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.