Morrison says amending 18c will not create one job!

You cannot tell me that an Aboriginal man calling someone a coon will be subject to successful legal action at the same rate as a white man. This is what happens when you start penalizing speech based on identity politics and the offense taken of the individual: nonsense critical race theory racism = prejudice + power seeps in.

Huh, okay, well then perhaps you could address my rather exhaustive 300 word, 8 point position from the previous post.

I have nothing to do with any of that. I tend to agree with classical liberals like Mill on freedom of speech. This predates the internet by a dozen decades.

I do not have a nonsensical fear of government, I have a well-articulated fear of government repression of liberties, one which I put to you in the previous post and which you seem to have no interest in addressing.

Of course it is vague. Read the text:

"It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people"

Offense is taken. You choose to take offense. Offense is a perspective and can be taken by anyone at anything for any variety of reasons. We have reached the definition of vagueness.

I agree that the QUT students case is often abused by xenophobic right wingers who are involved in this class war with SJW leftists. They don't much care about the fact that these students were not found to be in violation.

It is, however, a valid example of how just the process of defending from an 18c claim is itself often worse than the penalty if found culpable. It shows how a very low bar for launching a claim, combined with a human rights commission with an agenda, can wreck innocent people and stifle dissent even when it's not all that likely to result in a claim against you.

No, but this is not relevant.

Would it be any consolation if those exercising their right to protest could only be sued by those they are protesting, rather than charged in a criminal court? No, because your right to protest would still be being violated.

I emphatically disagree, but am getting tired of stating my position without response so I will just refer you to the above.

You are not injured in any way by the unkind words of others. Counter harsh words by being the better man and walking away, or wrecking them with your superior position.

These are not fighting words we are talking about, this is the simple act of causing offense or insult. To suggest that such words are not protected by the freedom of speech is absurd, only such words need protection.

As shown to the top right of my post, I am Australian.

I agree, the civil war was an unnecessary tragedy, but that is a discussion for another thread.

 

Sorry steady I'm using a phone to respond, which Takes considerable effort for me to address every point directly. Hopefully this works......I'm tired already.

Honestly say I'd be happy to change my position if can be convinced!

Context is everything, that's all I can say. If another white man called me white trash, I would just think he was an idiot. If a black man called me white trash, I'd consider him an idiot. Would I take offense? Well no, because my race and colour of my skin has never restricted me from achieving or doing what I desire not alone require.

I considered your extensive post and points Steady and felt I had addressed. Your points were not written in vein.

I will have to read about him, but what I was suggesting was that anything to do with free speech is promotion of unfettered!

I don't and certainly not in a democratic system. It is all about political leanings. Just because the conservatives are in power doesn't mean I've lost my freedom, I just believe that my fellow citizens got it wrong. I say this in terms of current conservative politics by the way.

Again, I'll have to go back and read but think I addressed indirectly and not in this format!

I understand that you can decide to take offense but I'm sure if you were fat and someone reminded you of that everyday, calling you a fat lazy bastard even though you may have a medical issue and were denied jobs etc etc, it has to have a very personal impact on your self esteem and value as a human being.
No, I'm not fat by the way but have been quite fit most of my life. I do have empathy and not just wrapped up in my own little world of privileges to be frank Steady.

Yeah I think both sides can go to extremes but that's clearly not what I am about.

No, you can protest, question, appeal or query, that is not the issue. It is about promoting civility. Nasty games of name calling and irrationality don't have to be played out to raise an issue. This is the whole point.

Again, I felt I'd addressed your points and when I gain access to a computer I will attempt to if required.

You are injured, it doesn't have to be physical as per point above. We are human beings not bloody robots without emotions. Again, if you have no choice in who you are that is.

Civil war is not a discussion for another thread it is totally appropriate for this discussion. We have to promote civility not hostility and that is what 18c does in my mind!

 

Just getting back regarding Mills. Footy is a distraction : ) . Look as far as I can see from what he infers is everything is fair game as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. I totally agree and before citing mills writings tended to believe that if someone wanted to consume alcohol to their own demise then that's their prerogative. It is when it becomes harmful to others we make restrictions.

I still think that certain speech in contexts is more harmful than good. In my sensible manner outside an Internet forum I love discussion and constantly pose questions rather than make contentious statements. I'll certainly be researching more to see if I can make sense of the whole unfettered freedom of speech notion.

To be honest I've certainly changed my position on anthropogenic climate change after much discussion on this forum.

 

Hmmm,
we should deepen that conversation in a new thread, it is also something which crosses my mind constantly.
95% of the worlds leading scientists wrong?
So when we stop burning fossils, the world becomes warmer?
Very very hard to believe, and even harder to understand....
Cheers mate, have a great Saturday

 

More so from a position of pro anthropogenic climate change to one that has a few doubts mankinds contribution of extent thereof. I think Dennis Tate's articles have some merit and although that is not the reason I have reconsidered my position it does raise a need for further questioning. Happy to read and contribute where I can on another thread.