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

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;40204095]The WBC hurts others, the SGP does not. The SGP is also a political party and as such are granted a more or less unrestricted freedom of speech to be able to do their job.[/QUOTE] i bet you the SGP hurts more people than the WBC. the WBC is a cultural joke, the SGP is an established party. in the dutch government racism is institutionalised and the SGP's status of legitimacy is an indicator of it. ask any non-white dutch person.

[QUOTE=Riller;40204098]But limiting free speech doesn't even make people less racist. Racism is an idea, and you can't just ban an idea, now matter how stupid it is.[/QUOTE] it disincentives the public expression of racism, which would have an effect on future generations. The civil rights movement didn't immediately end popular racism. It did, however, create a generation of young people who went to the same schools as blacks and therefore have become more tolerant of african americans. Racism still exists in pockets today, so you take the next step and outlaw hate speech and then there are no longer any racist influences on younger generations, so they grow up without past prejudices. Yes, outlawing racism doesn't get rid of racists today, but it prevents their ideas from polluting the future.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;40204108]Limiting free speech ensures racism isn't easily spread. It does make people less racist.[/QUOTE] bullshit. there are so many racist people in europe its terrifying. they're just forced into secrecy because of the law; and that makes them even more terrifying because it gives them the power to be invisible. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;40204132] The civil rights movement didn't immediately end popular racism. It did, however, create a generation of young people who went to the same schools as blacks and therefore have become more tolerant of african americans.[/QUOTE] if there were laws maintaining a status quo that restricted speech there would be no civil rights movement.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204089]but none of those are really freedom of speech. if the government itself is against foreign people then no law will really change anything; itll just empower the government itself, possibly even against left-wing activists[/QUOTE] Tell me more about how actively punishing racist behaviour is destructive to the left wing cause [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] If you perform a race fueld crime you are punished more heavily IIRC which makes this just bringing racist speech and the mental harm it causes on the same level as physical harm, because it really is and in a lot of cases 1 leads to the other.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204133]bullshit. there are so many racist people in europe its terrifying. they're just forced into secrecy because of the law; and that makes them even more terrifying because it gives them the power to be invisible.[/QUOTE] Yeah there are a lot of racists in Europe and that's exactly why these laws are necessary. For example immigration is a big debate in most countries, and if people could be openly racist, the debate would be a fucking mess, so I'm really happy they can't.

[QUOTE=McGii;40204145]Tell me more about how actively punishing racist behaviour is destructive to the left wing cause[/QUOTE] because the left-wing cause; or at least what i thought i signed up for when i called myself a left-winger to align myself against conservative status quo upholders; is freedom for all individuals to express themselves without the intervention of a public authority who decides what everyone else is supposed to do. this is the left-wing cause of rosa luxemburg, orwell, and russell (OMG EUROPEANS). you know, the classics. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Don Ochs;40204165]Yeah there are a lot of racists in Europe and that's exactly why these laws are necessary. For example immigration is a big debate in most countries, and if people could be openly racist, the debate would be a fucking mess, so I'm really happy they can't.[/QUOTE] if people could be openly racist maybe we could as europeans realise how ashamed we should be of ourselves. but most europeans dont think europe is a racist place because it has to be hidden. its a masochistic way of covering up our flaws.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204166]because the left-wing cause; or at least what i thought i signed up for when i called myself a left-winger to align myself against conservative status quo upholders; is freedom for all individuals to express themselves without the intervention of a public authority who decides what everyone else is supposed to do. this is the left-wing cause of rosa luxemburg, orwell, and russell (OMG EUROPEANS). you know, the classics.[/QUOTE] Isn't racism a direct threat against freedom for all individuals to express themselves though..?

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204166]because the left-wing cause; or at least what i thought i signed up for when i called myself a left-winger to align myself against conservative status quo upholders; is freedom for all individuals to express themselves without the intervention of a public authority who decides what everyone else is supposed to do. this is the left-wing cause of rosa luxemburg, orwell, and russell (OMG EUROPEANS). you know, the classics. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] if people could be openly racist maybe we could as europeans realise how ashamed we should be of ourselves. but most europeans dont think europe is a racist place because it has to be hidden. its a masochistic way of covering up our flaws.[/QUOTE] You do know that absolute freedom just lets assholes become larger assholes and the oppressed become more oppressed, right? By openly allowing racism, you're ruining the minority's freedoms, who might become too afraid to speak out because a large, vocal group is openly proclaiming hate and they can't do anything about it

Isn't UK's Libel laws a restriction on freedom of speech? In those court cases if someone challenges that you have defamed them, you are guilty until proven innocent. It meant that whole debacle about the bias games journalists didn't get properly challenged because they could get in serious trouble if they defamed someone without cause. There is a Rock Paper Shotgun article where they explicitly say something like "we aren't going to talk about it anymore in case we get sued." That sounds exactly like they had a restriction on their freedom of speech.

[QUOTE=Don Ochs;40204174]Isn't racism a direct threat against freedom for all individuals to express themselves though..?[/QUOTE] no because i assume that we can create a society where individuals can decide for themselves that racism is bad and we dont need a public authority to tell us that. racism as a belief CANNOT hurt freedom of speech. only a public authority (IE the government) can. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=gerbe1;40204186]Isn't UK's Libel laws a restriction on freedom of speech? [/QUOTE] yes i believe they are. theyve been used before to shut down activist speech.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204191]no because i assume that we can create a society where individuals can decide for themselves that racism is bad and we dont need a public authority to tell us that. racism as a belief CANNOT hurt freedom of speech. only a public authority (IE the government) can.[/QUOTE] Tell that to all the violent movements based on racism.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204166]if people could be openly racist maybe we could as europeans realise how ashamed we should be of ourselves. but most europeans dont think europe is a racist place because it has to be hidden. its a masochistic way of covering up our flaws.[/QUOTE] That doesn't make any sense, if people could be openly racist we wouldn't be ashamed of ourselves. and covering up our flaws? We're fighting them both through the law and the many anti-racism movements out there.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;40204183]You do know that absolute freedom just lets assholes become larger assholes and the oppressed become more oppressed, right? By openly allowing racism, you're ruining the minority's freedoms, who might become too afraid to speak out because a large, vocal group is openly proclaiming hate and they can't do anything about it[/QUOTE] if a large vocal group is openly proclaiming hate then that large vocal group is an institution and the government serves them. do you really think that a law restricting speech helps any minority? no it defends the majority because a law restricting speech does so based on what the majority. when you openly allow racism you allow a society to engage it. thats the only way to destroy racism.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204191]no because i assume that we can create a society where individuals can decide for themselves that racism is bad and we dont need a public authority to tell us that.[/quote] That could be said about anything immoral: stealing, murder etc. [quote]racism as a belief CANNOT hurt freedom of speech. only a public authority (IE the government) can.[/QUOTE] Allowing people to rally with racist intentions can cause authorities such as gangs and organizations (KKK etc)

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204191]no because i assume that we can create a society where individuals can decide for themselves that racism is bad and we dont need a public authority to tell us that.[/QUOTE] The same way you assume you can create a society where all individuals can decide for themselves that stealing/murder is bad and we don't need a public authority to tell them that?

[QUOTE=gerbe1;40204199]Tell that to all the violent movements based on racism.[/QUOTE] dont insult me please; i know and you know that im talking about speech, not violence.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204213]if a large vocal group is openly proclaiming hate then that large vocal group is an institution and the government serves them. do you really think that a law restricting speech helps any minority? no it defends the majority because a law restricting speech does so based on what the majority. when you openly allow racism you allow a society to engage it. thats the only way to destroy racism.[/QUOTE] Racism has a basis in minority. If the laws on racism do not help the minority they aren't laws on racism.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204213]if a large vocal group is openly proclaiming hate then that large vocal group is an institution and the government serves them. do you really think that a law restricting speech helps any minority? no it defends the majority because a law restricting speech does so based on what the majority. when you openly allow racism you allow a society to engage it. thats the only way to destroy racism.[/QUOTE] Please, I don't know what world you live in, but allowing a society to openly engage in racism is a clear message to its citizens that "hey, this thing is totally fine, and if somebody thinks you're wrong for doing it, sucks to be them"

What about mental and emotional abuse? Is it acceptable to tell people to go die and constantly abuse them for no reason other than the way they look or how they dress? And by the way, I don't think I've ever heard about someone being arrested for criticising a religion, unless maybe they went about shouting racism at someone. The illegality of hate speech is far exaggerated, it's not like we have telescreens listening to our every word in case we say something naughty, it's more public displays of hatred towards others.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;40204218]The same way you assume you can create a society where all individuals can decide for themselves that stealing/murder is bad and we don't need a public authority to tell them that?[/QUOTE] well yeah i mean i also assume we as individuals can understand why stealing and murder is wrong without the government telling us it is. do you really think that everyone would just be stealing and murdering each other with reckless abandon if the government didnt have a law on murder? do you take your morality from the government? that's a VERY anti-left idea.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204219]dont insult me please; i know and you know that im talking about speech, not violence.[/QUOTE] But allowing racist speech is just asking for breeding grounds of violence based on said racism. What about workplace bullying, then? Should that be allowed on the base of racism? They're just words, speech as one would say, but they are just as harmful as physical attacks

[QUOTE=Jamsponge;40204227]What about mental and emotional abuse? Is it acceptable to tell people to go die and constantly abuse them for no reason other than the way they look or how they dress? And by the way, I don't think I've ever heard about someone being arrested for criticising a religion, unless maybe they went about shouting racism at someone. The illegality of hate speech is far exaggerated, it's not like we have telescreens listening to our every word in case we say something naughty, it's more public displays of hatred towards others.[/QUOTE] It's not only about mental and emotional abuse either. Discriminating someone by for example not giving them a job because they're black, a jew or a woman is also an important factor.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;40204225]Please, I don't know what world you live in, but allowing a society to openly engage in racism is a clear message to its citizens that "hey, this thing is totally fine, and if somebody thinks you're wrong for doing it, sucks to be them"[/QUOTE] haha are you actually willing to tell me that the french government is telling its citizens that racism is ok when it doesnt censor marine le pen ? what an absolutely fucking insulting thing to say. french people fought very hard for that right.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204219]dont insult me please; i know and you know that im talking about speech, not violence.[/QUOTE] The instinct of many people is to not invoke conflict and controversy. When people get violent and move in force as these movements have, they resist the temptation to speak out for fear of their own safety. It may be far more sensible to speak up for future generations, but it happens. Violent racist movements have restricted freedom of speech before.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204231]well yeah i mean i also assume we as individuals can understand why stealing and murder is wrong without the government telling us it is. do you really think that everyone would just be stealing and murdering each other with reckless abandon if the government didnt have a law on murder? do you take your morality from the government? that's a VERY anti-left idea.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying I took my morality from the government, I'm saying that the government needs to be there to protect ethical citizens by giving them authorized means to curb unethical behavior. If someone steals my car, how am I going to get it back without a government telling me "OK, what this guy did is wrong, I'll help you get it back" ? Or if somebody insults me for my race, how can I adequately curb that without some authority saying "You're right, these people are doing bad things. Let's give them a fine" ?

[QUOTE=deltasquid;40204233]But allowing racist speech is just asking for breeding grounds of violence based on said racism.[/QUOTE] refer to the 1950's civil rights movement in the united states. because racist speech was allowed it made civil rights leaders incredibly effective. they could point out the racist injustice right when it happened and confront the issue head on. historically the exact opposite is true. its when you censor racist speech that you force people to become violent to express their terrible views. imagine what the KKK would do if they were censored by the government. [QUOTE=deltasquid;40204233]What about workplace bullying, then? Should that be allowed on the base of racism? They're just words, speech as one would say, but they are just as harmful as physical attacks[/QUOTE] workplace is a workplace, we are talking about government censorship. if you want your freedom of speech you can quit your job.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;40204244]The instinct of many people is to not invoke conflict and controversy. When people get violent and move in force as these movements have, they resist the temptation to speak out for fear of their own safety. It may be far more sensible to speak up for future generations, but it happens. [/QUOTE] ok but im not arguing about violence so i dont see the relevancy. a violent group is going to be illegal and attacked by the public authority regardless of whether or not their speech is censored. [QUOTE=gerbe1;40204244]Violent racist movements have restricted freedom of speech before.[/QUOTE] so have speech laws.

[QUOTE=ksenior;40203367]No where does it say in either the Australian constitution or Australia law that we have freedom of speech. Our Supreme court however says it's "implied"[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=fruxodaily;40203431]One of the Australian courts ruled that freedom of speech is implied within the Australian Constitution[/QUOTE] The implied right isn't actually to freedom of speech, rather freedom of political communication. The freedom afforded by the Constitution is limited to speech regarding politics. I honestly don't think that serious racism should be protected by law - there is simply no need for it in Australia, and thus no need for freedom of speech to be enshrined in the Constitution or other legislation. The reasonable person test is protection afforded by anti-discrimination legislation is enough. Such a view might not (somewhat understandably) be palatable to an American, but Australian's hold pretty different views on such issues.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40203979]bahahahah yeah man i mean being allowed to openly say what you want without reprisal from the government is super lame[/QUOTE] you'd only have a problem if you were saying horrible shit, in which case you deserve reprisal

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204166]because the left-wing cause; or at least what i thought i signed up for when i called myself a left-winger to align myself against conservative status quo upholders; is freedom for all individuals to express themselves without the intervention of a public authority who decides what everyone else is supposed to do. this is the left-wing cause of rosa luxemburg, orwell, and russell (OMG EUROPEANS). you know, the classics. [/QUOTE] Defending the freedom of racists at the expense of those they are taking the rights from, 1 race riot at a time