Poll: What is Your Position on Freedom of Speech?

[Flavus Aquila]

Teetering perhaps, but highly unlikely to actually enter it. If it is reasonable to conclude that your statements are likely to directly lead to violence then you are some what liable.

For instance if I told a hit man that if he killed my wife I'd give him $100 bucks, and then he did in fact kill my wife I could not realistically claim that I was exercising freedom of speech to say what I wanted. Likewise if I told a bunch of known Klan members that a random black guy walking down the street raped a white woman yesterday it's not hard to foresee a high likelihood of bad repercussions from that and you cannot be completely left without guilt for them if they happen.

By the same token when you go around riling up ignorant hicks by telling them that Muslims are destroying America, Immigrants are stealing their country, or a secret black Kenyon Muslim has stolen the white house you are certainly teetering on the edge of intentionally inciting violence. Claiming that you didn't expect the people you're inciting to actually resort to violence will almost certainly be enough to protect you under the law, but you would be wise to add some clarification to you rhetoric about what action you DO intend for your audience to take just to cover your ass.

Laws for incitement are already in place. The debate here is a version of offense and vilification laws on steroids. One public debate was calling for expressions like: "Jihad is a bad thing", to be subject to criminality.

 

[MrWonka]

Laws for incitement are already in place. The debate here is a version of offense and vilification laws on steroids. One public debate was calling for expressions like: "Jihad is a bad thing", to be subject to criminality.

A blanket law such as that would be easily struck down by even the most liberal supreme court imaginable 9-0 without batting an eye. It sounds like you're overstating the commonality of some fringe beliefs.

 

[JJJA]

A blanket law such as that would be easily struck down by even the most liberal supreme court imaginable 9-0 without batting an eye. It sounds like you're overstating the commonality of some fringe beliefs.

I wouldn't call 300 million Muslims a fringe belief. Particularly the examples I gave which included somebody that was nearly elected as Prime Minster of the UK pretty much talking directly to the media promising to outlaw 'Islamophobia'. These are real threats to free speech, in my opinion. I do not think freedom of speech is currently indestructible. Freedoms are always fought for, no matter what period in human history you analyse. There will always be people attempting to change the laws of the free land.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

A blanket law such as that would be easily struck down by even the most liberal supreme court imaginable 9-0 without batting an eye. It sounds like you're overstating the commonality of some fringe beliefs.

I think you would be surprised by how mainstream those beliefs have become down here.

Australia does not have a freedom of speech clause in its constitution, but it is virtually assumed from British and International Law.

BUT there is law concerning insult. Yes INSULT, under which one can be found criminally guilty. Excuse the long Wikipedia quote:

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 forbids hate speech on several grounds. The Act makes it "unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person, or of some or all of the people in the group."[SUP][1][/SUP] An aggrieved person can lodge a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission. If the complaint is validated, the Commission will attempt to conciliate the matter. If the Commission cannot negotiate an agreement which is acceptable to the complainant, the complainant's only redress is through the Federal Court or through the Federal Magistrates Service.In 2002, the Federal Court applied the Act in the case of Jones v. Toben. The case involved a complaint about a website which contained material that denied the Holocaust. The Federal Court ruled that the material was a violation of the Act.[SUP][2][/SUP]

I am not certain, but I think the political discussion is looking at broadening the notion of insult and the associated penalties.

 

[Matt3737]

I think you would be surprised by how mainstream those beliefs have become down here.

Australia does not have a freedom of speech clause in its constitution, but it is virtually assumed from British and International Law.

BUT there is law concerning insult. Yes INSULT, under which one can be found criminally guilty. Excuse the long Wikipedia quote:


I am not certain, but I think the political discussion is looking at broadening the notion of insult and the associated penalties.

It's true that Australia has been pretty generous with their censorship for a long while now. They regularly censor and banish products all the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Australia

[video=youtube;foLGhop_MwY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foLGhop_MwY[/video]

 

[#@&5&49]

Freedom of speech like many other rights and laws are being redefined and taking on new meanings as our country changes. What I was brought up to believe as the meaning of freedom of speech may no longer be relevant. These values, rights and laws are important to me but that doesn't mean they are relevant to the current times. Whats the answer and whats right and/or wrong, I have no idea. I can only answer that question from my perspective. I think its an interesting time in history and it will be even more interesting to see how basic rights such as this evolve as our country continues to expand and the younger generations take on positions of power in the political arena.

 

[MrWonka]

I wouldn't call 300 million Muslims a fringe belief.

Neither would I, but you are assuming that all 300 million Muslims feel the exact same way about the subject. This is a very false belief.