[AUSTRALIA] Strengthing laws on racism could hurt freedom of speech - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Eltro102;40203611]all the other rights they have?? people shouldn't have a right to hateful opinions[/QUOTE] But if we restrict some opinions, then suddenly, the concept of restricting opinions isn't wrong any more. Then we can slowly restrict more and more opinions, because the outer-points of offensiveness gets narrowed in, and before you fuckin' know it, you gotta anally check your privilege every hour and the only pronouns are xir and hir. We ban being a nazi? Fine, no reasonable people will cry. But suddenly, banning stuff is a-okay. Then it turns out that hey, you don't have to be a nazi to be a backwards-ass racist fuckup, it's just the entire outer right wing. Bam, classic conservatism and liberitarianism banned. Oh, by the way, Stalin was bad, too, so we're just banning communism and, why the fuck not regular ol' socialism while we're at it?

[QUOTE=plunger435;40203639]I have to agree that Freedom of Speech should have limits otherwise groups like Westboro Baptist abuse it.[/QUOTE] They aren't really abusing it, the closest thing to that is they could be called a "Hate group", which they may be, but just because they say offensive or horrible thing does not give other people the right to attack them. [QUOTE=Don Ochs;40203541]Why should he be allowed to call them niggers? There is no reason and it only does harm. In fact it may even make other people start calling them niggers and who knows eventually people will start beating these "niggers" up. There are historical examples of this.[/QUOTE] You are implying that if people start using the word Nigger, then people will start beating these "Niggers" up. That's not how it works, people choose to do what they do, you should not skip to conclusions, nor should you blame the person who "Put the idea in their head", because somebody did bad. [QUOTE=deltasquid;40203649]Freedom of speech =/= freedom to inspire hate and anger telling people on the street that this or that judge is corrupt or the president is doing a horrible job, THAT's freedom of speech. Telling people on the street how horrible niggers are and how they should all die is just hate speech and contributes absolutely nothing of value to society.[/QUOTE] What if it was 1912? Then going about and saying Niggers are bad would be considered "Preaching to the choir". Or what if that Judge isn't really corrupt, and everyone knew it, so they outlawed it for being "Inspiring hate and anger". Since it all relies on perspective and public opinion, it simply would not work to censor any of it, regardless of how "wrong" or "right" it is.

[QUOTE=Don Ochs;40203575]Free speech is fine as long as it doesn't harm anyone. Racism does.[/QUOTE] Then it isn't really Free Speech, is it? It's "Free Speech-as-long-as-it-doesn't-have-the-capability-to-harm."

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;40203641]So mind policing?[/QUOTE] no?? people shouldn't be surprised they're being hauled in for hate speech when they try to spread their hateful opinions and claim it's ok under free speech

[QUOTE=Riller;40203663]But if we restrict some opinions, then suddenly, the concept of restricting opinions isn't wrong any more. Then we can slowly restrict more and more opinions, because the outer-points of offensiveness gets narrowed in, and before you fuckin' know it, you gotta anally check your privilege every hour and the only pronouns are xir and hir. We ban being a nazi? Fine, no reasonable people will cry. But suddenly, banning stuff is a-okay. Then it turns out that hey, you don't have to be a nazi to be a backwards-ass racist fuckup, it's just the entire outer right wing. Bam, classic conservatism and liberitarianism banned. Oh, by the way, Stalin was bad, too, so we're just banning communism and, why the fuck not regular ol' socialism while we're at it?[/QUOTE] It's not actually banning opinions or ideologies though, it's about banning racism, and yeah racism is a big part of some ideologies or opinions, but that's not the point. There is evidence that this doesn't lead to making banning opinion right, it's already being done in several countries in Europe, Sweden being one of them.

[QUOTE=Riller;40203663]But if we restrict some opinions, then suddenly, the concept of restricting opinions isn't wrong any more. Then we can slowly restrict more and more opinions, because the outer-points of offensiveness gets narrowed in, and before you fuckin' know it, you gotta anally check your privilege every hour and the only pronouns are xir and hir. We ban being a nazi? Fine, no reasonable people will cry. But suddenly, banning stuff is a-okay. Then it turns out that hey, you don't have to be a nazi to be a backwards-ass racist fuckup, it's just the entire outer right wing. Bam, classic conservatism and liberitarianism banned. Oh, by the way, Stalin was bad, too, so we're just banning communism and, why the fuck not regular ol' socialism while we're at it?[/QUOTE] Not everything is a slippery slope.

[QUOTE=Don Ochs;40203700]It's not actually banning opinions or ideologies though, it's about banning racism, and yeah racism is a big part of some ideologies or opinions, but that's not the point. There is evidence that this doesn't lead to making banning opinion right, it's already being done in several countries in Europe, Sweden being one of them.[/QUOTE] I'm not okay with it, 'cause while yeah, I fuckin' hate racists (Some irony to be found here, I'm sure), they [I]are[/I] a minority, and as long as their hatred stays verbal, they [I]are[/I] quite harmless. Now, on the other hand, one thing I hate more than a small minority of stupid people, is the thought of an entire society suddenly no longer being able to speak fully freely, just to be sure no one's arguably oversensitive cunt gets burned. I will much rather my neighbour keeps his right to run around in the streets, yelling that he hates all niggers and that muslims are all terrorists, than I would have a society where I have to watch my tounge lest I steamroll a bunch of whiny toes and the thought-police carries me away because I stepped outside some arbitrary limit of political correctness. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;40203722]Not everything is a slippery slope.[/QUOTE] I'd much rather stay on the flat than risk slipping on something as important and basic as free speech.

[QUOTE=Riller;40203730]I'm not okay with it, 'cause while yeah, I fuckin' hate racists (Some irony to be found here, I'm sure), they [I]are[/I] a minority, and as long as their hatred stays verbal, they [I]are[/I] quite harmless. Now, on the other hand, one thing I hate more than a small minority of stupid people, is the thought of an entire society suddenly no longer being able to speak fully freely, just to be sure no one's arguably oversensitive cunt gets burned. I will much rather my neighbour keeps his right to run around in the streets, yelling that he hates all niggers and that muslims are all terrorists, than I would have a society where I have to watch my tounge lest I steamroll a bunch of whiny toes and the thought-police carries me away because I stepped outside some arbitrary limit of political correctness.[/QUOTE] But there is evidence that restricting racism doesn't hurt your free speech, and there is also loads of evidence that not restricting racism does hurt free speech amongst many other things.

[QUOTE=Riller;40203663]But if we restrict some opinions, then suddenly, the concept of restricting opinions isn't wrong any more. Then we can slowly restrict more and more opinions, because the outer-points of offensiveness gets narrowed in, and before you fuckin' know it, you gotta anally check your privilege every hour and the only pronouns are xir and hir. We ban being a nazi? Fine, no reasonable people will cry. But suddenly, banning stuff is a-okay. Then it turns out that hey, you don't have to be a nazi to be a backwards-ass racist fuckup, it's just the entire outer right wing. Bam, classic conservatism and liberitarianism banned. Oh, by the way, Stalin was bad, too, so we're just banning communism and, why the fuck not regular ol' socialism while we're at it?[/QUOTE] what? you're just being paranoid dude, with your logic you could start with banning things like high explosives and ending up banning pop rocks

[QUOTE=Eltro102;40203747]what? you're just being paranoid dude, with your logic you could start with banning things like high explosives and ending up banning pop rocks[/QUOTE] Difference being, high explosives aren't really a basic human right for a non-ass-backwards society. They're also a physical thing that can physically harm shit and be physically restricted from physically being imported and distributed, whereas speech is speech and thought.

[QUOTE=Don Ochs;40203743]But there is evidence that restricting racism doesn't hurt your free speech, and there is also loads of evidence that not restricting racism does hurt free speech amongst many other things.[/QUOTE] Alright, now that caught my attention. Can I see a source on restricting racism=improved free speech? I can kind of see the logic in that, but it sounds like an interesting read nonetheless.

Also, explosives can be quantified. You can make a list of shit that blows up, then either completely ban it, or put an upper limit on how much is legal to own. You can't do that with speech. "Oh, it's fine to have five offensive opinions, but any more than that and you're goin' to jail!"

[QUOTE=Riller;40203764]Difference being, high explosives aren't really a basic human right for a non-ass-backwards society. They're also a physical thing that can physically harm shit and be physically restricted from physically being imported and distributed, whereas speech is speech and thought.[/QUOTE] except the bit where hate speech does harm people free speech legitimizes the hate people [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Riller;40203774]Also, explosives can be quantified. You can make a list of shit that blows up, then either completely ban it, or put an upper limit on how much is legal to own. You can't do that with speech. "Oh, it's fine to have five offensive opinions, but any more than that and you're goin' to jail!"[/QUOTE] yes it can?? there are pretty clear cut definitions and w/e on hate speech

[QUOTE=Eltro102;40203778]except the bit where hate speech does harm people free speech legitimizes the hate people[/QUOTE] Maybe I'm just ol' fashioned and simplifying, but 'sticks and stones'. I am absolutely all for doing everything possible to reduce physical hate crimes and all that jazz, might even be agree that it should be illegal to use your free speech to directly encourage violence, on a good day.

[QUOTE=Riller;40203788]Maybe I'm just ol' fashioned and simplifying, but 'sticks and stones'. I am absolutely all for doing everything possible to reduce physical hate crimes and all that jazz, might even be agree that it should be illegal to use your free speech to directly encourage violence, on a good day.[/QUOTE] i agree with the sticks and stones but a lot of other people don't and can't because they cannot take it into their stride and let it slip off like water off a duck (or something)

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - François-Marie Arouet Freedom of speech isn't freedom of speech if there is [B]any[/B] limitation on it at all. So be it that people can "abuse" it, but if that's the price then I think it's worth it.

Freedom of Speech is like a direct line of individuality and the support for different people who support both good and bad things that we all like and dislike. Racism is one of these, no matter how much we go against it, it will still exist no matter what. The Same goes with religion, as we have the freedom to say which gods, goddess, or none at all that we worship, and spread the message, no matter how ridiculous it may appear to be to others. Freedom of Speech is the core of how we represent our selfs, and without freedom of speech, we be oppressed to reveal out thoughts, our ideas, our emotions, our prerogative, etc.

[QUOTE=Simplemac3;40203769]Alright, now that caught my attention. Can I see a source on restricting racism=improved free speech? I can kind of see the logic in that, but it sounds like an interesting read nonetheless.[/QUOTE] Sweden is a pretty good example of how restricting racism doesn't lead to restriction of free speech. Various racist practices are banned in Sweden to protect against discrimination, forbidding hate speach and enhancing the penalty for crimes motivated by racism, I'm sure plenty of other countries in Europe do this aswell, though I don't know specifically which ones, considering a lot of things happened in Europe after World War 2 and the whole holocaust/nazi incident (which by the way is a good example of what can go wrong when hate speech and racism is unrestricted). I don't have any sources other than some swedish ones, though.

[QUOTE=Don Ochs;40203826]Sweden is a pretty good example of how restricting racism doesn't lead to restriction of free speech. Various racist practices are banned in Sweden to protect against discrimination, forbidding hate speach and enhancing the penalty for crimes motivated by racism, I'm sure plenty of other countries in Europe do this aswell, though I don't know specifically which ones, considering a lot of things happened in Europe after World War 2 and the whole holocaust/nazi incident (which by the way is a good example of what can go wrong when hate speech and racism is unrestricted). I don't have any sources other than some swedish ones, though.[/QUOTE] We're talking about restricting ones' right to speak as a racist, not racist actions. They're two distinctly different things, and you seem to be forgetting that.

[QUOTE=ksenior;40203212]There should never be someone who decides what is or isn't offensive speech. The moment you do that it can be abused[/QUOTE] How is abuse based on the colour of your skin ever not offensive. Theres a difference between freedom of speech and abusing someone because of their race. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lolx0rz;40203241]Does anyone here actually realise that Australia doesn't actually have freedom of speech?[/QUOTE] We don't have it in our constitution but if its in the bill of rights we have it.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;40203431]One of the Australian courts ruled that freedom of speech is implied within the Australian Constitution[/QUOTE] 'implied'. aka its not actually there

[QUOTE=Don Ochs;40203826]considering a lot of things happened in Europe after World War 2 and the whole holocaust/nazi incident (which by the way is a good example of what can go wrong when hate speech and racism is unrestricted)[/QUOTE] Really? 'cause I see it as a good fuckin' example of why we need unrestricted free speech. What the Nazis did wouldn't have been possible if it wasn't for rampant cencorship, book burnings, and imprisoning people for not going with the flow.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;40203854]We're talking about restricting ones' right to speak as a racist, not racist actions. They're two distinctly different things, and you seem to be forgetting that.[/QUOTE] Racist speech is an action that causes mental harm to millions of people. Freedom of speech is the freedom to not be persecuted for speaking out against a ruling body not the right to be a racist shithead.

[QUOTE=EvacX;40203806]"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - François-Marie Arouet Freedom of speech isn't freedom of speech if there is [B]any[/B] limitation on it at all. So be it that people can "abuse" it, but if that's the price then I think it's worth it.[/QUOTE] freedom of speach is overrated, as long as your government is reasonable and sensitive, you don't need it. we SHOULD stop people from hate mongering. they might have the RIGHT to do it in america, but they don't here, and we have a responsibility to create a more peaceful nation and stem out irrational hatred.

[QUOTE=McGii;40203865]How is abuse based on the colour of your skin ever not offensive. Theres a difference between freedom of speech and abusing someone because of their race.[/QUOTE] Then let's bring it beyond race, since race is an example so outdated and extreme that only fringe-groups really base politics on it any more. How about gays? Am I being offensive if I don't want gays to marry? Is that an [I]offensive[/I] idea? Or am I just ass-backwards and wrong? Is not accepting gay marriage a legit opinion, or is it just offensive biggotry? How about women in the military? Immigration policy?

There is a kind of free market on freedom of speech. If there are no regulations, general society determines what is and isn't appropriate to say. Hence intolerant individuals are usually shunned so that intolerance doesn't become the norm. Restrictions on what is legal and isn't legal to do and say in regards to racism doesn't restrict that social free market, it doesn't suddenly become okay to do those things. The laws are just solidifying what is already a socially unacceptable behavior. Australian's are mostly racist. My grandmother was complaining about there not being one white person in the markets the other day. My 26/28 (I don't remember) year old cousin was trying to hook me up with "sushi" (that is a Taiwanese girl, though I don't think it would have mattered what country as long as they were asian). I say racist things to my friend all the time "as a joke." It is a part of Australia's culture and it has had massive negative affects on our economy. The most obvious example being the straining of Indian-Australian relations after a spate of racially motivated attacks. Australian's are accosted and told to go back to their own country (right where they are) because they look and speak different to others. The government can mitigate this successfully, it just has to be [I]very[/I] careful about how it does it. Finding the right policy will be a needle in the haystack style of a challenge. It is possible to do. Again, as I said before, in Australia freedom of speech is implicit, not explicit.

[QUOTE=McGii;40203865]We don't have it in our constitution but if its in the bill of rights we have it.[/QUOTE] Australia is the only Western democratic country with neither a constitutional nor legislative bill of rights, although there is ongoing debate in many of Australia's states.

[QUOTE=Lolx0rz;40203934]Australia is the only Western democratic country with neither a constitutional nor legislative bill of rights, although there is ongoing debate in many of Australia's states.[/QUOTE] Better to not have a bill of rights. A bill of rights would make specific what is and isn't a right. If it isn't on the bill of rights then it isn't a right. No bill of rights (as we have now) means that even though it says nowhere we have freedom of speech, we still have it. It is implied. I found this, apparently this is a law: [QUOTE] (a) to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt; (b) to urge disaffection against the following: (i) the Constitution; (ii) the Government of the Commonwealth; (iii) either House of the Parliament; (c) to urge another person to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, to procure a change to any matter established by law in the Commonwealth; (d) to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth. [/QUOTE] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law#Seditious_Intention_2"]Over here.[/URL] Interesting.

The uk's bill of rights doesnt cover free speech outside of parliment [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] uk doesnt even have a constitution

[QUOTE=Rusty100;40203886]freedom of speach is overrated, as long as your government is reasonable and sensitive, you don't need it. we SHOULD stop people from hate mongering. they might have the RIGHT to do it in america, but they don't here, and we have a responsibility to create a more peaceful nation and stem out irrational hatred.[/QUOTE] Is freedom of speech overrated? It's directly tied to my personal freedom. If some high-up people start dictating what I can and cannot say then that's not the kind of society I want to live in. If I wanted to start a bloody white-supremacist group and spour hate everywhere I should have to right to do so as long as I'm not interfering with public order. Freedom of speech promotes individuality, the idea that we can choose what we want and what we don't want to believe in. The idea that I, as an individual, can work to improve myself working by towards my own ideals and nobody should be able to stop me because they disagree with what I am saying. Limits like these in question is a violation of personal freedom, and I don't want to live in a society that violates my freedom.