How can free speech be deemed 'free' when it is limited by X, Y and Z? Does not the term 'freedom of expression' mean I can express myself freely - full stop? Otherwise we better be honest and put a 'conditional' before the 'free' part.
Once we start legislating limitations and conditions on a freedom, it ain't a freedom no more. Only when you can say what you think is right, no matter whether it upsets me, we still enjoy freedom of speech in our society. If in turn I think you have been telling malicious lies, I can still sue you for defamation. For this we need no Orwellian blasphemy laws.
But if my conditional freedom of expression finds its limitation when someone in earshot can drag me before a tribunal by claiming that my words raised bad feelings in him - where does it stop? How will His Honour establish beyond reasonable doubt whether I spoke those inciting words in good faith?
In the 1960s one could stand in front of Buckingham Palace and proclaim Prince Phillip is XYZ or on the steps of St Martins declar Jesus was a ZYX, some may have looked a bit miffed and given me a verbal, but that would have been the end of it.
But try similar today with Muhammed in front of Lakemba mosque or merely quote some passages from the Koran in a mixed congregation, and sure there will be a law that you have broken and some culture-enricher will be dragging you before the next thought crime tribunal.
Once we allow politicians to mess with this basic right of a free people, there is no end to it. This is why need need to get rid of the RRTA and similar unjust laws on a federal level soon.
Ralph - I completely agree with your criticism of the RRTA and laws like it in other jurisdictions, and have consistently spoken against that law for years. However my issue here is how to speak responsibly about sensitive topics. There are lots of good reasons for doing this, one being that you are more likely to get hearers! As it happens, careful speech can help give a measure of protection against bad laws, but that doesn't justify or excuse the laws even to the smallest degree.
I forgot to write: An immature comment could be just that: an immature comment. An opinion is nearly always legal even though you disagree. You should not fire of accusations e.g. about racism just to show how tolerant you are...
Great post Mark. And good advice about victims. If only more Australians would take the time to listen to the Southern Sudanese, they might learn a thing or two about Jihad and what is coming our way if we do not wake up soon.
Comments are moderated. Avoid profanities or foul language. Stay on topic. Avoid ad hominem attacks. Posts which violate these principles or are deemed offensive in any way will be deleted.
Isn't all this just another slippery slope?
ReplyDeleteHow can free speech be deemed 'free' when it is
limited by X, Y and Z? Does not the term 'freedom of
expression' mean I can express myself freely -
full stop? Otherwise we better be honest and put
a 'conditional' before the 'free' part.
Once we start legislating limitations and
conditions on a freedom, it ain't a freedom
no more. Only when you can say what you think
is right, no matter whether it upsets me,
we still enjoy freedom of speech in our society.
If in turn I think you have been telling
malicious lies, I can still sue you for
defamation. For this we need no
Orwellian blasphemy laws.
But if my conditional freedom of expression finds
its limitation when someone in earshot can drag me
before a tribunal by claiming that my words raised
bad feelings in him - where does it stop? How will
His Honour establish beyond reasonable doubt
whether I spoke those inciting words in good faith?
In the 1960s one could stand in front of
Buckingham Palace and proclaim Prince Phillip
is XYZ or on the steps of St Martins declar
Jesus was a ZYX, some may have looked a bit miffed and given me a verbal, but that would have been the end of it.
But try similar today with Muhammed in front of
Lakemba mosque or merely quote some passages
from the Koran in a mixed congregation, and sure
there will be a law that you have broken and some
culture-enricher will be dragging you before the
next thought crime tribunal.
Once we allow politicians to mess
with this basic right of a free people,
there is no end to it. This is why need need to
get rid of the RRTA and similar unjust laws on
a federal level soon.
Ralph - I completely agree with your criticism of the RRTA and laws like it in other jurisdictions, and have consistently spoken against that law for years. However my issue here is how to speak responsibly about sensitive topics. There are lots of good reasons for doing this, one being that you are more likely to get hearers! As it happens, careful speech can help give a measure of protection against bad laws, but that doesn't justify or excuse the laws even to the smallest degree.
ReplyDeleteI forgot to write:
ReplyDeleteAn immature comment could be just that: an immature comment. An opinion is nearly always legal even though you disagree. You should not fire of accusations e.g. about racism just to show how tolerant you are...
Great post Mark. And good advice about victims. If only more Australians would take the time to listen to the Southern Sudanese, they might learn a thing or two about Jihad and what is coming our way if we do not wake up soon.
ReplyDelete