GB: No Freedom of Speech Anymore

hollydolly said:
Spot on...!

In some schools here..not enough... phones are taken from children as they walk through the door in the morning, and returned to them at the end of the day..
Click to expand...

Sure. But that doesnt mean they don't need them at other times.

Whether we like it or not , people do so many things in smart phones - the idea that cyber bullying can be addressed by turning back the clock on smart phone usage is unrealistic and burying your head in the sand.
 

The Daily Mail isn't a good newspaper, it is prone to exaggeration and hyperbole. All wrapped in right-wing paper.

We have free speech. We're fine in the UK. There are limits. There are limits because there HAS to be limits.

Of course, if you're of a right wing tendency, the Daily Mail's bias may suit................
 
Last edited:
Antoli said:
Once a society accepts the principle that speech is allowed only at the discretion of whoever holds power, the rest is a matter of timing. So if you think Australia is magically immune to the history of how these laws expand, I’d love to know what part of human nature you think has suddenly evolved. Because your argument essentially boils down to: "It hasn’t been abused here yet, so it’s safe." That’s not reassurance, that’s complacency.

Laws don’t stay frozen in the moment you personally encountered them. They expand, drift, and get reinterpreted as soon as political incentives change. And the fact that you personally haven’t seen it abused in Australia doesn’t mean it can’t be or won’t be. That’s not evidence of safety; that’s just a lack of understanding about how power shifts.
Click to expand...

I think it is safer for everyone to have limits on free speech and I am happy with the limits as we have them here.
 

Lilac said:
Freedom to live your life as you see fit & committing a criminal offense are two different things. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Everyone has the right to live their life in freedom & the minute you want to balance one of those freedoms against the freedom/rights of others, neither will have freedom.

Freedoms include the right to speech, to thoughts/opinions, to live, to worship, to work, to equality, to the pursuit of happiness & you can go on.

If anyone thinks that slippery slope can't happen, look at what's happening in Nigeria right now.
Click to expand...

I dont think so.
And what is happening in Nigeria now doesnt mean we don't have laws for our countries

And you are right - nobody has absolute freedom - it is always a balance between my rights and freedoms and the rights and freedoms of others
I'm fine with that. Including hate speech laws as well as other laws.
 
Antoli said:
However, if I falsely claimed Simple Simon was a bank robber he could sue me for defamation of character.
Click to expand...

Several states do not recognize defamation per se though. Annie Oakley spent more on her defamation lawsuits over the years then she was awarded in damages. Her goal was vindication. These type of suits are costly, so the defendant can't be a pauper to collect any award.
 
Murrmurr said:
And since courts have the power to decide whether or not someone's speech has caused actual damage or harm to another, and the power to impose reasonable consequences and/or compensation, laws governing speech are completely unnecessary.


As far as I know, there is no fee for filing that type of complaint with a court.
Click to expand...

Always a filing fee, unless the court lets you proceed "in forma pauperis".
 
Lilac said:
Everyone has the right to live their life in freedom & the minute you want to balance one of those freedoms against the freedom/rights of others, neither will have freedom.

Freedoms include the right to speech, to thoughts/opinions, to live, to worship, to work, to equality, to the pursuit of happiness & you can go on.

If anyone thinks that slippery slope can't happen, look at what's happening in Nigeria right now.
Click to expand...

Question. Then why aren't I allowed to discuss politics on this forum?
 
My God! Stop! Everyone just stop!
The freedom of speech is very clear. No one can stop you from what you want to say. That being said then the issue is more complexed with regard to what offends a person.
You want the Gov. to decide what someone can say or not say? You want the Gov to correct all that is going on. You want the Gov to dictate, via law, what phones can be produced, what phones are acceptable for children. What phones have Restrictions, as to use and where you can go online?
You want other humans, like you and I, to govern, restrict and pass laws to protect you from the abuses that are taking place. I think I have that stated correctly.
The constitution says that you have the right to decide. You have the right to accept or ignore what is blasted out there everyday. You have the right to restrict your children's access. You have the right to NOT give your child a cell phone with total access. YOU!
I am not ignoring the other issues of slander, abuse or the constant babel that just wares you down.
You can't stop or regulate everything that offends you. You can, however, regulate yourself and those you love.

Side note for some of the comments above. You have more freedom in this country than any other. Use it. Don't give it up to someone else to decide what you can or cannot do. The constitution is a precious document taken for granted. Don't take it for granted.
 
January said:
I think it is safer for everyone to have limits on free speech and I am happy with the limits as we have them here.
Click to expand...

That’s exactly the problem: you’re treating your personal comfort with the current limits as if it were a substitute for historical understanding. It isn’t. Every society that slid into censorship started with people who said some version of, “Well, I am happy with the limits as they currently exist." And every one of them made the same mistake: assuming the people in power today will be the same people in power tomorrow, or will interpret the laws the same way.

Being “happy with the limits” doesn’t make them safe. It just means you haven’t felt the consequences yet. That’s not a defense of censorship, it’s an admission that you’re relying on government benevolence instead of structural protection. Free speech protections exist precisely because governments cannot be trusted to decide which opinions are acceptable. You don’t prevent abuse by handing the state more authority, you prevent it by limiting the power that can be abused.

If your position is that Australia is immune to the universal pattern of censorship expanding once it’s granted, then that’s not a historical argument, it’s wishful thinking. The record of human nature, across cultures and centuries, simply does not support your confidence.
 
January said:
I dont think so.
And what is happening in Nigeria now doesnt mean we don't have laws for our countries
Click to expand...
What's happening in Nigeria is that people are being denied their rights to freedom of speech, the right to live in peace & or to worship as they want. They are being massacred for what so many of us take for granted everyday to be able to do. This is what happens when your freedom is taken away, either one at a time or all at at once, by others who don't agree with you.

January said:
And you are right - nobody has absolute freedom - it is always a balance between my rights and freedoms and the rights and freedoms of others
I'm fine with that. Including hate speech laws as well as other laws.
Click to expand...
I believe the highlighted portion are your thoughts on what freedom should entail ... not mine. I'm not quite sure how you thought I believe that :unsure:. Again, the freedom to live your life as an individual sees fit (i.e. living peacefully within the law) OR choosing to willfully commit a criminal offense (not a freedom) are two different things ... apples to oranges comparison.

Two quotes come to my mind at the moment ...
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. This can be translated two ways: "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." or "I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude."
 
January said:
And you are right - nobody has absolute freedom - it is always a balance between my rights and freedoms and the rights and freedoms of others
I'm fine with that. Including hate speech laws as well as other laws.
Click to expand...
I believe the highlighted portion are your thoughts on what freedom should entail ... not mine. I'm not quite sure how you thought I believe that :unsure:. Again, the freedom to live your life as an individual sees fit (i.e. living peacefully within the law) OR choosing to willfully commit a criminal offense (not a freedom) are two different things ... apples to oranges comparison.


No, they were stated as a fact not an opinion or 'my thoughts'. It is a fact that nobody has absolute freedom - we are all restricted by laws etc - so our freedom is not absolute.

it is balanced against the rights and freedoms of others - that is what laws do.
 
Antoli said:
That’s exactly the problem: you’re treating your personal comfort with the current limits as if it were a substitute for historical understanding. It isn’t. Every society that slid into censorship started with people who said some version of, “Well, I am happy with the limits as they currently exist." And every one of them made the same mistake: assuming the people in power today will be the same people in power tomorrow, or will interpret the laws the same way.

Being “happy with the limits” doesn’t make them safe. It just means you haven’t felt the consequences yet. That’s not a defense of censorship, it’s an admission that you’re relying on government benevolence instead of structural protection. Free speech protections exist precisely because governments cannot be trusted to decide which opinions are acceptable. You don’t prevent abuse by handing the state more authority, you prevent it by limiting the power that can be abused.

If your position is that Australia is immune to the universal pattern of censorship expanding once it’s granted, then that’s not a historical argument, it’s wishful thinking. The record of human nature, across cultures and centuries, simply does not support your confidence.
Click to expand...


No. not my personal comfort - the safety and comfort of everyone in society

If you want to see hate speech laws as some slippery slope, that is up to you.

I do not - any more than I see other laws as a slippery slope.
 
January said:
No. not my personal comfort - the safety and comfort of everyone in society

If you want to see hate speech laws as some slippery slope, that is up to you.

I do not - any more than I see other laws as a slippery slope.
Click to expand...

You’re still answering with feelings, not with principles. Saying "it’s for everyone’s safety and comfort" doesn’t address the structural problem at all. Every government in history has justified new speech restrictions using that exact language. "Safety," "Comfort," "Protection." Those words are not safeguards, they’re political rubber stamps.

You keep saying you don’t see a slippery slope, but that’s not a rebuttal. No one "sees" a slippery slope until they’re already sliding down it. The entire point is that once the state is empowered to decide which speech is allowed, the definition of "harmful" or "unsafe" speech expands, always. Not because you or I want it to, but because political incentives guarantee it.

Your confidence isn’t based on any historical pattern or institutional check. It’s just trust. And trust in government intentions is not a substitute for a system that prevents abuse regardless of who’s in power.

If your argument is that the Australian government will always use censorship powers responsibly, then say that explicitly. Because that’s the real claim you’re making. And history everywhere, not just in one country, shows that claim simply doesn’t hold.
 
Murrmurr said:
It's my understanding you can file a complaint w/police and they can send it to a DA's office who will contact the PA about charges if it's a valid complaint. Court costs is another thing.

Maybe that varies state to state.
Click to expand...

I thought you were talking about filing a Civil lawsuit, not filing a police report?
 
January said:
I believe the highlighted portion are your thoughts on what freedom should entail ... not mine. I'm not quite sure how you thought I believe that :unsure:. Again, the freedom to live your life as an individual sees fit (i.e. living peacefully within the law) OR choosing to willfully commit a criminal offense (not a freedom) are two different things ... apples to oranges comparison.


No, they were stated as a fact not an opinion or 'my thoughts'. It is a fact that nobody has absolute freedom - we are all restricted by laws etc - so our freedom is not absolute.

it is balanced against the rights and freedoms of others - that is what laws do.
Click to expand...

No one has a right to take away anyone's freedom like you keep repeating, to be done in the name of safety. Once you negotiate to have safety over your freedom, you no longer have either.

Freedom isn't something to be negotiated away. It's the foundation that our lives are built on. It is a reality that surrounds us for those who realize how precious freedom is & how quickly it can be robbed from us.

Laws are in place to protect those freedoms, not to restrict it.

We agree to disagree because this discussion is just going around in the same circle.
 
Freedom of speech is interpreted differently in Australia from how it is in theUnited States. Australia only has an implied freedom which can be restricted by various laws. The United States has a broader, more personal right, protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The issue at debate here is a moot point since no opinions can expand, limit, or otherwise influence these elementary differences.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on protected and unprotected speech and any government restrictions in the United States must comply with those rulings.

[Ref: post 37]
 
Last edited:
ohioboy said:
I thought you were talking about filing a Civil lawsuit, not filing a police report?
Click to expand...
If Carl explicitly threatens to do or cause you real harm and you report it to the police, it will likely result in charges against Carl, which costs you nothing.

If Carl loses his job because he posted that threat online, he can file a lawsuit against his boss for a fee.

In both scenarios, existing laws come into play, none of which are about Carl's rights under the 1st Amendment.
 
ohioboy said:
Private forum, his rules.
Click to expand...
Antoli said:
You would be allowed to discuss politics on this forum if it received any funding whatsoever from Uncle Sam. However, as ohioboy stated, it is privately owned.
Click to expand...

So, we're willing to accept a restriction on free speech. Only not if a governmental agency does it. Which is interesting in that we spend so much more time every time dealing with corporate entities, more so than we do government environments.

My point isn't that we should be able to discuss politics here (which I hope was obvious) but rather that we readily incorporate context. For me, society is another context. A lot of what is "said" today is under the guise of an internet avatar. People write things online that they never would say IRL. Being held accountable for what they write, for doing things that could cause issues IRL, isn't too far, is it?

We are, in the west, free. We're free to do as we please, to think as we please, to say what we want. But only within a set of societal standards codified by our laws and regulations. For example, you are free to drive a car. However, only if you have a license, and insurance. Otherwise, you'll be held to account. You are free to argument with your neighbor, but hit him over the head with a bat means you'll be held accountable..

Online has taken a long time to even begin to sync with the real world. For example, in the UK, a recently enacted law prohibits under 18 year olds accessing pornographic sites. In Australia, they are banning children younger than 16 from having Social Media accounts.

The difference is, the internet loves an uproar. Hating is so much more prevalent than congratulating. There is a group of people who call themselves "auditors", who spend their time antagonizing officials. Their thinking is that they're just expressing free speech or freedom of movement, so if anyone complains, they're the enemy. For me they're just idiotic attention seekers.

In the UK we have free speech. I can't think of anything that I want to say or do that is banned, other than obvious crimes such as theft and murder. But as for being totally free - none of us are.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top