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

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;40204108]Limiting free speech ensures racism isn't easily spread. It does make people less racist.[/QUOTE] Not really. If both my parents were poor and unemployed and blamed it on dirty fuckin' niggers stealing their god damn jobs because they'll work for less, then yeah, I'd grow up to be racist, and the government (hopefully) can't limit what is said within my household's four walls. Now I'm racist because my parents were racist and taught me racism, I might go out and find some friends despite being racist. One or two of these friends might be young and not very bright, and certainly haven't ever really thought about race, so when I tell them how dirty niggers are makin' my parents poor, then bring up a few anecdotal stories and maybe a crime rate or two I've pulled out my ass, they're gonna nod and maybe even go "Hey, he has a point. Maybe dirty niggers [I]ARE[/I] the reason the world sucks." And then suddenly, I'm racist, my parents are racist, and my friends are racist. Bam, we've organized racism again, without ever going out in public to cry about race.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;40204249]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. [/QUOTE] then we disagree very strongly on what is unethical. i dont want the government to decide speech can be ruled ethical or unethical. i dont want them to have that power. governments in europe have censored left-wing speech using those kinds of laws. [QUOTE=deltasquid;40204249]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" ?[/QUOTE] thats what a police force is for. you dont need a government to have a police force. a group of individuals can decide to have their own police force. my point is being lost here; individuals decide what is wrong or right, not governments. once the government starts deciding things for individuals it stops serving the people. thats also a VERY anti-left idea.

[QUOTE=McGii;40204280]Defending the freedom of racists at the expense of those they are taking the rights from, 1 race riot at a time[/QUOTE] That's really not how it works

[QUOTE=Rusty100;40204277]you'd only have a problem if you were saying horrible shit, in which case you deserve reprisal[/QUOTE] who are you to decide what is horrible shit or not if australians thought that communism was horrible shit (im sure many of them do) do you think they deserve reprisal as well?

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204286]then we disagree very strongly on what is unethical. i dont want the government to decide speech can be ruled ethical or unethical. i dont want them to have that power. governments in europe have censored left-wing speech using those kinds of laws. thats what a police force is for. you dont need a government to have a police force. a group of individuals can decide to have their own police force. my point is being lost here; individuals decide what is wrong or right, not governments. once the government starts deciding things for individuals it stops serving the people. thats also a VERY anti-left idea.[/QUOTE] What the fuck? Do you even know what a democracy is? The government IS the people (at least in a proper democracy), and having a government where the majority of people is against racism protects minorities a hell of a lot better than just letting the masses in backwater towns do as they please and organise vigilante bands.

[QUOTE=McGii;40204280]Defending the freedom of racists at the expense of those they are taking the rights from, 1 race riot at a time[/QUOTE] im defending the freedom of everyone. the rights of the white racist fuckface is just as important as the rights of the black eco-communist; they are both minorities.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204271]so have speech laws.[/QUOTE] You are correct. The reason the latter occurred was because the laws were in the extreme. The reason the former was because they were too lax. A balance can be found and that balance involves [I]some[/I] form of law restricting extreme expressions of baseless opinion. [QUOTE=thisispain;40204271]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] I suppose I was speaking in the extreme. I don't think total freedom of speech (complete non-regulation) can be argued for when not everyone is a reasonable person. Even the EU constitution permits governments to impose some restrictions.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204292]who are you to decide what is horrible shit or not if australians thought that communism was horrible shit (im sure many of them do) do you think they deserve reprisal as well?[/QUOTE] Except communism is a form of economy and weighing the pros and contras of it doesn't negatively affect people

[QUOTE=deltasquid;40204304]Except communism is a form of economy and weighing the pros and contras of it doesn't negatively affect people[/QUOTE] Socialism is a form of economy. Communism is a full political system, the whole package, dictating the structure of government and all.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;40204298]What the fuck? Do you even know what a democracy is?[/QUOTE] a whut

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204300]im defending the freedom of everyone. the rights of the white racist fuckface is just as important as the rights of the black eco-communist; they are both minorities.[/QUOTE] But the black eco-communist would already have their views and communications protected under other assorted laws and rights. The person communicating racist crap would not. Why should their rights equal when one of them has no objective but for only abusing or detriment of others?

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204286]my point is being lost here; individuals decide what is wrong or right, not governments. once the government starts deciding things for individuals it stops serving the people.[/QUOTE] Then in most cases the majority of the people support reasonable restrictions. Therefore in most cases a free market of speech freedom is never accepted by the people and never accepted by the government.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204271] so have speech laws.[/QUOTE] You mean like a law that punishes racism? [QUOTE=thisispain;40204300]im defending the freedom of everyone. the rights of the white racist fuckface is just as important as the rights of the black eco-communist; they are both minorities.[/QUOTE] So the right of the white racist to be racist and impose restrictions on the black mans rights are equally as important as the black mans right to freedom and the ability to be in public without being insulted for his race. Can you see how this doesn't work? And no, white racists are the vaaaast majority in Australia. See: Anything related to refugees or Aboriginals.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;40204315]But the black eco-communist would already have their views and communications protected under other assorted laws and rights. The person communicating racist crap would not. Why are their rights equal when one of them is chucking out only abuse?[/QUOTE] Because it is subjective. To the racist fuck, his racism is justified and a political opinion, not just biggotry.

[QUOTE=Riller;40204324]Because it is subjective. To the racist fuck, his racism is justified and a political opinion, not just biggotry.[/QUOTE] That's fine. If they believe that their racist communications and ideas have any political relevance to Australians, they can have their time in court to prove that they do. Racist speech does not need protection - it serves no valuable purpose and thus should not be protected.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;40204304]Except communism is a form of economy and weighing the pros and contras of it doesn't negatively affect people[/QUOTE] that doesnt really answer my question marxists believe in the complete annihilation of capitalist structures in order to liberate the worker. do they deserve reprisal?

[QUOTE=DogGunn;40204333]That's fine. If they believe that their racist communications and ideas have any political relevance to Australians, they can have their time in court to prove that they do. Racist speech does not need protection - it serves no valuable purpose and thus should not be protected.[/QUOTE] I believe in freedom of thought and opinion. I don't think racism is relevant or an actual political idea, but [I]some[/I] people do, and they should have their freedom to do so, no matter how stupid it is. I'd be pissed as fuck if the government decided that some political idea I follow was deemed offensive and banned.

hitler

[QUOTE=DogGunn;40204315] Why should their rights equal when one of them has no objective but for only abusing or detriment of others?[/QUOTE] because free speech doesnt have anything to do with an objective. do you see anything about an objective in the EU free speech charter? [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=McGii;40204321] So the right of the white racist to be racist and impose restrictions on the black mans rights are equally as important as the black mans right to freedom and the ability to be in public without being insulted for his race. Can you see how this doesn't work? And no, white racists are the vaaaast majority in Australia. See: Anything related to refugees or Aboriginals.[/QUOTE] well then i fully support any attempt by an australian left to emancipate minorities from that kind of terrible shit but a law restricting speech is a rollback and a slap to the face to all of those minorities and left-wing groups who worked so hard to obtain it. it wasnt that long ago that the british government censored irish republican thought

[QUOTE=Riller;40204351]I believe in freedom of thought and opinion. I don't think racism is relevant or an actual political idea, but [I]some[/I] people do, and they should have their freedom to do so, no matter how stupid it is. I'd be pissed as fuck if the government decided that some political idea I follow was deemed offensive and banned.[/QUOTE] That's fine if they do, and that's a shame if the Government censors them - but there's probably a reason behind it doing so. Overall, Australian's seem to have much more faith in their Government not abusing their powers - if they didn't, we would've seen legislated protection of speech by now. We've simply seen no need to do that. [QUOTE=thisispain;40204355]because free speech doesnt have anything to do with an objective. do you see anything about an objective in the EU free speech charter?[/QUOTE] Of course free speech has to do with objective. In every country, there are limitations on speech regardless... i.e. you can't just go round defaming someone. Still, until you realise that Australia has different values and different laws, then you will be stuck thinking that the proposed anti-discrimination laws are bad.

[QUOTE=McGii;40204321]You mean like a law that punishes racism? So the right of the white racist to be racist and impose restrictions on the black mans rights are equally as important as the black mans right to freedom and the ability to be in public without being insulted for his race. Can you see how this doesn't work? And no, white racists are the vaaaast majority in Australia. See: Anything related to refugees or Aboriginals.[/QUOTE] I'm really bad at arguing these things but okay so I'm Australian and I'm just going to put this out there that thisispain is totally right and there's no specific context in Australia that is going to make you win this argument - so don't pull that card. You don't think there's a large amount of white racists in America? And what evidence do you have that allows you to make a sweeping generalisation about the average white person's view on race in Australia? It is the right of the white racist bigot to express his opinion just as much as it is the minority. Thus, restricting their freedom of speech is not only completely ineffective, but also democratically questionable. Literally the only advantage of racists being banned from expressing their views is that you don't have to hear it. What advantage does it have for victims of racial discrimination in the long term? I'm sure you'll find that the larger issue for people who are victims of racial discrimination isn't that they've been subject to the views - rather that such outdated views exist in the first place. Banning racist views would allow racism to fester and grow in this country because it would restrict the possibility of educating and changing such opinions. Basically the equivalent of sweeping them under a rug and saying "Look, everything's okay now because noone says anything bad!". It could actually lead to an increased likelihood of things escalating to violence, because there will be no democratic outlet to express their views. Do people here honestly think that just suddenly because people won't be allowed to say they don't like black people means that he'll be able to walk out onto the street and say that he's living in a loving world that treats all races equally? Get real [QUOTE=DogGunn;40204388]Of course free speech has to do with objective. In every country, there are limitations on speech regardless... i.e. you can't just go round defaming someone. Still, until you realise that Australia has different values and different laws, then you will be stuck thinking that the proposed anti-discrimination laws are bad.[/QUOTE] The fact that someone is not Australian in a case related to Australia is not something you can call upon as if its an automatic trump card Freedom of speech is a universal concept

[QUOTE=DogGunn;40204388] Of course free speech has to do with objective. [/QUOTE] show me where the EU free speech charter or any free speech charter talks about objective. [QUOTE=DogGunn;40204388]Still, until the you realise that Australia has different values and different laws, then you will be stuck thinking that the proposed anti-discrimination laws are bad.[/QUOTE] i realise it just fine, i just think youre worse off because you dont share europes painful history for freedom of speech somehow i dont think youd argue the same thing for china or russia. they have different values and different laws too. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=killerteacup;40204391]I'm really bad at arguing these things but okay so I'm Australian and I'm just going to put this out there that thisispain is totally right[/QUOTE] wow its like australians have different opinions on stuff and dont need a government to change their opinions for them

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204399] wow its like australians have different opinions on stuff and dont need a government to change their opinions for them[/QUOTE] we are actually a race of bogan robots that's why everyone wants to ban racism because then it'll be removed from our source code and we will no longer be able to harbour racist thoughts

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204399]show me where the EU free speech charter or any free speech charter talks about objective.[/QUOTE] What is your point? Such limitations are not necessarily going to be contained in text. Regardless, if you're referring to Article 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, it quite clearly provides limitations. Such anti-discrimination laws in Australia are being proposed to prevent further crime, particularly violence - thus it would still be compatible with the charter. Some might even argue that it provides limitations depending on the laws objective, and thus the speech's objective. [QUOTE=thisispain;40204399]i realise it just fine, i just think youre worse off because you dont share europes painful history for freedom of speech[/QUOTE] When the need arises, the laws will be changed. [QUOTE=thisispain;40204399]somehow i dont think youd argue the same thing for china or russia. they have different values and different laws too.[/QUOTE] Of course I wouldn't - but this isn't China or Russia.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204399]show me where the EU free speech charter or any free speech charter talks about objective.[/QUOTE] You refer to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights? Section 2 of that article provides what you seek: [QUOTE]"The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."[/QUOTE] If the objective of certain statements of speech is deemed to damage the "...interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety..." etc. suggests that it definitely does have to do with objective.

[QUOTE=killerteacup;40204391]The fact that someone is not Australian in a case related to Australia is not something you can call upon as if its an automatic trump card Freedom of speech is a universal concept[/QUOTE] Of course it's relevant - and while freedom of speech is a universal concept, it's application is quite clearly different amongst the many countries of the world. Just because one country might have limitless freedom of speech, doesn't mean that another country's limited stance on the concept is wrong.

[QUOTE=killerteacup;40204417]we are actually a race of bogan robots[/QUOTE] australia is a fascinating place like most english people i reckon this was my first exposure to aussieland [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV3tfauw3vQ[/media] [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=gerbe1;40204435]You refer to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights? Section 2 of that article provides what you seek: If the objective of certain statements of speech is deemed to damage the "...interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety..." etc. suggests that it definitely does have to do with objective.[/QUOTE] no that has to do with the consequence, not the objective. those limitations are there because they deem some speech to have negative consequence, it doesnt say that some speech is not worth protecting because the objective isnt good its an important distinction [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DogGunn;40204430] Of course I wouldn't - but this isn't China or Russia.[/QUOTE] do you support anti-blasphemy laws?

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204455]no that has to do with the consequence, not the objective. those limitations are there because they deem some speech to have negative consequence, it doesnt say that some speech is not worth protecting because the objective isnt good its an important distinction[/QUOTE] What's the difference? Why would speech that has negative consequences, like racist speech, be worth protecting? The limitations allows legislation to impede on the right to freedom of speech if there is a social need to do so. Anti-discrimination may have such a need. It's the anti-discrimination laws that may dictate if the objective of the speech is relevant or not. [QUOTE=thisispain;40204455]do you support anti-blasphemy laws?[/QUOTE] Nope - but anti-discrimination laws are not anti-blasphemy laws.

Believe it or not, I only saw that sketch the other day [QUOTE=DogGunn;40204446]Of course it's relevant - and while freedom of speech is a universal concept, it's application is quite clearly different amongst the many countries of the world. Just because one country might have limitless freedom of speech, doesn't mean that another country's limited stance on the concept is wrong.[/QUOTE] my point is that you can't say "I'm more right because I'm Australian and you're not". It's illogical and a poor sort of response to any form of argument. Furthermore a "limited stance" on the concept is not in any way an application of freedom of speech. How can you have limited freedom of speech which pretty much implies that people's freedom to speak is being limited and restricted and is thus not freedom of speech That, and silencing the rights of individuals in Australia to express their views, however racist, is not an 'application' of freedom of speech, its pretty much in direct opposition to it [QUOTE=DogGunn;40204487]What's the difference? Why would speech that has negative consequences, like racist speech, be worth protecting? [/QUOTE] Because banning racist speech stands the possibility of creating more negative consequences than currently exist it is a short term solution to a long term problem and will solve nothing

[QUOTE=DogGunn;40204487]What's the difference? Why would speech that has negative consequences, like racist speech, be worth protecting?[/QUOTE] i find the idea that a government should protect certain speech to be incredibly insulting because it means that the government is deciding what is valuable speech or not. on what basis do you say that racist speech is not valuable? the EU charter by precedent does not agree because it upheld and defended racist speech. [QUOTE=DogGunn;40204487]Nope - but anti-discrimination laws are not anti-blasphemy laws.[/QUOTE] whats the difference? religious discrimination is just as serious as racial discrimination.