Freedom of speech

[Astrophe (John)]

Originally Posted by blindman

Hope that server won't fall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONkCNep-rXM

And do not reply with some crap about trolling.....

That guy is just a loony, pure and simple. However, he has the right to say what he believes to be the truth and we are able to exercise our judgement and agree with him or not.....hopefully, not.

[Kunama]

Originally Posted by Astrophe

If I'm not mistaken, there are already laws against hate speech.

No, you're not mistaken there are indeed some laws in place, including sections in the Crimes Act that create an offence to 'incite, procure or counsel'.

If we are to address the terrorist threat in any meaningful way we will have to surrender some of our 'freedoms' to give those keeping 'us' safe more tools to do their job.

The current procedure to 'gain access' to some 'special projects' is far too complex and slow thanks to some of our over-zealous civil libertarians.....

People want total right to privacy but don't understand that in doing so they are making it incredibly difficult for law enforcement to help them when they themselves become victims. Perhaps that is poetic justice

Amazing how quickly some civil libertarians change their tune when their own family become victims....

[dbowie (Brenton)]

Regardless of laws past and present I think what is eroding in Aus is our ability to "take the piss" or just have our say without serious repercussions from allegedly offending certain groups. I think we have America as a test case to see how far out of control this can get and the problems it causes...

[dbowie (Brenton)]

Kunami/ Matt Quote;
"People want total right to privacy but don't understand that in doing so they are making it incredibly difficult for law enforcement to help them when they themselves become victims. Perhaps that is poetic justice"

Valid point however it is proven that law enforcement and the authorities use this debate as a slow inevitable creep towards a total lack of privacy, very difficult to determine a fair balance...

[MortonH]

Originally Posted by dbowie;1328923[/I

Valid point however it is proven that law enforcement and the authorities use this debate as a slow inevitable creep towards a total lack of privacy, very difficult to determine a fair balance...

Proven by whom? Where? When?

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by dbowie

Regardless of laws past and present I think what is eroding in Aus is our ability to "take the piss" or just have our say without serious repercussions from allegedly offending certain groups. I think we have America as a test case to see how far out of control this can get and the problems it causes...

There aren't serious repercussions for most things - just lots of lefty media attacks, twitter attacks, Facebook attacks on behalf of or on the the part of professional offence takers. Water off a ducks back to people like Corey Bernardi, David Leyonhjelm, Pauline Hanson and especially to Donald Trump.

But the interesting case was the Adam Goodes incident, where a 14 year old girl was detained by Police, and then made a mockery of by the entire media. Something which I doubt the Police had the power to do, and where the media violated every law applicable to youth offenders (like the Sudanese gangs running amok in Melbourne). Plainly they could do so, because she wasn't really an offender against any law, and couldn't have been charged with anything.

Oh, and I forgot about the one example where you are 100% correct, namely the odd case of the ACT, where they now have blasphemy laws for anyone who offends Islam (but they haven't charged Pauline Hanson with anything yet).
Regards,
Renato

[MortonH]

Originally Posted by Astrophe

That guy is just a loony, pure and simple. However, he has the right to say what he believes to be the truth and we are able to exercise our judgement and agree with him or not.....hopefully, not.

He has the right to say it but there's no obligation to give him a platform.

[dbowie (Brenton)]

Originally Posted by MortonH

Proven by whom? Where? When?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/0...ions-americans

http://www.zdnet.com/article/legal-l...-on-americans/

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/d...24-13n6ui.html

https://www.itnews.com.au/news/turnb...inition-390808

[MortonH]

Originally Posted by dbowie

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/0...ions-americans

http://www.zdnet.com/article/legal-l...-on-americans/

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/d...24-13n6ui.html

https://www.itnews.com.au/news/turnb...inition-390808

Ok. Four links but they cover just two cases, neither of which was a slow, inevitable creep but a huge jump. And in the case of Australian metadata the government told us about it and very specifically said it was to aid in counter-terrorism (which the NSA also claimed). I don't see that these illustrate your point.

Frankly the government is welcome to my data if it keeps me safe.

[dbowie (Brenton)]

Morton, Perhaps reread the OP, I personally don't have a problem with my information being available either and as I said Matt had a valid point, just hard to find a fair balance for those who did object. As far as the inevitable creep towards total lack of privacy this has been going on for years one way or the other in an ebb and flow fashion whether you choose to acknowledge or not. I could dig up links for you all night to try and emphasise "the" point not particularly "my" point but I don't see the need, of course its your right to disagree or question..

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ram_topic.html

[xelasnave]

I find a certain irony that as folk express fear of the freedom of speech being in decline we see the ability to post a link, in the last post, to some extraordinary story which the fact that such a story can be published and the author not "shut up" would suggest free speech is alive and well.

Alex

[xelasnave]

Also we have a thread wherein folk are able to make fun of the president of the USA with little fear of retribution.

Things are not too bad.

Alex

[Nikolas (Nik)]

Originally Posted by Renato1

The High Court had a ruling some years back about an implied right to Free Speech in relation to government and political discussion, as being in the Constitution.

Also, Australia is a signatory to the UN Human Rights Charter, which has freedom of speech aspects written into several of its clauses, though some other international agreement means the interpretation of what those clauses mean can include such things as 18C not violating those clauses.
Regards,
Renato

Implied is no safeguard, any government of the day can change that through an act of legislation, as for human rights charters let's not go there considering how some refugees are treated.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Freedom of speech? Whats that? Certainly being curtailed in this country at a great rate of knots. When the govt wants to socially engineer a point of view, they first make expression of a contrary viewpoint illegal, or do their very best to shoot the messenger...

[bojan]

"Free speech" sometimes collides with "Hate speech"... and when this happens, "hate speech" should back off.
No society should tolerate the exposing of any individual(s) to hatred and danger of injury, physical or mental. Otherwise, what is the role of society? Those who think they can say what they want, when they want and way they want simply must try to imagine themselves as target of hate speech.. consider the consequences of those actions... and take responsibility for them.
And/or they can go to the bush, and live alone, they are not constructive elements of society anyway.

[sharpiel]

Ironic this debate on this platform which in itself has no right of free speech.

I love this site and the topics debated here. Threads that generate enough complaints however are removed. Cause enough complaints often enough and I imagine your privileges and access will be curtailed.

T&C's exist here as with society at large. So what is freedom? A frame of reference on a subjective step on a long ladder.

[Kunama]

I can just imagine what this place would be like without the TOS that everyone agrees to upon joining this community.

Do we really want a society where everyone can express their views without consequences?

I imagine that when this site was created it was done with a view to give people interested in astronomy a place to share the experiences as they relate to this passion, hobby, obsession or pastime that is astronomy.

There are plenty of platforms for those keen on discussing subjects that are outside the terms of service of this site. As I see it the admin and moderators of this site give a mile when even when sometimes the TOS state that an inch is the limit.

Politics, religion and other subjects that are discussed here ad nauseum often end up causing disharmony among the members and do nothing to encourage site visitors to stay.

"We" worry about the right to speak freely and our privacy but then detail our lives on FaceLook, Twatter, etc..... Privacy is a horse that bolted a long time ago, just be glad that the lives of most of us are so boring that the criminal element, who have no qualms about hacking into our lives, have no interest in you and that the law enforcement bodies, though hamstrung by privacy legislation, are still attempting to keep us safe.

EDIT: As usual your mileage may vary

[sharpiel]

Originally Posted by Kunama

I can just imagine what this place would be like without the TOS that everyone agrees to upon joining this community.

Do we really want a society where everyone can express their views without consequences?

I imagine that when this site was created it was done with a view to give people interested in astronomy a place to share the experiences as they relate to this passion, hobby, obsession or pastime that is astronomy.

There are plenty of platforms for those keen on discussing subjects that are outside the terms of service of this site. As I see it the admin and moderators of this site give a mile when even when sometimes the TOS state that an inch is the limit.

Politics, religion and other subjects that are discussed here ad nauseum often end up causing disharmony among the members and do nothing to encourage site visitors to stay.

"We" worry about the right to speak freely and our privacy but then detail our lives on FaceLook, Twatter, etc..... Privacy is a horse that bolted a long time ago, just be glad that the lives of most of us are so boring that the criminal element, who have no qualms about hacking into our lives, have no interest in you and that the law enforcement bodies, though hamstrung by privacy legislation, are still attempting to keep us safe.

EDIT: As usual your mileage may vary

I believe we are saying the same thing

[AussieTrooper (Ben)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Also we have a thread wherein folk are able to make fun of the president of the USA with little fear of retribution.

Things are not too bad.

Alex

Yep. Not all that long ago, both President Bush and the Chinese Premier (forget his name), visited Australia at the same time.
There were mass protests against Bush, but relatively little against China.
This is despite one being a very large democracy, and the other being the worlds largest dictatorship.
I suppose the consequences for those involved say it all.
No consequences for protesting the US, but protest China, and your family back home may lose their job or find themselves interrogated and imprisoned.

[clive milne]

Originally Posted by Kunama

If we are to address the terrorist threat in any meaningful way we will have to surrender some of our 'freedoms' to give those keeping 'us' safe more tools to do their job.

Matt... pick a few at random, google them and then let's have a real discussion about the true nature of terrorism...

Lavon affair
Mukden Incident
Turkish consulate 1955
King David Hotel bombing
Gleiwitz Incident
Katyn forest
Franz Halder Reichstag fire (Nuremberg trials)
Free Syria committee
USS Liberty
Mainila Russia 1939
Field Manual 30-31B
Operation Mockingbird
Gulf of Tonkin
Sabri Yirmibeşoğlu Cyprus mosque
Operation Ajax
George Smathers Castro
Cointelpro
27 July 1989 Joubert Park
Celle hole
Victor Ostrovsky Trojan dick trick
Groupe Islamique Armé Jan 13th 1995
Chechnya bombing kgb
Macedonia faked 'militant' raid
Genoa violence 2001 G8 agent provocateur
Bruce Ivins Mossad suicide
Scooter Libby Valerie Plame
Operation Paperclip
Iraq ISIS Baretta serial numbers
Operation Glass Houses IDF agent provocateurs
Quebec police undercover Montebello
London G20 undercover police
Cairo museum looters identification cards
Goldman Sachs Libya Sarkozy
Colonel Luis Fernando Borja
Ambrose Evans Pritchard Prince Bandar bin Sultan
Sarin coming from turkey
Kiev Sniper
Why does ISIS only attack Israel's enemies
Andrew Wilkie Whistle Blower