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.