Australian Politics Forum - Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49310 At my desk.	Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia Reply #30 - Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:38pm Quote: Soren apparently isnt. When you say apparently, does that mean he hasn't answered your stupid questions, so you are filling in the blanks for him?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

ian Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 9451	Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia Reply #31 - Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:42pm .............
Back to top	IP Logged

ian Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 9451	Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia Reply #32 - Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:44pm freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:38pm: Quote: Soren apparently isnt. When you say apparently, does that mean he hasn't answered your stupid questions, so you are filling in the blanks for him? yep, just like he constantly does.
Back to top	IP Logged

Amadd

Gold Member

Offline

Mo

Posts: 6217

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #33 - Jan 14^th, 2015 at 11:56pm

I think Charlie Hebdo would've been censored in Australia.
When all's said and done, we're not very free or democratic here. Aussies are absolute tools IMO and I really hate to see what we have given away to the undemocratic viewpoint.

Everybody loves their own personal secrets. Their own secret little agenda or what it might be. Without that freedom, there will most certainly be mass KAOS.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jan 15^th, 2015 at 12:25pm by Amadd »

IP Logged

Pantheon

Gold Member

Offline

Woke

Posts: 1256
Gender: male

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #34 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 12:30am

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

Pantheon wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:30pm:

ian wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:21pm:

Pantheon wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:04pm:

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

Responsible speech seems more attractive than free speech.

Free is only used when the cost is hidden, nothing is free.

Responsible speech? With Section 18c, there is no Responsible speech, because you have no choice, theres no Responsible, its just a law to limited free speech.

All countries have laws which limit free speech, the fact that we have these laws and 18c is so rarely used means the system works.

Laws which limit free speech is a recent development, there have alway been a few that had laws in place limiting in some form or another free speech, but it has really grown out of control in recent years as the left grows more terrified at offending minorities or using small one off case to limit free speech for all.

18c is so rarely used because its ridiculous and, it hasn't stopped racial hate speech or racial attacks etc, in fact its grown in recent years.

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.

In fact laws limiting free speech as been around as long as civilisation, king and queens would ban words deemed dangerous.

Im 22 and i never head of 18c before Abbott bought it up, and my life is all about Australian politics, in deed 4 years of university studying Australian politics and Governance made no mention to 18c (Our education is shocking when it comes to teaching our own history and past.)

You ignored my point..

18c hasn't stopped racial hate speech or racial attacks etc, in fact its grown in recent years, and much of that growth comes from the youth.

Back to top

[b][center]Socialism had been tried on every continent on earth. In light of its results, it's time to question the motives of its advocates.

IP Logged

Pantheon

Gold Member

Offline

Woke

Posts: 1256
Gender: male

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #35 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 12:38am

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:35pm:

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. Roll Eyes

Freedom of speech is recognized in internationally and regionally as a human right, it is a God given (Natural given) right, state's dont need to give human the right to speak freely, From Athens and the roman empire to today, time and time again we have recognized the God given (Natural given) right of Freedom of speech as a Natural given right to humans.

The state is in a slowly attacking our freedom of speech (and other freedoms), you can see this over the years small pieces of laws and act were introduce to limit freedom of speech, its a march towards Socialist totalitarianism.

Back to top

[b][center]Socialism had been tried on every continent on earth. In light of its results, it's time to question the motives of its advocates.

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42236

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #36 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 1:10am

Pantheon wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 12:38am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:35pm:

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. Roll Eyes

Freedom of speech is recognized in internationally and regionally as a human right, it is a God given (Natural given) right, state's dont need to give human the right to speak freely, From Athens and the roman empire to today, time and time again we have recognized the God given (Natural given) right of Freedom of speech as a Natural given right to humans.

The state is in a slowly attacking our freedom of speech (and other freedoms), you can see this over the years small pieces of laws and act were introduce to limit freedom of speech, its a march towards Socialist totalitarianism.

If the State does not guarantee the rights it grants to it's citizens, then it does not effectively exist, Ahovking.

In Australia, we only have an "implied right" to Freedom of Speech. An implied right found by the High Court, which is not clearly enunciated in any government document or legislation. What is enunciated is the limitations on speech. These have been enacted since the time of colonisation in Australia.

Rights are created by men, for men to enjoy, Ahovking. Their is no God involved, they do not spring out of the ground like plants. Please leave the metaphysical stuff for your bed time stories. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Pantheon

Gold Member

Offline

Woke

Posts: 1256
Gender: male

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #37 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 1:52am

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 1:10am:

Pantheon wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 12:38am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:35pm:

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. Roll Eyes

Freedom of speech is recognized in internationally and regionally as a human right, it is a God given (Natural given) right, state's dont need to give human the right to speak freely, From Athens and the roman empire to today, time and time again we have recognized the God given (Natural given) right of Freedom of speech as a Natural given right to humans.

The state is in a slowly attacking our freedom of speech (and other freedoms), you can see this over the years small pieces of laws and act were introduce to limit freedom of speech, its a march towards Socialist totalitarianism.

If the State does not guarantee the rights it grants to it's citizens, then it does not effectively exist, Ahovking.

In Australia, we only have an "implied right" to Freedom of Speech. An implied right found by the High Court, which is not clearly enunciated in any government document or legislation. What is enunciated is the limitations on speech. These have been enacted since the time of colonisation in Australia.

Rights are created by men, for men to enjoy, Ahovking. Their is no God involved, they do not spring out of the ground like plants. Please leave the metaphysical stuff for your bed time stories. Roll Eyes

There are natural laws, Laws that dictate nature, within these laws, animal are able to express their feeling and thoughts freely, inherent this is freedom of expression, we see it though out the animal world,

So if a state bans a right (freedom) that is natural to us (speaking our mind for example) it is limiting our natural freedom or right.

I think your getting confused between Natural and legal rights, legal rights state determine, Natural rights state can only limit.

Back to top

[b][center]Socialism had been tried on every continent on earth. In light of its results, it's time to question the motives of its advocates.

IP Logged

Pantheon

Gold Member

Offline

Woke

Posts: 1256
Gender: male

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #38 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 2:00am

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 1:10am:

Pantheon wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 12:38am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:35pm:

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. Roll Eyes

Freedom of speech is recognized in internationally and regionally as a human right, it is a God given (Natural given) right, state's dont need to give human the right to speak freely, From Athens and the roman empire to today, time and time again we have recognized the God given (Natural given) right of Freedom of speech as a Natural given right to humans.

The state is in a slowly attacking our freedom of speech (and other freedoms), you can see this over the years small pieces of laws and act were introduce to limit freedom of speech, its a march towards Socialist totalitarianism.

If the State does not guarantee the rights it grants to it's citizens, then it does not effectively exist, Ahovking.

In Australia, we only have an "implied right" to Freedom of Speech. An implied right found by the High Court, which is not clearly enunciated in any government document or legislation. What is enunciated is the limitations on speech. These have been enacted since the time of colonisation in Australia.

Rights are created by men, for men to enjoy, Ahovking. Their is no God involved, they do not spring out of the ground like plants. Please leave the metaphysical stuff for your bed time stories. Roll Eyes

Another issue is the the concept of natural laws and right was used to challenge the divine right of kings, without it concept of natural laws and right, state once again become a problem, as our freedoms is something that can be taken away, something that is given to us for good behaviour, we would be abandoning everything we achieve during the Age of Enlightenment.

Back to top

[b][center]Socialism had been tried on every continent on earth. In light of its results, it's time to question the motives of its advocates.

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #39 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 5:36am

Garbage articles by garbage journalists.

Here is why.

NO cartoon in this country has been tested or challenged by 18C. As such, it is not proven that Satire would be pulled up.

Secondly, if Charlie Hedbo was in Australia, then most likely some of it's satire (at some point) may be tested against 18C and also, some may be found wanting. That would not automatically mean that Charlie Hedbo (the magazine) would close down, cease to exist or disappear in a puff of smoke. The proof of this, why, Andrew Bolt of course. He failed the 18C test spectacularly and yet, he is still exercising his right to free speech, daily.

So, rubbish articles designed to capitalize from the Charlie Hedbo mass murder. Exercising free speech, these people are scum.

As to laws of nature, real laws of nature cannot be effected, limited or changed in anyway shape or form by man.

Example, blades of grass always move in the same pattern when blowing in the wind - that is a law of nature.

Free speech is a human concept for humans alone. Animals are not subject to freedom of expression, that's why we have culls, zoos and animal companion act laws.

Then we move to the child pornography and free speech furphy.

The argument of a low life imbecile. Anything that has images of sex between an adult and a child breaches child protection laws. We live in a society that has this idea you see that children under 18 years of age are not able to make informed decisions around many matters, including sex. As such, yep, it is most likely a form of censorship, however, more to the point - action taken legally against any publication that depicts sex with Children is based on protection of children who cannot make informed decisions and, rather little to do with limiting freedom of speech - only a pedophile or supporter of such practice would argue otherwise.

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 106280
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #40 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 5:45am

Pantheon wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 12:30am:

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

Pantheon wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:30pm:

ian wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:21pm:

Pantheon wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 9:04pm:

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

Responsible speech seems more attractive than free speech.

Free is only used when the cost is hidden, nothing is free.

Responsible speech? With Section 18c, there is no Responsible speech, because you have no choice, theres no Responsible, its just a law to limited free speech.

All countries have laws which limit free speech, the fact that we have these laws and 18c is so rarely used means the system works.

Laws which limit free speech is a recent development, there have alway been a few that had laws in place limiting in some form or another free speech, but it has really grown out of control in recent years as the left grows more terrified at offending minorities or using small one off case to limit free speech for all.

18c is so rarely used because its ridiculous and, it hasn't stopped racial hate speech or racial attacks etc, in fact its grown in recent years.

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.

In fact laws limiting free speech as been around as long as civilisation, king and queens would ban words deemed dangerous.

Im 22 and i never head of 18c before Abbott bought it up, and my life is all about Australian politics, in deed 4 years of university studying Australian politics and Governance made no mention to 18c (Our education is shocking when it comes to teaching our own history and past.)

You ignored my point..

18c hasn't stopped racial hate speech or racial attacks etc, in fact its grown in recent years, and much of that growth comes from the youth.

Certain words are banned on this forum.

Censorship is everywhere.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #41 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 6:26am

Phemanderac wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 5:36am:

The argument of a low life imbecile. Anything that has images of sex between an adult and a child breaches child protection laws. We live in a society that has this idea you see that children under 18 years of age are not able to make informed decisions around many matters, including sex. As such, yep, it is most likely a form of censorship, however, more to the point - action taken legally against any publication that depicts sex with Children is based on protection of children who cannot make informed decisions and, rather little to do with limiting freedom of speech - only a pedophile or supporter of such practice would argue otherwise.

correct, but what or who are you responding to. ? Its not illegal to promote love between adults and children in this country, neither is it illegal to publish pictures of naked children. Not seeing your point here.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 9451	Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia Reply #42 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 6:27am ..................
Back to top	IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #43 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 6:34am

Phemanderac wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 5:36am:

Secondly, if Charlie Hedbo was in Australia, then most likely some of it's satire (at some point) may be tested against 18C and also, some may be found wanting. That would not automatically mean that Charlie Hedbo (the magazine) would close down, cease to exist or disappear in a puff of smoke. The proof of this, why, Andrew Bolt of course. He failed the 18C test spectacularly and yet, he is still exercising his right to free speech, daily.

absolute nonsense, go take your memory pills, you need something

Back to top

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29853
Gender: male

Re: Charlie Hebdo would be censored in Australia
Reply #44 - Jan 15^th, 2015 at 6:55am

Pantheon wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 8:10pm:

Quote:

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) makes it unlawful to “offend, insult humiliate or intimidate” a person on the grounds of “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”. Section 18C was the provision used against News Corp Australia journalist Andrew Bolt in 2011 for two columns he had published in 2009.

“This week leaders from around the world have united to defend the right of publications like Charlie Hebdo to publish content that is offensive to some,” says Mr Breheny.

“But a publication such as Charlie Hebdo would struggle to survive in Australia, due to laws that censor offensive, insulting, humiliating and intimidating speech. Section 18C could be used against the publishers of cartoons that satirise figures based on their race or ethnicity. Content not caught by section 18C would almost certainly be censored by current state religious vilification laws, which are specifically designed to target the kind of content published in Charlie Hebdo.”

“The attack on Charlie Hebdo is an attack on freedom of expression. And as Prime Minister Tony Abbott rightly noted in response to this atrocity, ‘Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society.’”

“The Abbott government should seek to put the prime minister’s words into action by repealing existing Australian laws that restrict free speech, starting with section 18C,” says Mr Breheny.

Currently 18C makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

http://www.news.com.au/national/charlie-hebdo-would-be-censored-in-australia-freedom-commissioner-tim-wilson/story-fncynjr2-1227183150030

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/terror/being-charlie-with-18c-in-place-australia-says-non/story-fnpdbcmu-1227182736935

http://australianconservative.com/2015/01/paris-massacre-at-charlie-hebdo-shows-why-rda-section-18c-must-go-%E2%80%93-ipa/

Sounds like Australians need to grow up and the left to harden up.

As a great man once said Wink

"We have to be prepared to speak up for our beliefs. We have to be prepared to call things as we see them. Of cause from time to time poeple will be upset, offended, insulted, humiliated... But it is all part of a free society...Because in the end the cornerstone of progress is free speech.

So in that case if Charlie Hebdo was in Australia they should be off the hook re: 18C

Islam is a religion not a race or ethnicity.

Isn't it? Roll Eyes

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged