Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Posts tagged 'Freedom of speech'

Tag Archives: Freedom of speech

Salivating luvvies

Luvvies of the left are probably pre-emptively foaming at the mouth already about this:

Before the election, Senator Brandis had promised to amend Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act so speech that is found to be offensive and insulting is no longer defined as racial vilification. He said yesterday he would be engaging in consultations about whether the amendment should go further and wind back other potential grounds for liability.

The changes would be in the first bill he presented to parliament, but because of the consultations it might not be introduced until early in the new year. He predicted the changes to the Racial Discrimination Act meant the government would be accused of condoning racist behaviour. He rejected that and said it was one of the initiatives aimed at supporting freedom of speech. “You cannot have a situation in a liberal democracy in which the expression of an opinion is rendered unlawful because somebody else . . . finds it offensive or insulting,” he said.

The decision to examine more extensive changes to Section 18C comes after several commentators, including Brisbane academic James Allan, had argued that the threat to free speech from the Bolt case meant the entire provision should be repealed.
– See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/business/attorney-general-george-brandiss-first-task-repeal-bolt-laws-in-name-of-free-speech/story-e6frg97x-1226755431421#sthash.yARBakmd.dpuf

We Grown-Ups are, on the other hand, quite relaxed and comfortable that our rights to offer even unpopular opinions are going to be protected from vexatious “shut up” litigation. Without the right to offer unpopular opinions our whole society is diminished and I for one will be happy to see the whole of 18C revoked.

Laters Comrades

Animated_Rolling_Eyeball-1

What would happen if Labor won the next election?

What would happen if Labor won the next election?

Would the debt disappear? Or would Labor continue selling our country
out to China on our over-extended credit card?

What would happen if Labor won the next election?

Would the immigration debacle solve itself or would Labor simply leave
the doors open, as they have already done, to all and sundry, sweetening
the deal with free housing and a dole that illegal immigrants don’t have
to work for. Visas on arrival and family reunion being the added
incentives.

What would happen if Labor won the next election?

Would our freedom of speech be further eroded, as it has been in 2012,
with judicial edicts prohibiting any mention of race in arguments about
entitlements and benefits?

Would our defence department be effectively wound down to nothing more
than a taxi service for queue-jumping refugees?

And would our young men and women continue to be sent to fight in Afghanistan, while this immoral government imports shiploads of fit, young Afghanis for the sole purpose of creating new welfare-dependent Labor voters.

What would happen if Labor won the next election?

We would have open borders, total censorship of the media, an astronomical debt and myriad useless, costly green schemes.

Beyond that I can’t imagine, because by then we will no longer be in control of our own country.

But that’s not going to happen, because Labor won’t win the next election.

Dear Iain Hall, Right Wing Troll – This is why you were banned

You are most amusing Zealots here and of course I am not going to “bleat” about free speech I can and do say what I please at my own blog and elsewhere and I will take great pleasure in critiquing what you write here at my own blog when my muse inspires me to do so.
To that end I respond to the points in turn:

Well, here is your answer:
a check of your comments history on this blog shows that you have been offensive since practically day 1. You were not polite, and were not on topic, you had a hatefilled right wing agenda, and this blog will not be used to further that agenda. The editor took the decision to ban you from commenting, not because of your repeated hatefilled comments, but she feels:

Talk about confirmation bias! This is a very good example of why so many minions of the left have such strong inner totalitarians

a) you are using this blog as a form of free-advertising – every time you get a comment posted you are promoting your own right wing hateful views

The” turn left ” blog is relatively new and I doubt that it gets that much traffic in fact I suspect that the humble Sandpit gets more hits than it does. That said my views may be expressed with some sarcasm but all of the venom spitting hate is coming from the anonymous author of this blog.

b) she doesn’t need to see your right wing hateful views popping up in the comments occasionally

I would think that anyone worth their salt in the discussion of politics should be willing to defend their opinions when challenged rather than diving for cover behind the moderation filter.

c) banning you should hopefully stop you from taking posts from this blog and reposting them on your own blog

Well that is going to be a big fail isn’t it?

This is a left wing blog, proudly left wing. There is nothing that says it must be either fair or balanced. Right wing hate will not be tolerated.

Well you succeed in being precisely what I have emboldened above

When you took a post from this site and reposted it on your own, that was a step too far. You can be abusive as you like in comments, and the editor has the right to hit the “trash” button, but when you take work from this blog, and reproduce it on your own, the editor has no control over what context it is place in.

Are you familiar with the terms of the copyright act? To paraphrase I can reproduce what ever I please if I offer a critique of any of the text that I quote.

Take your hate, and go away.

Clearly the author of this blog has absolutely no sense of humour what so ever.

While there is nothing to stop you from making an anonymous email account and continue to comment, as long as it is not connected to your right wing hate-blog, you will probably get your comments published.

No, I won’t deny my own name to comment at this blog, instead if I wish to comment on any of its posts then I will simply use the repost option as I have done so here and then I can say what I please.

Cheers Comrades

Turn Left 2013

A letter was sent to the email address for this blog from a right wing troll, this is what he said:

Hi there
I seem to banned from commenting at your blog and I would like to know why this is so.
My comemnts were on topic and polite and as far as I can tell they do not contravene your comments policy.

It saddens me that you are unwilling to accept comments that disagree with your political standpoint. So I write to you asking you to reverse this decision.

Yours sincerely

Iain Hall

Well, here is your answer:
a check of your comments history on this blog shows that you have been offensive since practically day 1. You were not polite, and were not on topic, you had a hatefilled right wing agenda, and this blog will not be used to further that agenda. The editor took the decision…

View original post 210 more words

Social Media, Online Privacy and Free Speech Anonymity: a guest post by Fiona Causer

Freedom of speech is one of the most treasured rights of citizens of democratic nations around the world. Yet debate about freedom of speech continues in the twenty-first century as technology provides new methods of communication.  For with these new communication channels come new challenges to professionals in the position of protecting these free speech rights.  This makes the demand for savvier legal practitioners even greater than before.  In order to have a chance to defend future victims of violated online trust, many paralegal online education programs are tasked with providing technologically-aware graduates ready to face these potential violations to online privacy and free speech.

More than ten million Australians use Facebook and millions of others use other social media sites such as Twitter and YouTube to share information with friends and families and, sometimes, to express political opinions. While no one suggests that the explosion of social media use should be curtailed, many people are concerned over the forum social networking sites provide for anonymous comments, which can often contain vitriol that the posters would not necessarily express if they were face-to-face with someone with an opposing view.

Many Facebook users assume their posts are viewable only by their friends, but anything that has been posted online can be found and viewed by computer-savvy hackers, sometimes with dramatic consequences. Numerous people have been fired after making derogatory comments on Facebook or Twitter about their employers.

The consequences of some social media posts are far greater than an individual’s firing when the comments are of a political nature. For example, a private site on Facebook used by more than 1000 current and former members of the Australian military was discovered to have numerous posts that were offensive to women, Muslims and immigrants. Hundreds of the posts included expletives and hateful language. The discovery of the site, which has now been shut down, created a scandal in the Australian army and will likely result in the firing of the posters.
In another instance, Tony Mitchell, an Australian teaching English in Bahrain, was fired from his position and deported for writing about the political unrest in the country on his Facebook account. According to an article on NextWeb.com, Mitchell found out that his Facebook page was being monitored by people he had added as friends to his page who then forwarded the information to his university’s human resources department.

Situations such as Mitchell’s may encourage some social media users to create fake identities to protect themselves yet be open about their opinions. However, the ability to hide an identity on social media could lead to abuses if users use their anonymity to write inflammatory posts. If anonymous or false identities become too prevalent, it may be possible that restrictions could be put in place on social media networks to prevent this type of behaviour.

In order to take full advantage of the benefits of social media without compromising a person’s employment or safety, users of social media are advised to be careful about what they post. Embarrassing photos, rude comments about other people, explosive political rants and complaints about work can all cause personal problems such as loss of employment or the loss of important relationships. A good rule of thumb to avoid problems with social media is to assume that every item posted may be read by an employer and a close relative. Anything that would offend either of those people may be better left off a social media site. While freedom of speech is a right that every Australian treasures, with freedom comes responsibility.

Andrew Bolt “guilty” of racial discrimination

I guess he won't be singling out aborigines for a while.

“On the basis of my findings, I am satisfied that … Mr Bolt … engaged in conduct which contravened section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.”Federal Court Judge Justice Mordecai Bromberg handing down his verdict. 

Much will be made about today’s Federal Court finding that Herald Sun writer Andrew Bolt’s attack on “white skinned aborigines” was a breach of our race discrimination laws. The full finding is HERE if you care to read it (warning – it’s very long and tedious).

But the bottom line, in my opinion, is this: Bolt was found to have gone too far in expressing his opinion that the so-called “fair-skinned aborigines” he targeted were getting some kind of advantage by disingenuously clinging to their aboriginal ancestry. He also made several errors of fact, which seemed to tip the balance between free speech and discrimination. 

According to the Judge, Bolt’s use of provocative and inflammatory language was intentionally offensive, insulting and intimidating to “fair skinned” aborigines, so much so that it went beyond the issue of free speech and stepped into the realm of hate speech. It’s much like when you write something that’s critical of an individual’s behaviour – it’s fine to have an opinion about that, but when you attach malice and mistruths it ceases to be one.

My own take on Bolt’s articles is they were unnecessary and mean-spirited in their intent, which was to provoke feelings of ill will towards those in our society of indigenous descent. Why single out these people? It’s a constant theme with Bolt, as are his regular attacks on the stolen generation. It seems to me that Andrew Bolt simply has it in for aboriginal people, full stop. The Judge seemed to agree with that too.

That said, I don’t agree with those who claim the court’s decision is “a blow to free speech”. That’s rubbish. Just mind your manners in future, Mr Bolt (and others), and you’ll be fine. There’s no harm been done on that front at all and this decision simply means that Andrew Bolt has received a well deserved official kick up the arse … for being too hateful. Amen.

.

Things not said by Voltaire

A nice piece at the Courier Mail about freedom of speech and commentary on the Internet which I fully endorse:

It’s very easy to demand the freedom to say and do anything on the web when we live in a society that has already defined rules – even laws – on how we should behave, especially on what we say and do towards each other.

Break those rules – as some do – and you risk punishment.

When it comes to the web, some people treat the place as a lawless frontier where they can say and do whatever they want without any regard for the consequences.

Sure, there is much on the web that is good and the vast majority of people behave in a manner that is acceptable.

But there is also much that is wretched, and that includes some of the comments on Facebook recently about MasterChef’s Joanne Zalm, and earlier this year about the slain schoolboy Elliot Fletcher.

Voltaire would never defend to the death their right to make such offensive comments, and neither should we.

This is not about censorship, this is about acceptable rules of behaviour. Societies demand rules on behaviour, and the web is no exception.

Michael Lund

Cheers Comrades
😉

Pat is Back!!!!

it seems that complaints from all over have worked and You tube have relented!!!

A win for the people and free speech Comrades

😀

Hat tip to Crusader Rabbit

oh and just in case you have not had enough of Pat try this

%d bloggers like this: