mhaze,

In your opinion is there no such thing as "hate speech" that should be suppressed, in fact any attempt to silence such speakers is just an attempt (by the left) to suppress free speech, is that correct?

Are the following acceptable examples of "free speech" and not "hate speech" and should the speaker of such not have their spoken word suppressed in the public domain?

"Jews are parasites on the people."
"Jews spread typhus in the community."
"Jews are lice; they cause typhus."
"Jews are of a low cultural level, and are unclean."
"Jews need to be isolated from the rest of the population"

Paul wrote: "In your opinion is there no such thing as "hate speech" that should be suppressed, in fact any attempt to silence such speakers is just an attempt (by the left) to suppress free speech, is that correct?"

Correct. Not just the left, but primarily the left. Unwanted speech is relabelled hate speech and then suppressed.

This type of speech, including the examples you gave, should not be suppressed in the public domain. If they are suppressed, they don't disappear. They simply migrate to the private domain. In public, they can be (should be) opposed, exposed and defeated. In private they can (and do) metastasize, expand, drag in the vulnerable, all below the radar.

Earlier you wrote "We know from past experience where the application of unfettered propaganda through the controlled media can lead."

Yet here you are calling for MORE controlled media. Yes, yes, I know. You think this time it'll be different. But it won't. It never is.

Earlier you wrote "Donald Trump, used social media to promote hateful lies, that fact is not in dispute"

That's just rubbish. Trump didn't promote hateful lies and your claim is in dispute.

ttbn,

This is very much about who and what people will be voting
for.
Many Australians can see that Australian politics
is broken. There are so many issues involved.
The current government has had more than a decade to
act on the enormous threat of climate change and to
create an economy that can benefit from that transition.
But politicians don't seem to answer to us; they won't
even implement basic measures to clean up corruption and
the chronic mistreatment of the elderly.

So it is time for us as voters to stand up. To speak out
with our votes as to what we'll no longer accept.

Foxy,

Whatever. I accept that you will go on and on, and there is no point in arguing with you. I will wait until election night to see how people actually voted, not how I think they will vote now. Remember the last election. You, and many other people - including "experts" and the media - were sure that there would be a change of government. It was about climate change and such imaginings, then it wasn't

ttbn,

I did not think that Shorten would win the election
despite what the polls indicated. However I was hoping
that the Coalition would lose. This time - it will again
be close. And I have said many times that predicting
anything in politics is risky at the best of times.

As for my "going on and on." You seem to have a problem
when people respond to your views. That is something
you need to get over. We are all entitled to our opinions
and if you don't like someone going "on and on" don't
read it. But you obviously feel strong enough to lodge
your usual negative comments.

Enough!

Here is a brownie point for the PM that popped up this morning:

" ....Morrison knocked on the head any Coalition commitment on the constitutional recognition of Aborigines and an Indigenous voice to Parliament. The federal Constitution is colour blind and must remain so if we, as a nation, truly believe in equality for all."