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