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.