Active Now

Malizz
Spunky
Discussion » Questions » Legal » What is your thoughts on Australia no longer having freedom of speech?
beancrisp

What is your thoughts on Australia no longer having freedom of speech?

Here is the proof. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/act-parliament-passes-religious-vilification-laws-20160804-gqlagu.html FACT: Laws against vilifying individuals or groups go against freedom of speech as vilification is not the same thing as a threat or incitement of violence.  

Posted - November 12, 2016
Tags : None

Responses


  • 17614
    I have none.  Australia's laws are Australia's business.
      November 13, 2016 12:34 AM MST
    0

  • 46117
    Well if I were studying Australian law I would care.  I do not have a clue what this would mean.  I'm pretty sure most Aussies will tell you that they are very loquacious and like to talk up a storm. 



    This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at November 13, 2016 12:49 AM MST
      November 13, 2016 12:48 AM MST
    0

  • 85

    I am not a native English speaker but I am sure, there is something wrong with your question. Anyway, it’s a general question without restrictions, so these are my thoughts.

    A cursory glance at the article in the Canberra Times indicates that you seem to confuse two separate, arguably totally unrelated issues.

    If you are satisfied that “freedom of speech” should allow you to discriminate, abuse, display hatred, intolerance and offensive behaviour to the point of whipping up violence towards others, then one could understand your objection.

    However, evidence of serious psychological disorders could hardly be in dispute.

    What exactly do you think is wrong with the following paragraph taken from the article?

    Quote: Thursday's changes to the Discrimination Act also added disability to the list, so it is now illegal to vilify someone because of disability, religion, race, sexuality, gender identity, and HIV/AIDS status. Vilification can include social media posts, actions in a workplace and wearing clothes, signs or flags that would incite hatred, contempt, ridicule or revulsion. Unquote
      November 13, 2016 3:19 AM MST
    1

  • 193
    I am for laws against discrimination and threatening others, but laws against vilification are against freedom of speech. Do you think it should be illegal for someone to publicly state that they think that Islam is a evil cult whose goal is to make non Muslims second class citizens? This post was edited by beancrisp at November 13, 2016 5:46 AM MST
      November 13, 2016 5:30 AM MST
    0

  • 193
    I have a problem with the paragraph because discrimination and vilification do not mean the same thing.   
      November 13, 2016 5:50 AM MST
    0

  • 85

    Although discrimination may not be the same as vilification, it is nevertheless a natural consequence thereof.

    What is the difference I ask you, between “threatening others” and “vilification”?

    I realise that this is easily taken out of context due to the difficulties of expressing such issues so, allow me to start again with some definitions for “vilification”.

    1-      Abusive and disparaging speech or writing

    2-      defamatory utterances

    3-      slanderous and abusive statements against

    4-      attacks on the character of a person or thing with strong or abusive criticism

    5-      to smear, condemn or discredit someone in order to damage their reputation

    6-      etc. etc

    Does that sound like threatening behaviour? It does to me!

    So let me ask you this.
    Are you perfectly happy to vilify someone because of disability, religion, race, sexuality, gender identity, and HIV/AIDS status or post hateful messages or images on social media, or act in the workplace by wearing clothes, signs or flags that would incite hatred, contempt, ridicule or revulsion towards a group?

    I dare say that you would not be happy because you agreed that discrimination and threatening others should be against the law.

    Finally, I stick with my original thought that your government is not taking anything away from you with those changes to the Discrimination Act.

    Edit:
    No, I do not believe that it should be against the law for someone to publicly state that they think Islam is an evil cult whose goal is to make non Muslims second class citizens as long as it remains just a statement of a personally held view.
    However, preaching to incite violence against any religion or group of people should and is illegal in many countries.
    Trump has insulted women and minority groups, he's incited hatred against Islam, yet he simply denies everything and to top it all, he is even elected to become the most powerful man on Earth.
    That doesn't sound real somehow! Should he not be prosecuted, locked up and keys thrown away?
     This post was edited by Grasshopper at November 15, 2016 9:24 AM MST
      November 14, 2016 1:02 PM MST
    1

  • 85
    Sorry ol' bean, got carried away during my last edit.
      November 15, 2016 8:55 AM MST
    0