George Brandis: 'People have the right to be bigots' - Polidicks

[img]http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/24/1395640938822/72a0e187-9146-4f6b-aaef-b73b710fa89a-460x276.jpeg[/img] [i]George Brandis: 'In this country people have rights to say things that other people find offensive or bigoted.' Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP[/i] [quote]The attorney general, George Brandis, has declared “people have the right to be bigots” as he confirmed plans to remove sections of the Racial Discrimination Act while ensuring the laws were better able to deal with incitement to racial hatred. “People have the right to be bigots you know,” Brandis said in answer to a question by the Indigenous Labor senator Nova Peris. “In this country people have rights to say things that other people find offensive or bigoted. “There is no law that prohibits the incitement to racial hatred. When the government deals with this matter the law will be in a better position to deal with incitement to racial hatred.” The government is planning the changes, after a federal court judge in 2011 found that conservative columnist Andrew Bolt breached section 18C of the act in newspaper articles that questioned the motivations of fair-skinned people who identified as Aboriginal. The section makes it unlawful to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” a person or group because of their “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”. In a heated Senate debate, Peris asked Brandis about comments by the Indigenous Liberal backbencher Ken Wyatt that the changes may result in a “regression” to “bigoted views” allowing the vilification of people. Wyatt had raised his concerns in the party room last week.[/quote] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/24/george-brandis-people-have-the-right-to-be-bigots[/url]

Freedom of speech is a dual-bladed spear, as long as they don't kill or harm other people, ect.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44366883]Freedom of speech is a dual-bladed spear, as long as they don't kill or harm other people, ect.[/QUOTE] Absolute freedom of speech is stupid and that's why it doesn't exist anywhere. Different societies simply draw the line at different places.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;44366893]Absolute freedom of speech is stupid[/QUOTE] RIP this thread

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;44366897]RIP this thread[/QUOTE] I doubt anyone would agree that the age-old example of "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" should be protected speech, yet without being allowed to say just that you don't actually have absolute freedom of speech.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;44366903]I doubt anyone would agree that the age-old example of "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" should be protected speech[/QUOTE] Oh I'm sure But there are many, many people who are frothing at the mouth in anticipation of telling you why free speech is all encompassing and hate speech is harmless etc

[QUOTE=Zeke129;44366893]Absolute freedom of speech is stupid and that's why it doesn't exist anywhere. Different societies simply draw the line at different places.[/QUOTE] Would this cover music?

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;44366915]Oh I'm sure But there are many, many people who are frothing at the mouth in anticipation of telling you why free speech is all encompassing and hate speech is harmless etc[/QUOTE] If someone thinks there should be the right to absolute freedom of speech just start slandering them, they'll change their mind pretty fast. (Don't actually do that, it's mean)

'People have the right to be bigots' and I have the right to tell them to fuck off and that they're ignorant

[QUOTE=J!NX;44366932]'People have the right to be bigots' cool and I have the right to tell them to fuck off and die[/QUOTE] I don't think that that was in question???

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44366922]Would this cover music?[/QUOTE] I tend to think that artistic pursuits should be afforded more leeway, but of course context matters. If someone wrote, say, an anti-Christian piece of music (as many do) and published it I don't think that should count as hate speech. But if they're using that same piece of art to harass people (blasting anti-Christian black metal into a church window from the bushes outside, leaving an anti-gay "documentary" on the doorsteps of gay couples, etc), then the situation is different. I'm not talking jail time or anything, but I think fines would be in order for repeat offenses.

[QUOTE=J!NX;44366932]I thought we had hate speech laws though?[/QUOTE] No and it's a great thing that we don't.

They do, it's just stupid.

[QUOTE=J!NX;44366932]I thought we had hate speech laws though?[/QUOTE] You're aware this is the Attorney-General of Australia right?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;44366968]I tend to think that artistic pursuits should be afforded more leeway, but of course context matters. If someone wrote, say, an anti-Christian piece of music (as many do) and published it I don't think that should count as hate speech. But if they're using that same piece of art to harass people (blasting anti-Christian black metal into a church window from the bushes outside, leaving an anti-gay "documentary" on the doorsteps of gay couples, etc), then the situation is different. I'm not talking jail time or anything, but I think fines would be in order for repeat offenses.[/QUOTE] So what about religious beliefs that are themselves hateful? Should it be legal to express your hatred for gay people if it's part of your religion? If you think it's illegal, then is that not hateful towards the religion which espouses that belief?

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;44366992]You're aware this is the Attorney-General of Australia right?[/QUOTE] oh shit rate dumb move on don't reply to my post :v: [QUOTE=Zeke129;44366968]I tend to think that artistic pursuits should be afforded more leeway, but of course context matters. If someone wrote, say, an anti-Christian piece of music (as many do) and published it I don't think that should count as hate speech. But if they're using that same piece of art to harass people (blasting anti-Christian black metal into a church window from the bushes outside, leaving an anti-gay "documentary" on the doorsteps of gay couples, etc), then the situation is different. I'm not talking jail time or anything, but I think fines would be in order for repeat offenses.[/QUOTE] using something to slander a group of people vs just making fun of X people no doubt has a big difference. But the question is, where is the line between slander and a bad joke?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;44366968]I tend to think that artistic pursuits should be afforded more leeway, but of course context matters. If someone wrote, say, an anti-Christian piece of music (as many do) and published it I don't think that should count as hate speech.[/QUOTE] Books are interesting ones as well. Quite a couple of books are banned for some reason because a crazy dude wrote it or it tells you how to make bombs. Music is even weirder when it comes to bans. Free speech should usually cover being allowed to write and publish whatever it is you have, without using it to harm other people. A group of people could have some anti-abortion signs and protest in some square at some university and it would be well within their rights to do that.

Everyone should have their rights to restrict.

I suppose that is true. I mean it sucks that people can be bigots, but they have a right to say what they like and don't like, so long as it doesn't get super violent. [editline]26th March 2014[/editline] and to simply keep bigots from saying what they say would be contradictory to what the Constitution says.

actually, people have the right to be a bigot in their own home and affairs, however when their bigotry starts affecting other people, you are infringing on their right to be a bigot [editline]26th March 2014[/editline] also 1st amendment does not protect all speech, especially if its determined to be hate-speech, or slanderus, or endangering the public IE starting a riot by having a KKK rally in the middle of say detroit. [editline]26th March 2014[/editline] this is a common misconception but the courts have ruled on this for over 100 years

He's wrong when he says that people have the right to be bigots in the Australian context though, currently they do not in reference to their [QUOTE]“race, colour or national or ethnic origin”.[/QUOTE] He wants to make it permissable. These laws have been in Australia for almost two decades now with only one instance of a person being found guilty of it and people (conservatives) saying it was ridiculous.

[quote]The government is planning the changes, after a federal court judge in 2011 found that conservative columnist Andrew Bolt breached section 18C of the act in newspaper articles that questioned the motivations of fair-skinned people who identified as Aboriginal. The section makes it unlawful to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” a person or group because of their “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”.[/quote] I actually agree with the man, that law is horseshit. People have every right to say asinine, bigoted things. And the rest of us have every right to shun and exclude them for doing so.

You have the right to be as large a bigot as you want, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others to not be harassed.

[QUOTE=Sableye;44367076]actually, people have the right to be a bigot in their own home and affairs, however when their bigotry starts affecting other people, you are infringing on their right to be a bigot [editline]26th March 2014[/editline] also 1st amendment does not protect all speech, especially if its determined to be hate-speech, or slanderus, or endangering the public IE starting a riot by having a KKK rally in the middle of say detroit. [editline]26th March 2014[/editline] this is a common misconception but the courts have ruled on this for over 100 years[/QUOTE] All three of these lines are complete bullshit. Especially the last two. You literally just made that shit up. This post is so bad and wrong that I would feel that I'm falling for some sort of joke except I know about your awful posting history.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;44367104]I actually agree with the man, that law is horseshit. People have every right to say asinine, bigoted things. And the rest of us have every right to shun and exclude them for doing so.[/QUOTE] The thing is that offending, insulting and humiliating can be ok when you're dealing with a healthy, reasonable person, but when it's some already oppressed minority who is already struggling you're putting them in very serious danger mentally and that's probably a key driver of the law.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44366995]So what about religious beliefs that are themselves hateful? Should it be legal to express your hatred for gay people if it's part of your religion? If you think it's illegal, then is that not hateful towards the religion which espouses that belief?[/QUOTE] If I was making the laws I'd draw the line based on who your audience is and whether or not they chose to listen to you. If you're preaching about how evil gay people are to all your anti-gay friends, that's fine. If you're doing it on the street corner where people have to walk to get to work, it isn't. If you're doing it as a teacher at a private school, that also isn't. (Children can't choose not to be there) Same would apply to books, music, etc. If you're performing hateful material publicly, no. If you're performing it privately or just publishing it so others can buy it, go ahead. (You shouldn't be guaranteed the right to a publishing deal, though) Of course, encouraging violence against people you dislike, in public OR private, should be criminal.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;44367134]If I was making the laws I'd draw the line based on who your audience is and whether or not they chose to listen to you. If you're preaching about how evil gay people are to all your anti-gay friends, that's fine. If you're doing it on the street corner where people have to walk to get to work, it isn't. If you're doing it as a teacher at a private school, that also isn't. (Children can't choose not to be there) Same would apply to books, music, etc. If you're performing hateful material publicly, no. If you're performing it privately or just publishing it so others can buy it, go ahead. (You shouldn't be guaranteed the right to a publishing deal, though) Of course, encouraging violence against people you dislike, in public OR private, should be criminal.[/QUOTE] You didn't explain at all why this isn't hateful towards the person's religion. Wouldn't silencing someone based on their religious beliefs be hateful as well? This whole "hateful" thing sounds extremely eerie and dangerous to me. You mentioned that "if you were making the laws" that you'd be defining what is and isn't hate speech. But what gives you such a right? Why do you get to draw these lines? And how do you choose where they are drawn? If a republican arguing for the abolition of the minimum wage, is this "hate speech" towards low income people? How about people who protest outside of banks like the Occupy protesters? "Bankers are evil!" "Fire all the bankers!" That seems like a clear case of hate speech to me as well as possible harassment. Would they be banned too?

You have the right to be a bigot, yes, but you don't have the right to take other's rights away.

Just because you're allowed to do something doesn't make it not-stupid.

[QUOTE=Explosions;44367210]You didn't explain at all why this isn't hateful towards the person's religion. Wouldn't silencing someone based on their religious beliefs be hateful as well?[/quote] I'm not religious so perhaps I'm missing the perspective of a religious person but I don't see how my proposal was hateful toward religious people - I didn't say anything about interfering with religious people practising their religion together. [QUOTE=Explosions;44367210]This whole "hateful" thing sounds extremely eerie and dangerous to me. You mentioned that "if you were making the laws" that you'd be defining what is and isn't hate speech. But what gives you such a right? Why do you get to draw these lines? And how do you choose where they are drawn? If a republican arguing for the abolition of the minimum wage, is this "hate speech" towards low income people? How about people who protest outside of banks like the Occupy protesters? "Bankers are evil!" "Fire all the bankers!" That seems like a clear case of hate speech to me as well as possible harassment. Would they be banned too?[/QUOTE] You asked me what I think should and shouldn't be illegal so I answered the question. Nobody gave me the right to do anything, it was hypothetical.