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

[QUOTE=killerteacup;40204492]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.[/quote] And yet that wasn't my argument. Rather, if you're not willing to accept that Australian's may have different values or views than that of an American, or European etc, then whatever. [QUOTE=killerteacup;40204492]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[/quote] People's freedom to speak and give information is limited and will be limited for however long we have civilised society. You cannot lie and gain advantage... you cannot defame someone... you cannot propagate your own religious agendas in schools... you cannot falsify documents... etc. There are many ways to apply freedom of speech, and some country's have clearly taken a more conservative approach, such as the US. Australia has not. [QUOTE=killerteacup;40204492]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] It won't be censoring racists. It will be punishing people that are racist with the objective to offend, hurt or deter someone etc.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;40204517]There are many ways to apply freedom of speech, and some country's have clearly taken a more conservative approach, such as the US.[/QUOTE] no the US is more LIBERAL, not more conservative. more restrictions is not liberal, its the anti-thesis of the word.

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204498]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.[/quote] They shouldn't - and that's why if anti-discrimination laws are introduced, a group of peers from the community will be used to determine if they are guilty of an offense or not. [QUOTE=thisispain;40204498]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] Good for the EU. Even if anti-discrimination laws were extended in Australia, it won't necessarily be illegal to be racist - rather only if a person is being racist in certain situations. [QUOTE=thisispain;40204498]whats the difference? religious discrimination is just as serious as racial discrimination.[/QUOTE] The difference is one is racist... the other is not. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;40204521]no the US is more LIBERAL, not more conservative. more restrictions is not liberal, its the anti-thesis of the word.[/QUOTE] Fine, if you want to be pedantic - but the application of freedom of speech takes a more traditional (conservative) stance. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] It's been fun, but I'm out. This discussion could go on for ages.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;40204529]a group of peers from the community will be used to determine if they are guilty of an offense or not.[/QUOTE] who are these "group of peers" and what gives them the right to tell the entire country what they should be allowed to say? [QUOTE=DogGunn;40204529]Good for the EU. Even if anti-discrimination laws were extended in Australia, it won't necessarily be illegal to be racist - rather only if a person is being racist in certain situations.[/QUOTE] so freedom of speech is situational? is there some kind of device that can tell me when the government deems the situation to be not ok for racism? [QUOTE=DogGunn;40204529]The difference is one is racist... the other is not.[/QUOTE] so its fine to discriminate against muslims? [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DogGunn;40204529] Fine, if you want to be pedantic - but the application of freedom of speech takes a more traditional (conservative) stance.[/QUOTE] thats not being pedantic thats what the fucking word means [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DogGunn;40204529] It's been fun, but I'm out. This discussion could go on for ages.[/QUOTE] its been going on for 400 years!!!

[QUOTE=Riller;40204309]Socialism is a form of economy. Communism is a full political system, the whole package, dictating the structure of government and all.[/QUOTE] Communism is pretty much just revolutionary socialism.

[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] Its not that it doesn't need protection, its that it strips others of their rights to not be verbally assaulted by shithead racists for the extreme crime of existing. [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 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] This is pain himself said that where he is from racists are a minority Racist speech impacts on the victims rights. It has a measurable effect on mental health. Racism is not a right to be protected being subjected to racism is a terrible thing and not something you can hand wave away as "well their problem is being subjected to it not that is exists". What sort of mental hoops do you have to go through to say that and not see that racism is racism. Punishing people for racist speech sends a pretty clear message that racism is a bad thing and not acceptable. More violence? How would that even work? Why are we even giving racists the time of day let alone allowing them to oppress and steal the rights of others. [quote]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] Strawubermensch. Noone is saying this

[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] the issue at hand is just racism, for which there should be a zero tolerance policy. how can you disagree with that [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] we ALREADY don't have an actual freedom of speech, just an 'implied one', which i don't think at all stops a crack down on racism. nothing changes, we're not getting rid of freedom of speech, since we never really had it in the first place, we're just trying to lower racism. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] americans always thinkin they know best pshh

[QUOTE=thisispain;40204498]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. whats the difference? religious discrimination is just as serious as racial discrimination.[/QUOTE] Racism is far far more serious than blasphemy, you choose your religion not your race. And if you are discriminated on for your religion, Australian law covers that too. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] This is pain you still haven't answered how the rights of the racist to violate and advocate the stripping of another mans rights is more important than that mans right to live his life without an asshole abusing him for his race. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;40204543] so its fine to discriminate against muslims? [/QUOTE] Noone is saying this Talk about shifting the goalposts

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;40203185]Freedom of speech should cover everything as long as it can't hurt anyone physically.[/QUOTE] Implying physical pain is somehow more important than mental pain. Great job people, this isn't the 1900's, complete freedom of speech is a harm to society.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;40203185]Freedom of speech should cover everything as long as it can't hurt anyone physically.[/QUOTE] Depression into suicide, GG

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;40204108]Limiting free speech ensures racism isn't easily spread. It does make people less racist.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/ironic-effects-of-anti-prejudice-messages.html[/url] Good thing no studies were ever done about that. [QUOTE=McGii;40204905]Depression into suicide, GG[/QUOTE] Then why do white males have the highest rate of suicide in the U.S.?

Is a man not entitle to the sweat of his own opinion? Aren't we suppose to root out racism? If we allow racism in the name of freedom, then what are we to say if others call us assholes? Did the Nazi said anything about freedom of speech when they allowed themselves to be racist? Freedom means, I have the right to voice my opinion. Freedom does not mean "I have the right to insult your family, your race, your religion, your gender and your culture." That is an abuse of freedom and rights

[QUOTE=BCell;40205497]Is a man not entitle to the sweat of his own opinion? Aren't we suppose to root out racism? If we allow racism in the name of freedom, then what are we to say if others call us assholes? Did the Nazi said anything about freedom of speech when they allowed themselves to be racist? Freedom means, I have the right to voice my opinion. Freedom does not mean "I have the right to insult your family, your race, your religion, your gender and your culture." That is an abuse of freedom and rights[/QUOTE] And racism isn't even valid basis for an opinion either, so if you have racist thoughts keep them to yourself.

(User was permabanned for this post (""whatsup nigga"" - NSW Police Force))

No, goddamnit, I want true freedom of speech, and I don't care about your or anyone else's feelings, because once the law begins to protect someone's feelings, the law also begins degrading freedom of speech. Racism is dangerous only when someone actually hurts and/or kills people of other races. Otherwise, it's almost completely harmless, and just a small price to pay for freedom

Restrict freedom of speech.

american population: let's do nothing, it will sort itself out - since forever. [editline]9th April 2013[/editline] how about no, let's actually try to stop something. even if it doesn't work, it's not an excuse for inaction.

[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] But telling that person to go fuck himself with a lobster, THAT's freedom of speech, and that adds some value to society. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;40204552]Communism is pretty much just revolutionary socialism.[/QUOTE] Socialism is a type of policy. We have it to a degree here in denmark, means i pay more taxes, but that the police and the firemen, the judges etc, kinda work for me, e/g they do not really answer to the government or any for-profit organisation, they answer to the people through a diplomatic commune, thus if they do not do their job properly, they will get pelted by the legislative process, and are by that standard likely to be proffesionals. Communism is somewhat similar to socialism, but bastardised in the sense that the administrative powers are centered, quite paradoxally, not in diplomatic communes, but in the communist party, wich is alot harder for an unsatisfied populace to change in any way. And in that sense, its a great system for dictators. Because if you hold sway over the party, you can do pretty much anything you want.

the feminazis are coming to take my free speech :tinfoil:

Freedom of speech means just that. Once you start putting qualifiers on it (must contribute to society lol, must not be racist, must not be...)- then you no longer have freedom of speech. Who gets to decide what can and can not be said? Who gets to decide if it "contributes to society"? Show me this person/ group of people- and I'll show you a group that can be corrupted. Soon anything said that offends them would be enough for a prison term. Stop pretending everyone needs protected from words. The only way words can hurt you is if I carve them on lumber and smack you with it. (I mean physical hurt) If you think your emotions need protecting then go ahead and see a mental health specialist. If you're so easily moved to violent action by words you should seek help.

Gotta drop the quote that I live by, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." - [I]Who the fuck said this again[/I]

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;40208228]Freedom of speech means just that. Once you start putting qualifiers on it (must contribute to society lol, must not be racist, must not be...)- then you no longer have freedom of speech. Who gets to decide what can and can not be said? Who gets to decide if it "contributes to society"? Show me this person/ group of people- and I'll show you a group that can be corrupted. Soon anything said that offends them would be enough for a prison term. Stop pretending everyone needs protected from words. The only way words can hurt you is if I carve them on lumber and smack you with it. (I mean physical hurt) If you think your emotions need protecting then go ahead and see a mental health specialist. If you're so easily moved to violent action by words you should seek help.[/QUOTE] The thing that decide what can or cannot be said is a pretty specific definition of what racism is, what's wrong with that? And it's not about protecting people's feelings, it's not about fighting words on a personal insult level. It's about protecting society and fighting discrimination based on things that are irrelevant at every imaginable level. It's not about restricting freedom of speech, pretty much ever european country that already does this proves that.

[QUOTE=Don Ochs;40208392]The thing that decide what can or cannot be said is a pretty specific definition of what racism is, what's wrong with that? And it's not about protecting people's feelings, it's not about fighting words on a personal insult level. It's about protecting society and fighting discrimination based on things that are irrelevant at every imaginable level. It's not about restricting freedom of speech, pretty much ever european country that already does this proves that.[/QUOTE] Give me your specific definition of racism and a transcript of everything you've said or wrote in the last week and ill show you how easy it is to twist your words (take them out of context) and put you in violation of your proposed law. Why do you insist "society" needs protected from words? Racism without action is harmless. Fighting discrimination? It's already being done- laws on the books and everything. Pretty much every other European country does what you suggest? Did you just give me an argument equivalent of "but mom, all the other kids do it"? Aside from that bit of funny why exactly would I want America to be more like those other countries? This is entirely about restricting freedom of speech. It boils down to this- you personally find some thoughts expressed by words offensive, and you want to find some rational to prevent them from being said.

[QUOTE=iTrolol;40208340]Gotta drop the quote that I live by, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." - [I]Who the fuck said this again[/I][/QUOTE] I don't agree with you, but I'm defending to death my right to criticize you.

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;40208650]Give me your specific definition of racism and a transcript of everything you've said or wrote in the last week and ill show you how easy it is to twist your words (take them out of context) and put you in violation of your proposed law. Why do you insist "society" needs protected from words? Racism without action is harmless. Fighting discrimination? It's already being done- laws on the books and everything. Pretty much every other European country does what you suggest? Did you just give me an argument equivalent of "but mom, all the other kids do it"? Aside from that bit of funny why exactly would I want America to be more like those other countries? This is entirely about restricting freedom of speech. It boils down to this- you personally find some thoughts expressed by words offensive, and you want to find some rational to prevent them from being said.[/QUOTE] This isn't about America, it's about Australia.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40208691]I don't agree with you, but I'm defending to death my right to criticize you.[/QUOTE] In a sense, yeah. Imagine a world without people like Bill O'Reiley or Fox News, just imagine that for a second. Think how [B]BORING[/B] life would be without people spouting such stupid bigoted shit all the time. There would be nothing to make fun of.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;40208806]This isn't about America, it's about Australia.[/QUOTE] Same argument tbh, just replace the one name with the other as needed.

[QUOTE=iTrolol;40208340]Gotta drop the quote that I live by, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." - [I]Who the fuck said this again[/I][/QUOTE] This a quote to live by. There is also a similar quote from Assassin's Creed "Men must be free to do what they believe. It is not our right to punish one for thinking what they do, no matter how much we disagree."