Freedom of speech

[blindman]

Hope that server won't fall.

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

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

[dbowie]

Hmm def interesting times ahead...fortunately a lot of social commentators are starting to use other media options, podcasts, device apps etc...

[MortonH]

The guy is a nutjob. Fallen angels on earth with technology that humans aren't supposed to have -seriously???

[rustigsmed]

the topic of this video has nothing to do with real free speech, it is to do with content on commercial digital platforms run by global corporations... why would you be surprised? and why would you care what youtube allows?

[LewisM]

I accidentally left it running while I did important things like watching paint dry, and you should see the NEXT video about the Vatican's convex lensed telescope used for finding non-terrestrial entities - ie ghost/spirits/God yada yada yada.

Yawn. Must go outside and count the chemtrails, look for the bugs on the Moon and strap myself in for the pole reversal and anti-spin.

[Nikolas]

Yep a Yank wearing wrap around sunglasses sporting a goatee and doffing a cap on backwards in what appears to be a pickup truck rabbiting on about free speech is probably one of the reasons why free speech is being curtailed......

[xelasnave]

I stopped it after thirty seconds and worried I may have harshly prejudged the clip.
It seems I did not.
I just get ticked off with any presenter talking whilst driving a vehicle...Forgetting safety issues I simply wonder that if one has an important message why not give it some serious time rather than fitting it in on a drive to the shops.

I would hardley call it free speech given the high price one pays in the loss of valuable time...I will never get that thirty seconds back.

We are asked not to say anything about trolling and certainly we dont need to state the obvious.

Alex

[Robair]

I always endeavour to keep an open mind when such theories are presented. However in this case I see a rambling diatribe desperately searching for whatever it is the presenter is trying to convey. Reminds me of Richard Hoagland. He's a class A, orbit capable, giant card carrying ramblor extraordinaire.
If you want to kill off some brain cells I highly recommend his inane wibblings.
Rob B

[xelasnave]

Listen to the dull and the ignorant for they to have their story....from somewhere??

Unfortunately I am getting less tolerant of folk who indulge in superstition and when pushed tender faith as justification for abandoning rational thought.
However at least with so many using utube one is reminded others are different hold beliefs and somehow get by in the world.

Alex

[Visionary]

Blindman, any curtailment of Free Speech is clear and present threat to a free and open society. Our greatest protection has always been, and will always be Free Speech.
At this juncture, Social Justice Warriors are driving the Media's narrative, this is dangerous. The Left is driving some strange post-Lenisit-post-Trotskyist (post-everything and anything) interpretation of world affairs and driving that distorted viewpoint through the media, this is dangerous.
We are in extraordinarily dangerous times. It seems we have collectively forgotten how important it is to defend Free Speech. It doesn't matter what's being said, what matters is that it can be said! Say whatever needs be said, when ever it needs to be said, without fear, that should be our "media policy".

[Kunama]

Within reason..... so you are happy to have some radical using his "religion" as a platform to incite others to hate and to commit atrocities 'in the name of their religion' after all that's his right according to some....

I think there should be an IQ test before some are allowed to exercise their free speech......

[Visionary]

Matt,
Free Speech always has the potential to be stomach churning. As the right to Free Speech has been curtailed, we no longer have the ability, or even platform, to call out the Hate Speech. The bilious hate being promoted by Religious Groups and Special Interest Groups can't be addressed as it would skirt dangerously close to either bigotry or racism, misogyny, or any of the raft of "ism's".
Free Speech isn't comfortable, it never has and never will be comfortable.
David

[dbowie]

Perhaps freedom to "access" accurate unbiased information is just as important as freedom of speech...Ive noticed a subtle change of content in the "recommended" tray of my Youtube account over the last week or so, more neutral and left leaning if you like..I understand this is algorithm based, doesn't mean the algorithm can't be manipulated, call it conspiratorial if you must but it appears real...

[Nikolas]

Hate to spoil the party but in Australia we have no right to freedom of speech, not drafted in any legislation anywhere, if the government saw fit to curtail whatever free speech we may have it could, and there is no constitutional protection against it.

[blindman]

Somewhere in the Cosmos, Russian detected;
How many chemtrails did you count?
I think we are still getting just a few, USA territory - much more, just check million videos from USA.

[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

[MortonH]

The media has never been neutral. If it's left-leaning now perhaps it's in response to right-wing crazies like Trump and Putin wielding so much power. Those two seem much more dangerous than a few loonies having their You-tube channels restricted.

[Astrophe]

+1.....well said, David.

[Astrophe]

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

[Astrophe]

Perfectly correct. What a lot of Aussies don't seem to understand, is that our constitution is not a constitution in the American model, but largely it deals with the agreement between the former Australian colonies to federate.....our constitution simply delineates the powers to be exercised by the Commonwealth and the States.

[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.

[Kunama]

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 :question:

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

[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...

[dbowie]

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]

Proven by whom? Where? When?

[Renato1]

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]

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

[dbowie]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/confirmed-nsa-spying-millions-americans

http://www.zdnet.com/article/legal-loopholes-unrestrained-nsa-surveillance-on-americans/

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/what-george-brandis-and-malcolm-turnbull-can-do-to-fix-metadata-muddle-20150224-13n6ui.html

https://www.itnews.com.au/news/turnbull-offers-metadata-definition-390808

[MortonH]

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]

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_and_politics/history/2013/06/prism_j_edgar_hoover_would_have_lov ed_the_nsa_s_surveillance_program_t opic.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]

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]

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... :rolleyes:

[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 :shrug:

[sharpiel]

I believe we are saying the same thing :thumbsup:

[AussieTrooper]

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]

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

[clive milne]

Can't believe I forgot operation Northwoods... add that little champ to the list as well.

[JA]

^Engineered for Change

Best
JA

[clive milne]

^Yep

Hegelian social engineering 101... precipitating change by way of inducing fear,
the definition of terrorism.

[clive milne]

When your done there,
do some background research on these guys:

Patrick Tillman
Serena Shim
Danny Cosolaro
Gary Webb
DC Madame
Lt. Col. Marshall A. Gutierrez
Charles D. Riechers
Col. Theodore S. Westhusing
General Dave Petraeus
Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil
Darleen Druyun
Clifford Baxter
David Kelly
James Hatfield
Margie Schoedinger
Danny Jowenko
Cliff Baxter
Paul Wellstone
Hale Boggs
David Kelly
Nick Begich
Brandy Britton (and her attorneys: william Blackford & Chris Flohr)
Tahir Elci
Raymond Lemme
Paul Sanford
Andrew Collins
PFC LaVena Johnson
Frank Olson
Sgt Terry Yeakey OK City officer
Seal Team 6
Sen. John Tower, Sen. John Heinz, Ron Brown

And then we'll have a frank and honest discussion about the consequences of speaking freely (when you know too much).

or...

maybe not.

[xelasnave]

Hi Clive
Doesn't the fact we can google each of these matters point to a certain freedom of speech?

Alex

[JA]

^Sure if you don't mind going in to that little black book...:D

Hi Alex, ....... I'm only half kidding.

Best
JA

[clive milne]

My personal favourite is Garry Webb...

Impressive guy.

Proves that the CIA is the biggest importer of Cocaine to the US.
Publishes the structure of the criminal network in the main stream media...

Shoots himself in the head (twice) in a pique of remorse... and stuff...

[clive milne]

No Alex..

Google actively deflects search strings.

It's at the very core of their business model.

Shaping public perception for profit.

[xelasnave]

I have read some.of the "matters" you refer to a long time ago...
I can't say anything seemed hidden.
And if one was to take what is written, seemingly very damning ...again does the existence of such material hint at freedom of speech being dead?

You.would think anyone.writing on these.matters would disappear.

Why have you been left alone ...given you point the finger..

Alex

[xelasnave]

I am a harmless fool with one foot in the grave hopefully no one would waste ink or paper to record the nonsense I come.out with...

Alex

[jeff65]

Great list Clive, quite a few new to me.

Alex,

We can discuss these matters because they have passed and few cared. Many of the people in Clive's list were trying to inform about these sketchy matters and did disappear. They had sources or first hand experience and were more credible and likely to be taken seriously than a few astro-nuts on a discussion board.

[N1]

G'day Matt, I think what concerns many who see their privacy in danger is the fact that neither you, me, or anybody else can guarantee that "law enforcement" bodies will always act in your best interest, or even that of the greater community, just because that may be the case today. Likewise, you don't know what aspect of your "boring" life might be considered a threat at some point.



I beg to differ. People who "worry about the right to speak freely and our privacy" are a different group to people who detail their "lives on FaceLook, Twatter, etc..... ". The argument that "Privacy is a horse that bolted a long time ago" only stands up by lumping these fairly incompatible groups together ("We"). Privacy protection should not be given up just because some don't care about it.

[AussieTrooper]

Bingo. Create a label, engineering a view, by forcing dissenters to prove "I am not a ... " Then have a look at how you can exploit it.
Property developers have made an absolute fortune by getting the government to do this for them.

[Visionary]

Renato,

You can't be serious, there are blasphemy laws in the ACT that specifically cover blasphemy against Islam? What if.... there was an Islamic version of a "Pissed Christ" displayed in an ACT Gallery? What would be the ramifications of such a display and would a prosecution result?

David

[Octane]

David, there are none. There are religious vilification laws, though; but, nothing specifically relating to "anyone who offends Islam".

H

[Boozlefoot]

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!.......................

[Visionary]

Thanks for the clarification.

David