themselves.
You, nor the law, no-one has any right to tell anyone else to stop hating or stop speaking hatefully.
What the hell do you or any other sanctimonious self righteous and holy-er than thou person know what someone is thinking and why they are lashing out.
You will not push your self righteous agenda just to satisfy your personal ego or whatever it is that makes you feel that you are or know better than everyone else.
If someone wants to malign or vilify someone else, he has a reason. You are not part of that interaction, you are not part of the reason so, but out.
What arrogance.
Now we're going to be told what we can say and to whom and when.
Yeah, right.
No I say to all those pushing this crap agenda, shut up or get stuffed.
There, is that free speech enough for you all.
What a friggin liberty.

Ahh! first world problems.....most of the world is scratching for a living and getting by with the linguistic skills momentarily required to advance their quest...and then we have those finding it necessary to re interpret what has defined man for thousands of years to a vaginaless individual so as to avoid using the sexist word 'man' and so render the word 'woman' as obsolete as a consequence.
This is getting as as bad as that dyke postulating as a woman, claiming that babies covered in the proverbial need to be asked for permission to change their nappy so that they can feel inclusive in the process.

Society needs a war to re introduce it back to necessities as it's obviously incapable of correcting the banalities as they arise.
Judgement is totally non existent

Where the fukkk is Hitler when you need him

Hi Foxy,
Ours laws stipulate the limits in relation to 'speech'; as opposed to 'causing offence'.
The limits to my (permitted) speech require that it remains within the constraints of 18c and 18d.

There are no limits or constraints on my speech in relation to 'causing offense';
- So long as my speech remains within the constraints of 18c and 18d.

I could (for example) deliberately say something to someone very offensive and hurtful just by telling the truth.
Which means that free speech is a sword, and I should take care to weild it wisely.

Schools have certain expectations.
I always wore my proper uniform at school though on free dress day I recall wearing something offensive once and was made to change it (but I just put it back on later).

The point you are trying to make I believe is 'discernment' in regard to common ethics and decency.

FYI, my comment 'God hates fags' was chosen because I was being lazy and didn't want to type out the full phrase whilst using my smartphone.
It was actually a reference to Westboro Baptist Church.
http://goo.gl/images/Nov8va
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

I also used it because its a shortened version of what you said, and I do tend to talk that way.
For example, it's easier for me to say someone 'has their head up their...'; than explain this in a convoluted manner such as might be taught at finishing school, it's just how I am.
But I probably wouldn't normally use the word 'fag' when talking directly to people (like yourself) who I think might find it off-putting, because of discernment.
That said, I have little care or respect for political correctness and given that I think gays stepped over the line with indoctrination of kids and victimising other members of the community I may sometimes be in such a mood where I may feel it's my duty to offend, with references such as 'poofter'.

(Cont.)
One more point I forgot Foxy.
This speech thing; the law says your entitled to speak your true beliefs.
But leftists in society are trying to socially engineer people into thinking it's about 'not causing offense', and these are two different things altogether.

Hey ALTRAV,
Nice job spotting Foxy's attempt to limit or control my speech, on this topic too which she started.
I'm not sure she realised what she did, and I missed it too until I got halfway through your first response.

Special Delivery, my apologies I assumed you were stating your beliefs, when you were actually criticizing Forwardplease, as a resent escapee. What I said about you applies to Fowardplease. A misunderstanding of who you were as I have not read your previous posts. Forwardplease, one always assumes the person as non gender and "he" and "him" are non gender, same with "man" as "woman' identifies woman as gender; that the person has a womb. There are some aboriginal who wish to take advantage of White education as the Kathy Freeman foundation. Tania Major, 2007 Young Australian of the Year, was the only person in her school class to go to university. She’s from Kowanyama in Queensland’s Cape York, and remembers her class. “I’m also the only girl in my class who did not have a child at 15. Of the boys in my class, seven have been incarcerated, two for murder, rape and assault. Of the 15, there are only three of us who are not alcoholics. And one of the saddest things I must report is that four of my classmates have already committed suicide.” Source: https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/education/aboriginal-students-in-higher-studies-at-university#ixzz5HsSk9f1

AC, good to see another person who knows right from wrong and knows the meaning of reason and common sense.
And is courageous enough to stand up in the face of childish and PC attitudes to help take back 'our' ground, against all the immaturity and resistance being promoted out there these days, by the 'dark side'.
There are way too many neuters out there who have forgotten how to be men and have gone to the 'dark side'.
I for one do not want to see this disease spread any further.

Foxy,

I think most of us are not half-wits, we know the difference between free and fair speech and comment and opinion, and hate speech or vilifying statements or statement meant to incite hate and violence.

Please have enough respect for the rest of us to try to build that understanding into your comments.

Joe

Forwardplease, believes political correctness serves, black men, Muslim men, gay men and women because they have been bullied by white heterosexual men, and have completely neglected the needs of the rest of us. She prefers to identify and promote racism of black pigment, Islamophobia of their primitive and anti-social religion, homophobia as a normal relationship, and extreme feminism. She fails to recognise wise intelligence rises to the surface, even among her identified group, but so does uncivilized cult behaviour becomes recognised. Among my heroes who influenced the World are Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King and Ghandi who were dominant leading men hardly classed as white.
What does she identify as needs that have been neglected by white heterosexual males? Several here are white heterosexual males so tell us where we have not supplied to those needs. Compare what happened in Zimbabwe and what they faced under Black rule, they are now calling for those white farmers to return to feed the nation. WHY?

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I have explained my take in this discussion quite
clearly and respectfully. And I have
tried to respond to the comments being made, equally
respectfully. That's part and parcel of my make-up.

Freedom of speech is one of the corner stones of our
society, and it is a principle worth defending.
Unfortunately complete butt-heads and bullies, and toxic
people are also a corner stone of our society and
will definitely be here until we no longer are. And when
the latter get a hold of the former they invoke it
improperly and indiscriminately, like a monkey with a
shot-gun. The internet for some is especially a safe
haven (they love the anonymity - sitting behind their
computer screens - bless 'em) to say whatever toxic
thing they want, to spread misinformation and hate speech.
You and many others would of course not dream of doing
that because you know the difference between what you
should or should not say. Yet others think that they are
allowed to threaten and harass people and intentionally
inflict harm on someone using words.

You know that free speech does not mean you have the
freedom to say what you want without any consequences.
Nobody has to support someone else's shyte.

For example Reddit announced plans to crack down on its
"most toxic" users. the reaction was predictable -
"Censorship" "What about our freedom?"

You're free to ride a horse, but you're not free to ride
a horse into a Department Store, especially a horse you
don't even own. Therefore constantly crying "free speech"
is beating that horse to death.

Foxy,

What, are you saying now that horses don't have freedom of speech ? Outrageous ! Hate speech !

Joe

Josephus, I don't need to show you any adoration or that I agree with you or your stance because I know that your one of the good ones.
As much as some on this forum exhibit a reluctance to see the other side of a debate, or outright reject it because that is the way they are wired.
Not because they have given it careful and serious thought.
And so it is that we will never convince these people.
Carrying on, on topic.
I don't know if anyone saw the tripe that was on TV yesterday where this wo-we (she wanted all reference to the words which had man in it removed from the English language, because blah, blah, blah.....). Examples were given of many such words, and it was explained to her that it stems from 'human', not 'man'.
She carried on dismissively.
Now this (put in your own word to describe this persons gender) was so floury I thought what a friggin bimbo.
She went on and on about some (thing) she was sitting next to at some meeting or other, and here was this guy, with a beard, wearing a dress.
She was going on about how to address 'him' (I'm not going off the dial like her and her lot have, the guys a guy. A sick one yes, but still a guy).
Honestly I thought I was looking at a flakey little 5 year old.
Now that is about the age of these people who carry on like flakes.
I will end all this nonsense once and for all, here and now.
If any of you claim to have a modecome of intelligence and common sense take this on board and stop being a pest.
Any word which has the part of it with 'man' or 'men', means they are nouns.
Therefor they have no reference to ANY gender other than 'man' or 'woman'.
These are NOUNS!
Now do you finally get it.
Once again, HUMAN.
The nasty people of the world, have an evil and destabilising agenda. We must not let them win.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Like a toddler with a new word or a monkey with
a shotgun. Thanks for proving my point.

cont.........

The PC camp go on and on about curbing and censoring free speech so to not make it hurtful or hateful.
What about the comments that I refer to this flake suggesting we remove words with any part of it which has man in it.
Now I'm going to respond on behalf of the 'real' men out there.
That very suggestion is a very hateful and hurtful one to suggest. Because she is saying it in the belief that it is referring to 'men'.
So go back to your respective drawing boards and remove that piece of dialogue from your rhetoric.
Stop busting our balls with your stupidly childish views and agenda and go back and address your demands first before you all come out spewing your untested and therefore unwanted views.

Loudmouth, let it be I think someone has finally cracked under the pressure of all these bent and twisted views about what are simple and basic, fundamentals in our lives and beliefs.
You see this is what happens when you start believing in things that are clearly wrong and go against historical norms.
Trying to justify a wrong premise only attacks your sub-conscious and slowly eats away at it leaving this feeling of uncertainty, which is immediately dismissed, only to have it re-appear again and again, ultimately leaving it's toll on the mind.
So loudmouth, it's OK somewhere down the line they are going to think maybe they're wrong, with so much pressure against them and their agenda, they will either realise their error or crack under the pressure of the lies and ill-informed views.

What an irony that free speech has now become such
a difficult thing to discuss.

Strange, I don't seem to have any trouble discussing it.
I can truly say I find my preparedness to engage in free speech, enlightening and refreshing.
It gives me a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment in imparting well established information, guidance and paths to the less courageous or informed.
Free speech is alive and well and thriving.
It will remain so, because what IS getting harder to discuss is it's nemesis, PC.
This is being rejected a greater rate than the PC followers expected.

A discussion is virtually impossible with someone
who believes they are never wrong. That only they know
the truth - and twist and turn reality to suit their
own needs. Oh and who demonstrates an excessive sense
of entitlement, lacks empathy, and engages in abuse
to meet their own needs at the expense at the rihts
of others.

Yeah, for them - it's a piece of cake.

For the rest of us it's called narcissistic abuse.
And these people are referred to as emotional
predators. They also refer to women who disagree
with them as "maggots." (That includes all feminists).

Classy.

Foxy, you make it so easy to be criticised. I found myself laughing at one point in your repertoire.
In your attempt to paint me in a negative way, you ironically did not think to read your rant.
If you did you would find most of it actually describes yourself and your followers.
I keep telling everyone, I don't care what others think about me, because one thing you pointed out, which I will humbly accept, was your glaring praise of me in your first paragraph.
You see you have a 'nice' persons demeanor, and that's a good thing. What you don't have is the ability to look at or consider the other side of a topic, because you don't want to be upset or disappointed.
I have a family member, who appears to be the same as yourself.
She shy's away from negative stories because it upsets her.
Her main contacts are her church group who keep her cocooned and free from the big bad world and all it's bad realities.
You doggedly push your agenda in the false belief that freedom of speech must in some way be kept within certain boundaries or limits. You fail to, or refuse to accept the very wording of this social interaction; FREEDOM of speech.
I can think of a plethora of names to call people like yourself, lacking awareness and having a very narrow view bordering on selfish, but I won't.
I will gladly accept your barrage of abuse because I know I am real and honest, and as such I am a much happier and grounded person than those in your camp.
Your description of me sits well with me because I know I am part of a normal, healthy, mature race known as humans.
My group are honest about their beliefs.
We do not try to twist things around to suite a few sick morons or maggots as you so remind me.
Again you're pushing the proverbial up hill.
Those of us who still have some convictions and pride will never allow these sick and twisted aliens and agenda.

ALTRAV,

I stand by my posting record on this forum.

May I suggest that you go back and re-read yours.
Especially the one dealing with General Campbell.
Your comments on that discussion says it all.

I would agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

Dear Foxy,

I am with you on this topic.

Does it surprise you?

You know that I always advocate freedom, adamantly, uncompromisingly, but the freedom I am speaking about is the freedom from society, where everyone deserves to have their own little corner of the world where they can live their lives as they wish without being subjected to other people and their laws.

But if one chooses to live in society, then they must sacrifice some of their freedoms while staying in the public spaces of that society.

Which freedoms and how much must they sacrifice? This depends on and is completely up to the society in question. So long as one joined the society voluntarily, knowing what its ground-rules are, then they should not complain - one cannot have the cake and eat it too.

Nobody here proposes or warns about any plot to deny our free speech in the privacy of our own spaces. In our own homes we can say anything whatsoever to our family and friends and so it must remain. Outside however, it is reasonable to ask members of society to refrain from hurting others verbally. Don't like it? then stay at home!

Dear Yuyutsu,

I am so grateful that you understand what I am trying to
say.

Thank You.

Yuyutsu, you and others of like mind may expect that the comments are not to be offensive, but that is a moral issue, it has no bearing on freedom of speech.
As I have said many times, the thing we are engaging in is FREEDOM of SPEECH.
You and your clan (Foxy included) will not try to hijack these words to satisfy your own fears and failures.
You people want to dictate what someone says, especially if YOU don't like the content.
Again TOO F@CCKING BAD.
Jees, you lot are a danger to society, with your ignorant, arrogant stance.
I don't get why you can't see that telling the truth is the only language we should be encouraging and not lying so as you can save face and not be embarrassed or worse, run the risk of getting your heads kicked in.

That's it isn't it?

I just got it.

You people are basically chickenshit gutless and you want US to lie so as to keep you warm and fuzzy.
NO get a life and stop commenting on this topic if you have nothing real or tangible to offer.
Now I know your true reason behind this 'Be Nice, Be Respectful' crap you are pushing.
Having said that I will demand you check out another forum which will suite you all to a 'T'.
It's commentors and censors alike are amongst the biggest spineless soft cocks I have ever encountered.
Seriously, look it up it is without a doubt your kind of forum.

It's called QUORA.

More good news you won't have to tolerate my alleged indiscretions any more.

Dear Altrav,

Truth-telling is extremely important and indeed should be the only language to encourage, definitely not lying.

Should one find her/himself in a situation where telling a truth would hurt another, then one ought to remain silent, saying neither that truth nor a lie.

For example, it could be a bright day without a single cloud, but if you are in the company of someone who is dying of melanoma, you should not tell them "Hey, the sun is shining".

If your father is dying of melanoma in your own home, then no human law should ever be able to prevent you from telling him these cruel words - "the sun is shining", but when a stranger is dying in a public hospital, then yes, I would support such a law that stops you from telling them such stupid and cruel things.

You don't like it? Then don't enter public hospitals.

Yuyutsu, again, a moral or ethical decision.
Your suggestion is one of ethics.
Whether I speak of the sun or not is irrelevant, as he already has the problem.
You see, here is an example of what I speak.
Your example is more about how you would feel in such a situation and less about the sick person.
He is well aware of his position, you, on the other hand, avoiding anything YOU might feel uncomfortable with and therefore think is offensive or whatever, is merely exposing YOUR emotions or fears about his situation.
I have already thought of several reasons and ways to say 'Hey the sun is shining', without causing distress or anxiety.
So why don't you take a deep breath, move away from the keyboard for a while and try to broaden your range of rhetoric and come up with a few yourself.
Then reconsider your view once more.
Freedom of speech is received as it is delivered.
IE; If you abuse someone, expect the obvious response.
It is always possible for the listener to get the message wrong.
They will respond in the manner they thought you were intending your comments, even though there was no malice intended.
This is especially so in the written form as it is impossible to write with inflection.
Without inflection the same sentence can give a different, incorrect or untrue meaning.
BTW, I hope someone has looked into the 'QUORA' forum. You won't be disappointed.

Goodness me, I have come late to this discussion and have only read page 1 and the last three pages.
You all seem to have got yourselves tangled up in clutter around the subject.
It seems to me to be quite simple.
Free speach means to me that comment can be made on any subject and
your opinion may be valid to yourself but not others.
It is your opinion and no one can deny it to you. ie you cannot be censored.
There seems to suddenly be a lot of people who want to deny you the right to your opinion.

If you are offended, well just don't read or listen to it !
It really is as simple as that.

If you do not like your head hurting, don't beat yourself with a big stick.

Dear Altrav,

Thank you for considering what I said, even if you disagree.

As I see it, reminding someone with melanoma of the sun's rays is likely to be upsetting, by reminding them of their fatal mistake. They may have melanoma all right, but they don't necessarily brood all the time about how stupid they were in their early life to expose their body that way. Rightly so, such brooding over the past wouldn't help, but only make them suffer more.

And yes, there are exceptions - you spotted some and I could spot some too, but what is the balance of probabilities?

Indeed, it's always possible for the listener to get the message wrong as well as to miss your intention. And when there are many listeners, it is statistically almost certain that some would do so.

This is why the man who is claimed to be the wisest ever, and whom I consider one of the best two Western philosophers (the other is Diogenes), said:

"Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few." [Ecclesiastes 5:2]

Next we arrive at the issue of law and freedom of speech.

Here we face two questions:
1) Is it legitimate for the state to limit freedom in public?
2) Is it wise to do so?

My answer to the first question is simple: on your property, you alone should set the rules, but assuming that public space is the state's legitimate property (and that topic we could discuss ad nauseam), then the state may do the same.

To the second question, anyone can make mistakes. You could make decisions at your home based on balance-of-probabilities and end up wrong - so can the state.

If you spit at someone's face, the balance-of-probabilities is that they suffer, but it's also possible that they lick their lips and say "how sweet"... It's wise to act on the balance-of-probabilities unless you really know what you are doing. Most don't.

Dear Bazz,

You are bursting into an open door:

«There seems to suddenly be a lot of people who want to deny you the right to your opinion.»

This is OLO. This is Graham Young's private space, so he and only he sets the rules here - and here, free speech reigns supreme!

To the best of my knowledge, nobody in this forum suggested to deny you the right to your opinion. There is no place for such behaviour here and Graham Young could and does kick our those who so attempt.

But at the public square, on the bus, in the public park, at the post office or on the road between drivers, things are different. There, you are still fully entitled to your opinion, only you are asked to limit its expression. If we believe that the square, the bus, the park, the post office and the roads belong to the public, then the public has every right to rule what is acceptable there and what is not. Whether the state or its government represent the public and rightly own those places is a separate and a very painful issue, but if we wish to emerge sane from this discussion, then let's look at just one issue at a time.

I suspect misunderstandings on this thread partially relate to different personality types. See Myers-Briggs. People have different problem solving styles. Engineering mindsets tend to be goal focused - but others could be people focused.

Canem Malum,

There are a ton of things you are legally not
allowed to say. You can't incite people
to violence, you can't slander (in speech) or
libel (in writing), you can't shout obscenities,
yet some people think they should have the right
to threaten and abuse and harass people. You aren't
allowed to intentionally inflict harm on someone
even by just using words.

Free speech does not mean you have the freedom to
say what you want whatever the consequences.
Nobody has to support someone else's shyte.

Many people are confused about what PC means.
Conservatives would have you believe that they are
under attack for not being "PC" and that they are
somehow the ones with courage for speaking their
minds. This is a strawman defense.

It isn't the word choice, the tone or the subject
matter that threatens people. It is the ideas
themselves. The attack on PC culture is simple -
privileged classes bemoaning the idea that they
can no longer feel, do, or say (or legislate) whatever
they want about anyone with impunity.

It isn't sinister - it has simply rendered some people
incapable of seeing how their words or actions affect
other people. Privilege is a collective narcissism.

The line needs to be drawn when genuinely harmful things
are being said. If something is plainly hate speech -
it shouldn't be given a platform.

All that is being said here is 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, put various
limitations on what people may say. They prohibit certain
types of speech that they believe might harm the government
or the people. We have laws covering - libel and slander,
public decency, urging violence and so on.

Foxy, you are repeating yourself.
All that you have just said is irrelevant to those of us who believe in saying 'exactly' what we mean.
PC and FS deny these rights.
I and any thinking person would not expect to be lied to simply because of some emotionally disturbed few.
Simply because you and your followers are offended by something, does not mean it should not be said.
So take your last post and read it to yourself because those of us who are aware and not afraid of what we see out there, don't need to hear anymore of your prattling and self absorbed beliefs.
You have pushed this topic to ad nauseum and so if you do not have any new input or information, I would say, once again you have done exactly what you accuse me of.
You speak of all the books you have read and the research as well.
So it then follows that all your preachings are from other sources but your own.
What you have demonstrated is someone with no substance or integrity, or to be more accurate; A STRAWMAN! or is that strawwoman? Shame I'm not a PC freak.

'You can't incite people to violence,'
when you have snowflakes like the Hilary supporters who rioted simply because she lost the application of inciting to violence is very open to interpretation. In Britian Tommy Robinson is in gaol for exposing muslim paedophile ring without any violence. Then you have the antifa thugs who dummy spit everytime they don't get their own marxist ways/

Foxy - I think you're possibly conflating Hate Speech with Political Correctness. But I'll read through the thread again.
Probably Hate Speech is a subset of PC but not everything that is PC is Hate Speech.

Also in a democracy people are entitled to protest - and that includes subject matter that might offend. But I'm always wary that everything that comes out of our mouths can be challenged so you should be prepared to defend them. Those unprepared will hang themselves - doesn't mean they're wrong but they may need to come back another day.

Sometimes it's necessary to weigh up if the battle is worth fighting for - benefit vs cost - there needs to be some subtlety in the context of how you present your argument.

Yasmin in using ANZAC day terminology insulted Australians on an Australian Public Holiday relating to Australian Families.

If you dress as someone that doesn't look like part of Australian Culture, attack Australian Culture, and Australian Families, and try to lecture Australian's, and ask them for their support - for something that has been regularly in the media and doesn't have majority support - what would you think the reaction would be?

She has now alienated the Australian people to the refugee cause.

Whether you agree with the refugee cause or not - Most people wouldn't do it.

You can say what you want - but if you capture an audience they should make sure they leave a good impression - otherwise they're just annoying them - and lose the battle.

Maybe she was testing the audience for feedback...Propaganda Wars are interesting.

runner,
"In Britian Tommy Robinson is in gaol for exposing muslim paedophile ring without any violence."
No he isn't. The ring was exposed ages ago (not by him) and the trials are ongoing. He was jailed because of his hostile street interview attempt with one of the suspects. Not only did that risk compromising the right to a fair trial, but it was also a breach of the conditions of the suspended sentence he was already serving for a similar (and more serious) offence.

Canem Malum,

No I am not conflating hate speech with political
correctness. The differences between the two
have been clearly
explained in this discussion.

Political correctness is not a blind censorship of
opinion but a suppression of harmful speech acts.
We need to see the difference between harmful speech
acts and our right to free speech.

cont'd ...

Regarding Yassmin Abdel Magied?

The response to one young woman's opinion was far
more of a disgrace than asking Australia to
recognize the value of ALL lives lost to war.

But then she was a black young woman and a Muslim
so all those "lovely" white gentlemen who supposedly
are all for "free speech" and anti PC came out in droves
to attack her.

The following link explains further:

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/hysteria-over-yassmin-abdelmagieds-anzac-day-post-cannot-be-separated-from-racism-20170427-gvtjdj.html

Foxy, you leave your self wide open again.
Your link is a clear indictment of the FS and PC conflate or better still, conflict.
You cannot have the two working in concert.
Either you are going to speak your mind, as she has done, and expect people to comment, or don't, and live a lie.
What is that saying, 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it'.
This saying has been around since forever and it exemplifies my point. The 'difference' as you put it, has been explained to death and back again, and still you refuse to accept it.
Such as your take on FS as 'harmful speech acts'.
'Harmful speech acts'. What acts? Stop overreaching to make your point.
Speech is an intangible, it has no physical form it cannot act in a harmful way.
Speech is subjective where as I am objective and that's why you are wrong in your attempted assertions.
You are pushing an agenda which forces people to stop being free and frank.
You are weak of mind and character if you don't have the maturity to either challenge something or just ignore it and walk away.
If you want to put me in my place then just stop posting on this topic and I will have nothing to respond to and you can get on with something else without trying to 'flog a dead horse', if your so sensitive to the hard realities of life.

It was good that Yasmin was able to express her bigotry and hatred for the nation that gave her so much. Her idiotic conclusion that Islam is good for women could only come from one demented Marxist uni system that lacks logic. All those I know are happy the abc gave her a platform to make a dill of herself. They are good at that.

We need to see the difference between harmful speech acts
and our right of free speech. Describing Gays as faggots
for example - both words are used to describe the same
type of individual. However the former word does not
seem to do anything apart from its denotative function -
whereas the second has a distinct act of demonizing or
stigmatizing. Its an act of condemnation - than it is
to communicate meaning.

Therefore as stated earlier political correctness is not
a blind censorship of opinion but a suppression of
harmful speech acts. Nobody is disagreeing on the right
of people being free to say whatever they want. But
sometimes however, when free speech can shift into the
dangerous territory of saying things that are outrightly
harmful to a particular group of people - eg. racism,
sexism, homophobic, et cetera - then some of us can use
our right to free speech to complain and critique.

If your show gets cancelled because you did something offensive
that's not cutting off your right to free speech. You're not
being thrown in prison, you can still express your views
elsewhere. But the network provider has a right to deny
you expressing your views on their network if you're
spreading hate speech and they disagree with that.

Foxy - With respect ... the "more times" you repeat an opinion doesn't make it "more right". I'd be interested on a more in depth analysis of the topic not sure about others.

Canem Malum,

The only reason repetition is necessary - is in response
to misunderstanding what has been said. I don't like it
either - but sometimes things do need to be repeated
for clarity's sake - especially for certain people.
After you've been on this forum for a while - you too
shall hopefully understand.

Foxy, what you are describing is PC.
The fact that the network has a PC policy is no coincidence.
It has to take the pansy line for the sake of ratings and not alienate the pansies.
If not for the very people I demonise and abhor, we could say what we want without fear of being attacked by those too gutless to hear any negative criticisms or comments against them.
Every person has the right to malign, defame, verbally abuse and even hate someone.
You are pushing a very sensitive agenda with your rhetoric.
Will you not accept that if I want to abuse you or vilify you, I will, not because I can but because the situation which brought about this verbal negative tirade required it.
I don't care for your attitude therefore for me to not only make my point, I must do something to stop you from persisting.
The first level is to abuse, the next is to abuse but with a louder and more aggressive delivery.
If none of this resolves the stand off we then result to a damn good physical delivery.
That is the reality of life and humans.
Better men than you have tried to change humanity; never happen.
So stop pushing your pansy agenda, we don't care for it.
I will say whatever I feel the need to say to best articulate or convey my message or point.
BTW I do know the differences you speak of, so it has nothing to do with ignorance, but everything to do with freedoms.

Well folks - so much for Freedom of Speech.

ALTRAV has so beautifully illustrated the points
that I've been trying to make. He's stated -

"I don't care for your attitude therefore for me
to not only make my point I must do something to
stop you from persisting. The first line is to
abuse, the next is to abuse with a louder and more
aggressive delivery - if none of this resolves the stand
off we then resort to a damn good physical delivery.
That is the reality of life and humans."

No, that is the reality of a bully and a coward.

Real men don't do that. Abusing others and hitting
them makes you neither tough nor impressive. It makes
you look stupid, rude, and a coward. Abusive unacceptable
bullying is also a criminal offence.

Foxy, again you are prattling on ad-nauseam.
You are too narrow in your views and that makes you very biased and therefore irrelevant.
You completely missed the point and 'cherry picked' what you thought would help bolster your case.
You fell for it and failed, because what I have described is real life, not some fantasy dreamed up by the true cowards.
A coward does not face his detractors.
He turns and runs.
A righteous man however takes them on, head on.
No matter how many times you show your irrelevance, I have taken you on, head on, every time.
Apparently it's ok to put down women these days because it is PC.
You and your lot are the cowards as you expect people to lower themselves to your level so as to not make you feel uncomfortable or worse, even though you are wrong.
The difference between us is that I 'know' you are wrong, where as you 'think' you are right.
The PC brigade is mentally deranged to expect people to lie just so as to not upset them.
What I have described is real life.
You have obviously spent too long behind closed doors and have lost touch with the real world.
Tell you what, get out more often, stop hanging around with like minded dreamers and snowflakes and experience the 'real' world.
With your attitude, you won't like what you see and hear, but, too bad it is what it is and nothing you say or the govt does will ever change that.
It is human nature, and you know it.

Freedom of speech is not freedom to abuse.

I rest my case.

Dear Foxy,

«Freedom of speech is not freedom to abuse.»

But freedom of speech includes the freedom to verbally abuse,
which is why freedom of speech is undesirable in the public sphere.

I would fight tooth and nail so that Altrav is able to say whatever he likes in his own home or among his friends who agree to hear what he has to say. As for OLO - this is completely up to our sovereign, Graham Young.

But as for the public space, stepping into it implies the willing sacrifice of freedoms and acceptance of the rules of the public who owns the place - for nothing else permits you to go there. Don't like it? then stay at home, there you ought to be able not only to say but even to do whatever you like.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Free speech is not a legal right people hold in
Australia.

Australians are subject to a variety of laws restricting
free speech - including defamation laws, hate speech laws,
sexual harassment laws and laws against threatening others.

While desirable in theory - truly free speech would open up
vulnerable people to intimidation and attack. Some
restriction upon speech facillitates the operation of a
representative and responsible democracy by fostering an
environment in which marginalised people feel safe to
speak up.

So the next time your obnoxious uncle/friend/colleague/
neighbour comes to visit and starts in on a racist/sexist/
homophobic rant - kindly remind him that free speech isn't
a thing in Australia. You're well within your rights to
kick him out of your house.

http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2017/09/australia-does-not-have-freedom-of-speech/

Foxy you need to define what you mean by abuse. Can we verbally abuse Hitler, Pol Pot, the UN, someone we dislike? You are not free if you cannot express your dislikes; it means you are supressing real feelings. I can state I hate what Mohamed has done to Human society, and others what to supress that. We freely have it said of Jesus Christ on this forum.

Josephus, There is no way that any sane person would sanction ANY form of censoring FoS.
The link Foxy has given is just another article she found in an attempt to make her point.
I cannot imagine what kind of sick people would curtail anyone's ability to freely express themselves, whether privately or in public.
You see if they do they will be subject to the same restrictions themselves.
Why would anyone want to stop themselves from speaking freely, openly and honestly, because to censure someone is doing exactly that.
I do understand that those pushing this agenda are nothing more than childish and petty people who apparently are afraid of their own shadows or sleeping with the lights off.
They are trying to breed a new kind of spineless neuter, so they will never have to face the big bad world again.
'Real' people will not stand for this, I can assure you.
Can you imagine the brickie, the plumber, the electrician and all the workers out there, all going around sounding like queers, and being all nice and polite.
Not a chance in hell.
The govt can go and f&(k itself for starters.
It does not represent me and probably most of the men in this country so good luck with that one.
If it is true, it has tried to fix something that wasn't broken, thereby rendering it broken now, if there truly is some kind of attempt to curtail Freedom of Speech.

Australia does not have a Bill of Rights.
Free Speech is not a legal right people hold in Australia.
And whether people like it or not all Australians are subject
to a variety of laws restricting free speech - including
defamation laws, hate-speech laws, sexual harassment laws
and laws against threatening others.

Those that want these laws changed should write to their
Members of Parliament to try to legislate changes.
People are well within their rights to do precisely that.
However blaming other individuals for the laws that do currently
exist in an exercise in futility and will achieve nothing
except perhaps - venting one's spleen may make some feel
better.

I hope that works for them.

Foxy said "Free Speech is not a legal right people hold in Australia."

Freedom of speech has a very long history ...and has long been part of democracy apparently back to Athens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Socrates the giant of Western Philosophy was also a big fan. In the opening two chapters of Plato's Republic are two excellent examples of free speech debates.

The Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of 1789 (France) is interesting (and perhaps not as influenced by politics as the UN Declaration of Human Rights) ...

Article XI – The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, except to respond to the abuse of this liberty, in the cases determined by the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_the_Man_and_of_the_Citizen_of_1789

Dear Foxy,

«Free speech is not a legal right people hold in Australia.»

Correct, but what difference does it make?
I only care for the morality of things, rather than what a group of thugs happens to allow or otherwise.

But let's hypothesise for a moment that the Australian regime was legitimate:
For that to happen, people would have needed to voluntarily accept its authority and by doing so they would freely give away some of their freedoms - I see nothing wrong with that.

«Australians are subject to a variety of laws»

Yes, but since they never accepted the authority of the corresponding law-makers, this is just a case of bullying and cannot be used to draw moral examples from.

«While desirable in theory - truly free speech...»

Can you tell me why you think that free speech is a desirable feature?

I believe that this modern idea evolved because free speech was considered a way to overcome tyranny. However, we know that it doesn't work, that there are tyrannical regimes that would allow you to scream against them as much as you like, because it won't make a difference anyway...

As for that obnoxious uncle/friend/colleague/neighbour, I should be able to kick them out of my house anyway and I don't even need to provide a reason.

---

Dear Josephus,

«You are not free if you cannot express your dislikes; it means you are supressing real feelings»

How is this different to the ability to express your dislikes by punching someone in the face, or by spitting at them?

Yes, there are times when feelings ought to be suppressed.

You could feel it's very funny, but would it be compatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ to laugh aloud when an old lady slips on a banana-peal and breaks her leg?

«We freely have it said of Jesus Christ on this forum.»

Yes, because this is a private forum where the rules are set by Graham Young. Nobody is forced to come here, so if you do come then this is one of the things that you can expect.

Dear Canem Malum,

«Socrates the giant of Western Philosophy was also a big fan.»

So what? That Socrates also gave the world a very bad example by drinking that poison on the grounds that some legislators didn't like what he did.

«Article XI – The free communication of thoughts and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man»

Again, what if some idiot wrote this into the American constitution? I can think of dozens of other "rights" which I would find more precious.

«any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely...»

Hold your horses... and then I suppose, feel free to drop what they printed in my letter-box?

I think not!

I believe that my right to keep my property free from other people's junk, to keep my ears clean from other people's noises and to keep my mind free from being scratched by their propaganda, trumps their "right" to speak, write or print.

Let them speak, write, print, communicate, and debate - but only do so at those who freely agreed to accept their words.

By their own hand, those promoting PC and censoring FoS, have demonstrated here on this topic their crushing of their own beliefs, on this very topic.
They have engaged in non PC language or debate during this debate, in an attempt to make their point.
Similarly they have broken their vows of FoS again, in attempting to make their point during this debate.
So it is that by example alone, in attempting to prove a point, according to their own rhetoric, they have not only broken the law they so preciously hold to make their point, but desecrate the very things they say they uphold and stand for.
It is not possible to legislate on FoS.
If it was so then you could not have protests and people 'saying' and 'writing' offensive and abusive insults, in, as some want to suggest, public open spaces, where the public own the 'public' area.
Stupid people and their sick logic.
It does not fit.
The protestors are public as well, and so goes another FoS fallacy.
No I say to one and all, keep speaking your minds and do not be swayed by the utterings of the feeble minded.

Dear Altrav,

Could you answer just this:

Most would agree that one's right not to be punched on the chin trumps your right to punch.

Why should your freedom to speak your mind trump my freedom to avoid having my brain being scratched by yours?

Yuyutsu, I am sorry but your last couple of paragraph don't quite work like that.
People, that includes you, MUST be allowed to speak freely.
I cannot, in all conscience, condone anything less.
If you have a problem with someone or something, you have to face that problem head on, if not you will not be true to yourself or those around you.
Sure diplomacy is always there to help you, if you feel the need, but ultimately do not shy away because either you are afraid of the outcome or you think they might get upset.
Usually in such situations someone or both are going to get upset. Does that mean that the issue does not get resolved and the guilty party is allowed to get away with it?
Well according to FoS and PC, yes they will.
If you think your going to attempt to convince someone that they are at fault when they clearly dis-agree, without it becoming heated, you are sadly mistaken.
In life we are faced with all manner of emotional situations and these sometimes manifest themselves into verbal tirades, because reason did not work.
For example, I live next to a school.
It is clearly signaged that you cannot park there.
This includes across my driveways.
Yet they still do.
Every so often I arrive home to find these morons parked illegally, as usual, I indicate I want to access my own property, they choose to ignore me.
Now two things are wrong here, blocking my access to my property and breaking the law.
Now A; do I sit out side my house and wait till they have picked up their precious little turds or B; am I forced to get out of my car and get told to f@(k off.
So I remind them as loudly as I can that they are not supposed to be there and tell them all to F off.
You know what?
It makes no difference.
So according to the tree huggers I have broken the law.
I have spoken freely, and used profanities in public

uyutsu, sorry you posted whilst I was writing my previous post.
So let me see.
OK well apart from the obvious faux pas, a punch is a physical act.
My freedom to speak is an intangible and therefore apart from the noise emanating from my mouth, your posture suggests you are a very sensitive person or just plain petty.
To use your example of the punch if I may.
I maintain my right to punch someone in the face because that is what 'I' reasoned was the appropriate course of action.
This cannot and must not be challenged for it is only I and the other person who it involves and so no one else is privy to the details nor what led to the need to punch him in the face in the first place.
Now he, on the other hand, is not completely powerless to this physical attack.
He has several choices.
He can avoid or deflect the punch then either proceed to punch back, or make use of the deflection and run.
You see he has choices.
And so it is with FoS.
If what someone is saying 'scratches'? your mind then you must be so weak or feeble that you feel the need to shy away from a simple social act such as someone speaking, in any tone.
They are just words.
Are you not capable of saying to the other person, 'sorry mate, I think your talking crap'.
If he is genuine he will enquire as to why you think so and you can elaborate.
If not you can turn and move on.
In doing so you have satisfied all your criteria without embarrassment.

Yuyutsu - interestingly appears to be channeling a character archetype of the Vedas - a fighter with moral virtue.

Diogenes - "Socrates ... knew nothing except that he knew that very fact"

Isaac Newton in 1675: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."

Yuyutsu,

If I was just a little more half-witted than I am already, I would be very confused by your last post - are you suggesting that people shouldn't have freedom of expression because you don't want your letterbox cluttered ? That letter-boxing should be a criminal act on those grounds ? That printing a leaflet or brochure should therefore also be a crime ? To plan to do so as well ? To talk about doing so ?

To think about doing so ? George Orwell, where are you when we need you ?

Joe

//George Orwell, where are you when we need you ?//

The churchyard of the Church of All Saints, Sutton Courtenay in Oxfordshire. I suggest that he is best left there.

And frankly, I'm not too sure that he'd be all that exercised about Yuyutsu's 'no junk mail' stance. A man's letterbox is his castle, and nobody likes junk mail except for people with wood-burning heaters or fireplaces. Oh, and presumably the people who print the damn rubbish, apparently labouring under the misapprehension that anybody uses if for anything other than kindling.

Dear Josephus,

You asked me to define what I meant by the abuse of free speech.

Abuse is recognized in law and has long-defined sanctions on
those who spread it. It includes defamation, hate speech,
sexual harassment, laws against threatening others - for
example - ALTRAV's post on page 22 where he claims that he
will increase the abuse and resort to a "damn good
physical delivery," if someone's views that he disapproves of
persist. That clearly would constitute a crime.

To most people however, reason, conscience, and common sense
usually always prevails. Most people don't need things
to be specified in our laws. Therefore it is a very
short-sighted assumption that freedom of speech and freedom
of expression has no limits.

What happened in Rwanda during the 1994 Genocide against the
Tutsi where a musician Simon Bikindi, a journalist - Hassan Ngeze
who wrote the infamous Hutu Ten Commandments and Jean Bosco
Barayagwiza (RTLM) in a case that was commonly referred to as
"the hate media trial" were sentenced by the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) to more than 30 years in
prison each for the words that they said, sung or wrote.

The trio claimed that they exercised freedom of speech and
freedom of expression. Their conviction, trial and sentencing
by the ICTR was evidence that even the International law
recognises that there is a red line while exercising freedom
of speech and freedom of expression.

It is obvious that when freedom of speech is abused - it is
likely to create social disorder, violence and in extreme
cases death of innocent lives - as was the case in Rwanda
in 1994. And in many cases of teenage cyber-bullying that
results in suicides here in this country.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

Before I go I would like to Thank all those
who contributed to this discussion. For me
it has now run its course.

I look forward to seeing many of you in further
robust discussions in the future.

Have a nice day.

Dear Altrav,

The example you provided of a car blocking your driveway is complex and introduces new and barely-related elements: let's focus on the simple cases first.

I agree that people must be allowed to speak freely, but not necessarily in the hearing-range of others who do not agree to hear them.

The brain is physical and contains very delicate machinery. Sound vibrations that arrive at our ears cause permanent changes to the brain, mainly by way of creating new neural pathways and disconnecting others. Sages indicated that sense-impressions (including sound) cause scratches (called "vrittis", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vritti) not only in our physical brain but also in our minds, that last even beyond the life of our physical body. Nevertheless, I think that the modifications to our physical brain should suffice for this discussion.

In spirituality we aim to refine our thoughts and the content of our minds, to think about God as much as possible and entertain violence and profanities as little as possible.

Avoiding to damage other people's brains and contaminate them with our garbage, is not a matter of shyness or fear, but of decency and respect.

When you and another person agree to interfere with each other's chin or brain, then indeed this is completely between you two and nobody else should be able to intervene. As far as I am concerned, you two may agree to kill each other and no law should punish you for that.

Yes, there are ways, physical and diplomatic, to deflect unwanted attention, but I see nothing wrong if the public designates that some or all public spaces should provide a tranquil environment for those who use them, promoting peace of body and peace of mind.

---

Dear Canem Malum,

Almost, except that Yuyutsu was a character from the Mahabharata rather than from the Vedas. Just before the great battle began, he defected from the evil camp and joined the forces of good.

---

Dear Joe,

I would fight for your freedom to print whatever you like - just respect my private space by not placing it in my mail-box. Thank you.

Yuyutsu and others, sorry but we as humans have a wide range of emotions and talents.
Even the most mature and intelligent of us have them.
I understand there are those out there who lack the imagination and fortitude to navigate through some of the events and detours that are ever present in our day to day lives.
Your kind of person is what is sometimes described as a lesser person for lacking in some of the humans natural make-up.
I accept that there are lesser people than myself out there, until I am forced to act like a lesser person.
The fact that someone does not want to have their brain 'scratched' is a fantasy, and not worthy of thought.
We are individuals.
As such we will say what ever we feel.
The public arena will censure us.
For example, someone starts getting agitated and abusive towards another in a restaurant.
Out of all the patrons in that restaurant one or more people will get up and face off against this person, who may be forced to leave or bring it down a notch.
If he does not comply or persists he will be restrained or ejected and if he still persists with his tirade outside he will be dealt with by the police when they are obviously called.
So you see the fear of having to hear something you don't like, being said in a public place,is taken care of.
There are laws in place to cater for these issues already.
We don't need any more petty issues clogging up the works.
You say you don't want to hear certain things.
Well I have a 'murder' of crows living in a tree in the school next door.
They are the most annoying of creatures ever to exist.
Spare a thought for those of us living within earshot of these vermin when all day you hear, as loud as possible, FAAAAARK, FAAAAARK.
Which as you know sounds very much like a human sexual act.
Now that is something worth bitching about.

Dear Altrav,

You come out here as quite an unrefined person: rough, insensitive and inconsiderate, you do try hard to look like one.
Yet I wonder whether you are truly like this in real life too - I suspect that you don't as your posts look more and more like a grotesque satire of such people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP0B8hrOo0Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNF8ADpW7mE

Yuyutsu, since you brought it up.
Life is a satire of such people.
Apparently you might have to get together with Foxy and get out a little more and experience the 'real' world.
I am whatever I am.
I am a very understanding person.
I am a very pragmatic person.
I am a practical person.
I am an honest person.
And maybe because of this last comment I am incapable of lying.
It is an historic fact that wogs are a proud people.
It then stands to reason that I will not lie for fear of being outed, thereby leaving me embarrassed and feeling sidelined.
I would feel the same about someone who is lying to me, especially using a front like PC to justify their lies, propositions or beliefs.

Yuyutsu, I did not care for the second link.
Don't like plays or overacting.
The first one I can relate to.
What I saw there was a person who was doing what he is supposed to be doing, and he was unabashed in his stance in dealing with either the businessmen nor the charity seekers.
I empathise with scrooge, I see a self assured confident man who has a very clear and uncontaminated view on things.
As I have said many a time, emotions are not helpful.
They do not produce viable or positive outcomes.
In the case of charities, since you brought it up.
Let me give you a reality check.
Apart from the fact that charities are there for their own benefit they help in keeping people poor and destitute.
Why because as it has been said many a time, 'if you give a man a fish, he can eat for a day.
Give him the tools and training to enable him to catch his own fish, and he will never go hungry again'.
So I'm sorry all you bleeding hearts, that is a fact.
I can easily relate to Scrooge and happy to do so.
You see what is not known about me is that I have taught people in less fortunate countries to manufacture and establish a new business so that they can improve their standard of living.
I used to give to charities, mainly children oriented ones, until the truth was exposed about the corruption and greed which resulted in the children suffering just as much as before.
So little or nothing changed, in the bigger picture.
So if I come across as cold, crass, arrogant, indifferent, etc, etc, it's because I am.
I am also a very loving caring person, but that is not relevant here.
Even though I am all these things, I am still a better person than most out there, because I possess the ability to reason and exercise common sense.

Dear Altrav,

Thank you, I understand your position and identification with Scrooge.

So you are a very understanding, pragmatic, practical, cold, crass, arrogant, indifferent and honest person (also a very loving caring person - how does it work?).

Scrooge's behaviour is certainly legitimate, it's his choice indeed, but can't you see the difference between his passive refusal to cooperate and the active, unprovoked, insulting of other members of the public?

IF (and yes, it's a big "if") what we call "public space" indeed belongs to the public, then why shouldn't that public be able to restrict what can and cannot be done or said on their premises just like you and Scrooge can restrict what can and cannot be done or said on your own premises?

Perhaps you don't agree with me that speech can be injurious, but isn't it the case that in your own home you alone can decide what is injurious and what isn't, then ban what you consider injurious without even requiring a proof? Why then can't others, including "the public" do the same?

Yuyutsu, how it works is quite simple.
Because I have the where-with-all to understand people from all these different demographics, I can relate, communicate, understand and therefore interact in discussions involving topics or discussions with a broader community.
You see Scrooge is all those things I/you mention.
Where people find his behaviour abhorant and despicable, I do not.
He was being honest.
The two seeking charity, even though they believe they are pursuing a good cause, were wrong to judge Scrooge by their standards.
Scrooge, like myself is not ruled nor swayed by emotion, unlike the charity seekers.
Firstly they invaded his personal space by ambushing him and obstructing his through passage.
The appropriate proto-col for such a situation is, by all means wait till Scrooge is at rest and or stationary.
Ask him first if you may talk to him.
If he agrees, then ask your question.
When given a negative response, thank him for taking up his time, without invitation to do so, then, without any facial gestures, leave graciously.
People can mock and denigrate Scrooge, but they are being petty, childish and selfish.
You are not Scrooge, you know nothing about his actual life and daily dealings.
It is not your money, so it is irrelevant what anyone thinks of him. It is no-ones business but his.
As for the difference between my home and public open space.
That's easy.
In my home, I am in charge.
Outside my home, no one individual is in charge.
If that were the case we could not demonstrate and say things that you say will upset you.
The answer is, obviously, move on and ignore it.
The same applies to anyone who does not agree with what someone says on the forum.

Dear Altrav,

You describe very well how those two charity-seekers should have behaved. I agree, it's common sense and fortunately also our common experience in Australia.

The question is whether or not it is legitimate for "the public" to set and enforce similar rules of conduct for those who lack common sense or the willingness to use it (and yes, there are such).

Should charity-seekers for example, be legally allowed to nag you again and again in a bus-station: "Oh, but please", "Oh, reconsider", "think again", "Oh, don't you have mercy on those poor children?", "Oh, but why?", "Yes, we will leave you alone... once you give us some money"....

Or do you hold to the "sticks & stones" theory and just "move on and ignore it."?

Or should it be legal in public parks (like in India), to push a snake in your face (don't worry, the venom was removed and the snake won't touch you), saying "Picture with a snake, Mister, Picture with a snake", "Ten dollars, for you just five..."?

Yes, In your home, you are in charge, then you say:
«Outside my home, no one individual is in charge»

What then about someone else's home, or is it just your own home that is so special?

Or is it perhaps a question of numbers?

Suppose ten people buy a barren plot and build a nice park there, for themselves, their families and guests - can they set the rules there, including speech-rules?

What if it's 100 people, 1000, 10000, 100000... at what stage do they lose the freedom to control what's said on their property?

Now you may claim, and then I partially/conditionally agree, that the state does not legitimately own what we call "public spaces", that had they owned it then they could indeed dictate what can/not be said there, but they don't really own the place. Is this actually what you are saying?

Yuyutsu, funny you should mention India and yes it is in certain places, as you describe.
The children are used in some cases, as I have witnessed myself in India.
OK let's consider these annoying, charity seekers.
I don't think I have encountered such here in Aus, maybe abroad but either way if you tell them to go away, move on and leave you alone? Well let's see, hmmmmmmm, Oh I know, wait till the bus comes along and push them into it's path.
Not only have you solved the immediate problem, but just think what a service you have done to the greater populous, they won't have to worry about unwanted, 'in your face' people any more, or at least one less.
Now your next conundrum.
Well my home IS special and it is MY dominion.
Someone else's home is, I would hope, special to them.
Similarly if I get annoying, let's say I get drunk and start groping his wife.
Well he too has the same rights as me over his dominion.
Now if 100 or 100,000 people BUY a baron plot and make a nice park for themselves, then, guess what?
It will get messy but, if 51% of them agree that you should be kicked out, then you should be kicked out.
Now your last premise is also an easy one.
Because 'public open space' is owned by the Commonwealth, (the Queen) we are merely tenants given the right to self rule, by her.
In doing so we vote in people who represent us in drafting laws which ultimately are supposed to be for the benefit of all of us equally. Because of this arrangement, free speech in a public place or public open space, is allowed by law.
The kind of speech allowed is also prescribed by law.
So you see, fear not my right to call you whatever I want may be censored already.
But if it is not you know the choices, challenge them or move on.

Dear Altrav,

So going a full circle we seem to be in agreement that a society MAY, if so it wishes (by way of 51% majority, or by whatever other arrangement as agreed in that society's ground-rules), restrict speech on its public premises.

Whether it is WISE to do so, remains an open question, which a society could decide on a case-by-case basis.

The remaining question is what legitimately constitutes public premises:

You seem to hold the view that [in Australia] public open space is owned by the Commonwealth/Queen. I disagree. I don't believe that pointing one's finger over the horizon and chanting "this is all mine", even when accompanied by three rounds of small-firearms, is sufficient to establish land ownership (that British ritual is more akin to witchcraft). I believe that ownership requires some more significant (and ongoing) investment.

Nevertheless, I think that places like city-roads, cultivated public parks, parliament buildings and public libraries can safely be claimed to belong to the "public".

BTW, what's your view regarding the almost-nonexistent free speech in public libraries?

---

One went to a librarian and said: "I would like to buy one kilogram of tomatoes, half a kilogram of cucumbers and a lettuce".
The librarian told him: "this is not a shop, this is a library!"

So he whispered respectfully and very quietly: "Oh, I'm so sorry Madam, I would like to buy one kilogram of tomatoes, half a kilogram of cucumbers and a lettuce".

Dear Yuyutsu,

I love library jokes.

Here's another:

A man walks into a library and asks for a book on
Tourette's.

Librarian says: "F- off, you twat!"

Man: "Yes, that's the one!"

Yuyutsu, NO, a society may not do anything, if in doing so contravenes any laws, or even by-laws for that matter.
I think I have already covered this one.
That's why it is such a moot topic (freedom of speech in public places).
AS for your disdain and disgust at the mere mention that the Queen owns Australia.
She does, by her birth right and inheritance.
It all started with Captain Cook and Queen Victoria, when Cook landed and claimed this land in the name of her Majesty, Her Royal Highness Queen Victoria.
Sound familiar?
I love telling that story reminding all the whinging snivelling lefties who's in charge.
HAH they hate it!
Now back to your question.
The reason it is so, is that the queen as the owner of this land holds sway over our military, judiciary, well every office other than private industry, which she controls through other instruments and resources.
As for parks and libraries and anything with reference to the 'public', the same applies.
Now all you red necks calm down.
You have nothing to worry about.
Like all the other countries owned by the British Kings and Queens of past and present, this one will relinquish control, one day, and may God have mercy on our souls when that day comes.
It will be just another acquisition by the Illuminati and their goal of world domination.
The evidence is there just look it up.
Now as for free speech in libraries.
Firstly I have never had time to sit around reading other peoples utterings on life, either real or fantasies.
I chose to 'live' life and in doing so have experiences so much more than 'anyone' I have ever come across.
It is these experiences which have put me in good stead for my journey through life up till now, and for as long as I am able, going forward.
So NO, could not give a rats whether one has the freedom to speak or for that matter fart, a library.
I hope this clears up any points or issues you may have had.

//when Cook landed and claimed this land in the name of her Majesty, Her Royal Highness Queen Victoria.//

Wow, a real history buff we have here! James Cook died 14 February 1779, when the Hawaiians ate him. Queen Victoria was born 24 May 1819, Only 40 years after Cook got roasted. What happened to George III? Did Cookie make a come back, from beyond the grave to claim Aussie

Paul, I stand corrected.
I had federation in mind.
Got the two entwined in my mind and Federation came out.
My points still stand.
Thanks for that.

Dear Altrav,

«NO, a society may not do anything, if in doing so contravenes any laws, or even by-laws for that matter.»

By "society" I referred to that group of people that [think it] owns the land over which it makes the laws and by-laws, then change them as it wills. Now I'm aware that this term is very inaccurate, very sloppy, but that's what most OLO members here refer to, so I presumed that you too use "society" in that manner - sorry for placing you in the same basket. So indeed, no society (think of it as a state, although calling a state "society" is very sloppy indeed) can do anything if it contravenes the laws of God and/or the laws of physics, those being the only formidable, stable and legitimate laws.

«AS for your disdain and disgust at the mere mention that the Queen owns Australia.»

My disdain and disgust is at the childish concept as if any human or any group of humans owns the whole of one of God's blessed continents, so it has nothing to do with kings and queens. Pointing your finger at the moon doesn't make the moon yours - that's plain childish!

If someone were to own the whole place, then (like you, I presume) I rather have it be the Queen than that mob which you call "Illuminati", however neither does.

So we could go on discussing a comprehensive theory of land-ownership, which could be very interesting, but that would take us way beyond this topic, which is:

SUPPOSE a group of people collectively owns a land - and let us not get into the nitty-gritty discussion on whether or not they indeed own that land, THEN I believe that they may legitimately and morally, decide/legislate to limit free-speech within that land or parts thereof, perhaps for the sake of providing its members with a more peaceful and comfortable environment.

Do you agree or not?

ALTRAV- It appears that some are arguing from a moral stance and you are arguing from a legal stance. Queen Victoria signed the Australian Constitution into Law and so is a document based on British Law. There have been changes over the years as to British control over Australian Law. Most know that the Queen trumps our constitution in Military issues due to the "Royal Perogative over the military" based on 1600's precedent from memory. This was the basis of the "Military Callout Legislation 2000".

http://www.peo.gov.au/uploads/peo/docs/closer-look/CloserLook_Constitution.pdf

As Laurie in "The Castle" pointed out Constitutional Law is a specialist area

Hi ALTRAV, no need to thank me, I would do the same for any lesser mortal.

Hi Yuyutsu, the British tenure over the continent of Australia has always been rather rancid with many. Simply having one of their number sail up, pop in, and claim the whole bloody place in the name of their fearless leader is at best, suspect! Like all colonial powers the British were good at claiming sovereignty over others and their abode. Despite the toasting, flag waving, volley of shots and the three cheers, it was all very much achieved at the point of a gun.

As for my wife's cousie bros, yes even the Hawaiians are seen as part of the Polynesian Empire, knocking Cookie on the head and then fricasseeing him, well put that down as one for the losing side.

Good morning CM,

//Most know (DO THEY!) that the Queen trumps our constitution in Military issues (SHE DOES!) due to the "Royal Perogative (IS THAT SO!) over the military" based on 1600's precedent from memory (THANKS FOR THE MEMORIES!). This was the basis of the "Military Callout Legislation 2000". (WELL, THAT MAKES IT ALL HONKY DORY!)

CM, yes, thanks for the 'heads up', I think I have answered this in my previous post,but I'll try it again.
Yuyutsu, if I understand your question correctly.
I did answer in the affirmative. ie; yes.
Because, if a piece of land or property was purchased and is owned by one or more people, they can do whatever they want within the bounds or confines of that property, (legally).
The problem is that morals and ethics, although a valid component of human beings, is not practiced by a majority of people.
In so doing the govt is called upon to enshrine the will of the majority into 'law'.
So, if I understand your question correctly, you would suggest that if someone is making others uncomfortable because of what they are saying, then the 'majority' of those people may eject that person from their property.
Yes they can do that because it is their property and their 'private' space.
But if you are suggesting we can do the same in public then, NO, because it is not the same.
In public we are all equal, everyone 'owns' public open space.
That's why we have laws, which represent the majority of people,just like in your own home.
In public I can say whatever I want, because the majority said so (or we could not have demonstrations, ergo; freedom of speech).
I get that you do not like being put in a situation that makes you uncomfortable.
Who does?
But I'm sorry Yuyutsu, just as I have had to 'suck it up' for the 67 years of my life in this miserable Nanny country, so it is that you do too.
Welcome to the 'lucky country'.

Paul,I don't have a problem with someone 'owning' a country, which is weird for a 'wog' to be a Monarchist.
I don't mind because as much as there is a lot of opposition to the idea, it happened in a time and a way that was completely acceptable or the 'norm' for that era and culture.
Now I have preached ad nauseum about the rights of ownership.
I know to many cultures the idea of owning a country or even some of it's land is abhorant to them, but that is the standard or 'norm' of today by the majority of our culture or those with tenure over the land in question.
I fear for the day we become a republic.
That will be the end of what little control we have now over our lives and our future.
There are people, evil people out there, who wish to rule the world and have been slowly infecting countries so eventually we will all come under one world order.
These are bad evil greedy people.
The only way to thwart them is to remain under the safety net or umbrella of our current ruler who has no such evil and corrupt ambitions.
She won't stand in our way should we decide to go down the road to hell and become a republic, as she has done previously, by giving up other Commonwealth Countries.
Believe it or not, we are better off staying exactly where we are. Give the dirty ole man with the lollies the cold shoulder, when he comes a callin, and tell him to move on, we'll stick with Mother England thank you very much.

Dear Altrav,

«just as I have had to 'suck it up' for the 67 years of my life in this miserable Nanny country, so it is that you do too.
Welcome to the 'lucky country'.»

It's relative: I had to suck up even more before coming here - at least we have no conscription in Australia, so I'm lucky indeed to be here. Still more can be done and I'm here to advocate for following moral and spiritual principles, rather than getting many things right just by chance, as we do in Australia.

«...they can do whatever they want within the bounds or confines of that property, (legally).»

Legally?? While morally they ought to do whatever they want, you should know well that the legal situation is different and [wrongly,] Australians can currently be prosecuted for 1001 things they do in their private space.

«In so doing the govt is called upon to enshrine the will of the majority into 'law'.»

No majority can exist unless an agreed group of reference is first established. So long as participation in the group is non-voluntary, majorities mean nothing (say 10 men meet 9 women on the beach and decide that they can rape them because they are the "majority" on that section of the beach).

«But if you are suggesting we can do the same in public»

Not "we", as individuals, rather the "public" who collectively owns the place, IF such an owning-group (called "public") indeed exists.

It seems to me that we are confused between at least two different types of "public" spaces: owned spaces and unowned spaces. In my view both types do exist, because ownership is gained by significant investment (in the broader sense, not just financial), cultivation and development. While demarcation between the two types can be difficult, still both ends of the spectrum (e.g. cities versus outback) can be easily distinguishable.

I understand that legally-speaking the state/king/queen grabbed all land to itself and unless privately-owned calls it "public", but I don't give a hoot about human laws and am rather referring to the natural and moral realities.

Yuyutsu, I do appologise.
As CM pointed out, if you are promoting a moral hypothesis as opposed to my legal stance, then we are talking at crossed purposes.
This is not a problem.
I simply was not putting the pieces together.
Thanks to CM, I think I'm back on your track now.
So let me see.
I have not faced this moral dilemma before as I see morals as a form of emotion.
Being more of a pragmatist and the fact that I absolutely avoid emotions when it comes to discussions or debates, I am somewhat disadvantaged in this area.
But I will 'give it a go'.
Firstly morals and ethics are being practiced, I know this.
I also know that they are a personal choice by any and many individuals, just like religion, politics and so on.
Now if you are suggesting that because you are in a public place where other people also are, that one should conduct themselves in such a manner as to not offend or upset others around you, I would say that would be a kind and christian decision to respect anothers wishes or feelings.
Now that seems well and good, but what of the wishes and feelings of the person accused of upsetting the others?
Did anyone consider his wishes and feelings?
If he is a drunken slob then he deserves no quarter nor should he get any sympathy.
On the other hand what if the accused has a perfectly legitimate reason for his conduct.
Does he get sympathy and help from the public or should he be ejected from said property or public space?
In Massachusetts in the USA after the passing of the (what I call the) queers bill, people were being attacked not only verbally, but just on that one medium, the queers, gaiz whatever you wish to call them, surrounded a local church, whilst parishioners were inside holding service, and all yelling abuse.
The police said because the queers were legal now they had the right to demonstrate and the police were not empowered or authorised to intervene.

Dear Altrav,

It is said that in the Soviet Union there was a Jewish scientist who made a great contribution to Stalin's war machine and so the regime wanted to reward him. "What would you like as your reward?" they asked, "Perhaps a big datcha on the black sea? Perhaps a political position? Perhaps other riches? A holiday-trip overseas maybe?".

"Niet", said the scientist, "If you want to reward me, then all I ask is to speak for an hour live on radio".

The bureaucrats discussed his request and concluded that this cannot be granted, because speaking uncensored on radio he could call for a contra-revolution.

"Well, what about just half an hour?", still he was refused; "15 minutes?"; "5 minutes?" ; "just one minute?" ; "just 10 words?", the bureaucrats conferred and decided that it's still quite possible to call for a contra-revolution in 10 words.

"What about saying just ONE word?"

Well, the bureaucrats thought it over and decided that no harm can be done in one word, so they agreed.

At the appointed time, the radio-announcer said: "Now we have the great honour to hear the word of our great scientist and hero of the people", then handed him the microphone.

The Jewish-scientist took the microphone and exclaimed: "G-E-V-A-A-A-A-L-D" ("gevald", http://www.jewish-languages.org/jewish-english-lexicon/words/191)

---

Your example of the Massachusetts church is excellent and what you describe is a violent trespass.

If the only remaining way to ask for justice and defend one's freedom is to protest violently and hurt others, then this indicates that something has gone awfully wrong way earlier. The assumption that this will be needed is therefore extremely pessimistic and if you allowed society to fall to that level, then rest assured that your protests are not going to be heard or make a difference anyway, other than just allow you to release some steam.

This currently happens all over the world because participation in states/nations is compulsory: it wouldn't happen in a voluntary society and protest would not be needed to begin with because people would never join without appropriate safeguards to protect their freedoms.

ALTRAV, the notion of legality is nothing more than what the powers that be dictate at some point in time. You said " it happened in a time and a way that was completely acceptable or the 'norm' for that era and culture." Then do you say everything the state does "legally" should be acceptable to all?

1st January 1863 an executive order, the Emancipation Proclamation, issued by US President Lincoln, changed the legal status of 3.5 million African Americans enslaved within 10 Confederate states, from slave to free, the Confederates refused to accept Lincoln's proclamation. Given your view, one would say slavery in the US was legitimate based on the law, prior to the proclamation, but it is unclear what the legal position of these people was after the event, with the conflicting attitudes of the two different governments.
Even the moral argument could not be used to justify emancipation as the majority within the Confederacy accepted slavery as morally right.

My question is; Did Lincoln act illegally, as the majority affected had succeeded from the Federation and formed a Confederate government with its own legal powers. I am saying the law in itself is not simply the be all, and end all, of what should be acceptable.

Paul, your question finds me in turmoil over the conflict of the two notions at play here.
Firstly, personally you would not find a more ant-establishment person than myself.
I am a great negator of the concept of law.
I have run my life on reason and common sense.
As there is never any evidence of these qualities in 'the law', I have chosen to live by them in spite of the possible ramifications.
I am happy to say I am satisfied with my decision to-date.
Now to your question.
One of the reasons I am torn is because I am not privy to American laws then or now, but I will answer in this way.
By Lincoln passing his anti slavery bill, did so with powers over all the States, then because it was law the states had no option but to comply.
If the States were not obliged to 'accept' this new law then I suppose they were free to rule as they saw fit.
As for the question of morals and ethics, well it may not be what I and many would like to hear but, unfortunately, if the States are beholding to the White House and the Presidential decrees, then it would appear the States should have come into line.
It has always been the case against the 'one size fits all' foundation of laws and rules.
As I have always said the USA is 48 different countries, not States. Because of the great variance in the laws between the States.
It's one of the reasons I love the place.
If you find you are made to feel an outcast in one state, you can find so many more that suite you and your lifestyle.
I won't side with either for or against slavery, because I think each person, black or white, already had a view about it.
If the laws in the slave States allowed the notion of slavery then so be it.
Today's slaves are employees, according to some.
Paul, I hope I have understood your question, if not please tell me.

Paul140 said "My question is; Did Lincoln act illegally, as the majority affected had succeeded from the Federation and formed a Confederate government with its own legal powers. I am saying the law in itself is not simply the be all, and end all, of what should be acceptable."

Answer- Whenever I've visited Lincoln I've been uncertain of his principles and often considered him an opportunist. But the question is a good one- Is law always acceptable?- How should law be created? John Locke talked about a social contract as a necessary part of statesmanship. Other considerations include was the law was juresdictionally correct (I assume it was in this case), also under the constitution the militia is under the control of the state for the very reason to enforce the will of the people over that of a dictatorial government.

When I see speeding cameras installed without a mandate as well as other policies implemented because certain people know better than the electorate - it concerns me.

There are times when dictatorial actions are necessary but part of leadership involves foresight- so if emergencies occur then the incumbent needs to be questioned and possibly dismissed.

The law is the law but the law should be open to change by the electorate. But for this to work the electorate needs to be extremely well informed- this requires a very open environment where ideas can be discussed freely in all areas of society. There needs to be a balance between tradition and progressive forces- I believe this is possible but requires some thought. Much of the electorates time is spent in the workplace- diversity policy restricts discussion about certain topics in the workplace- therefore diversity policy has the potential to undermine free speech and democracy.

Democracy is based on the idea of the power of the people not the power of the dollar or the power of the needy.

This question deserves a better treatment but that's all the time I have for the moment

Canem Malum,

Power of the people?

Lets not forget interest groups that use a variety
of tactics - from collecting petitions, take
court action, advertise in the media, organise
floods of letters to legislators on particular
issues, pledge their members' votes to certain
candidates, donate money to election campaigns, or
even resort to outright bribery. And frequently
they use lobbying, the tactic of directly
persuading decision makers.

Many large interest groups - including corporations
maintain highly paid, full-time professional staffs of
lobbyists who meet regularly with legislators and
government officials. Other groups hire the services
of free-lance lobbying firms, which are often staffed
by former members of Parliament.

Anyway, it is a more complicated world - than just
a government for the people, by the people et cetera.
Especially in the US.

Foxy- I agree that lobbyists are an issue. I was just dealing with the macro content. See Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal. Edward Bernays is the father of public relations- read "Propaganda". Sadly propaganda is everywhere and even when people make every attempt to avoid biased thinking it still pops up in everything. It's fascinating reading about an issue that you have a great knowledge about and seeing how an article can get it so wrong. Looking back through history it's very easy to see how even fields with strong processes manage to get things wrong. A good example is the field of logic the rules of which were known from Greek times- when George Boole came along it was found that some of the rules accepted for over two thousand years were incorrect. I'm not saying that all the old rules are wrong. Sometimes they may be more right than the new ones- sometimes even when they are wrong they are right. Popper believed that an inductive method was the best way to ensure truth- Principle of Falsifiability. Kuhn believed democratic meritocracy was the way that science works in reality. Over time there have been principles used in the attempt to advance rationally. I wouldn't want to be the one to advocate "Blood Letting". It's not enough to be respected, to have qualifications, ...