Yadda wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:34pm:


I don't know what you are trying to tell me, but what I will say is free speech has a cost, its not free. The cost will reveal itself sooner or later.

Pantheon wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:30pm:
no they arent, laws limiting free speech have been around as long as democracy has, in fact every single democratic country has  laws limiting free speech  . 18c is used so rarely because people know it exists , thats why it works so well. Laws dont have to be applied to be effective.

Yadda wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:12pm:


I don't even know what is exciting you, My only point is there is a cost associated with free speech, you can say what you like about me, you can abuse me all you like, the cost of that is people see what are really like.

Steampipe wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:00pm:


No-one says you have to be attracted to it Steam pipe.

Quote:


If if they disagree with you and say it anyway, would you have them put in jail, or shot at, because some lunatic in a nightgown can't handle it?

BTW, there is something to gain - freedom of speech.

Quote:


Wrong Ian, it means it works despite the laws. Yet we have people in jail for the 'crime' of promoting an alternative view on history.

Quote:


What utter bollocks. Yet this is parroted again and again by Ian, Brian and all the other apologists. They are never able to back it up.

Quote:


In other words, he and his 'ilk' never actually said the things you attribute to him, but you 'know' it to be true anyway, because for you the idea of someone who actually supports freedom of speech is incomprehensible. You want the critics of Islam to be just as bad as the Muslims, because it saves you having to stand up for anything.

Quote:


Is it 'eternal vigilance'? Or are you hoping for more terrorist attacks against newspapers you disagree with?

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:23pm:
nah, I stand up for plenty of things I believe in and I dont like Muslims. But I am in favour of the truth and i love to expose hypocrites.

Back to the topic, no-one really knows whether Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia, because no-one (not even the judges and lawmakers) has figured out what the laws mean yet. There have only been a small number of test cases, and most of them could have been pursued via previously existing laws anyway.

Quote:


If the published child pornography, I would support their punishment. If they merely promoted the change in the laws, I would leave it to everyone else to shout them down, but would not ask for them to be censored. I have only ever heard of NAMBLA on South Park. I have never seen any serious promotion of the right to sex with children, except from Muslims.

Quote:


My interest in freedom of speech (and starting this website) was initially aroused by criticising the "wrong people". The quickest way to make someone a fan of free speech is to try to censor them. People don't realise what they have until they lose it. For most Australians, our freedom is handed to us on a platter and never challenged. That is why you see such bewildering calls for censorship in response to Charlie Hebdo. People see terrorists as the guy down at the pub that you should just ignore and he will go away, because that is the only reference point they have. A coordinated effort to strip you of all your rights and freedoms is incomprehensible, because we have not seen it for generations.

Ahovking, I am unsure where your and other's belief that Australians have a Right to Freedom of Speech.  We don't and never had such a right.  Speech has always been subject to government and legal restriction in Australia.   

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:35pm:
he and others dont seem to understand this.