Freedom of speech and protest

[rederob]

Honest opinion is a defense in defamation cases.

A defense is not a guarantee against being sued, nor of winning a case.
And in another thread @Joe Blow has quantified his costs of successfully defending a defamation case, and I think to this day has not got anything back.

 

[SirRumpole]

A defense is not a guarantee against being sued, nor of winning a case.
And in another thread @Joe Blow has quantified his costs of successfully defending a defamation case, and I think to this day has not got anything back.

But its part of our "middle path", which you said you support.

If you think it can be improved you are free to say so.

 

[wayneL]

We don't have freedom of speech in Australia and we do not have a Bill of Rights.
What we can say is conditioned by our laws, even when we present honest opinion and believe we are telling the truth (as in defamation cases).
We could be more liberal and adopt somethin akin to the US system whereby lying seems to be a daily part of life, or the Chinese system where telling an everyday truth can land you in jail.
I personally believe our middle path is a better compromise.
In Australia we are largely protected in what we say privately, but when in public or using any form of media, we leave ourselves open to challenge, no matter how trivial. That includes everything each of us post in this forum.

We do want to guard what rights of speech we do have, however. In other parts of the Anglosphere like the UK, and most especially Scotland, it is aggressively being legislated away.

The line of what is considered "hate speech" is perilously close to normal robust debate. Additionally, this legislative overreach is encroaching into one's own home.

We don't want that here.

 

[rederob]

But its part of our "middle path", which you said you support.

If you think it can be improved you are free to say so.

I definitely said it was a "compromise".
I believe there needs to be better protections for people who are clearly expressing in public opinions which can be reasonably derived.
I also believe that whistleblower and public interest legislation needs to be beefed up.
Furthermore, I believe there needs to be a circuit breaker before matters of "opinion" are deemed necessary for courts to settle.
Finally, I believe it would work better if the courts did two things;

1. Levy a fine (in addition to any other penalty) on a party who knowingly brought frivolous or inappropriate matters for adjudication; and
2. Place the onus on the State to recover costs and damages from the losing party.

As matters stand you need to be wealthy to continue claims and recover costs/damages. This is beyond the average wage and salary earner's capacity. Or most independent journalists.

 

[rederob]

We don't want that here.

Agreed, and it's why whenever possible I vote for independent candidates who have a track record (or platform) of fighting injustices.

 

[Joe Blow]

I definitely said it was a "compromise".
I believe there needs to be better protections for people who are clearly expressing in public opinions which can be reasonably derived.
I also believe that whistleblower and public interest legislation needs to be beefed up.
Furthermore, I believe there needs to be a circuit breaker before matters of "opinion" are deemed necessary for courts to settle.
Finally, I believe it would work better if the courts did two things;

1. Levy a fine (in addition to any other penalty) on a party who knowingly brought frivolous or inappropriate matters for adjudication; and
2. Place the onus on the State to recover costs and damages from the losing party.

As matters stand you need to be wealthy to continue claims and recover costs/damages. This is beyond the average wage and salary earner's capacity. Or most independent journalists.

I would also add, if those commencing litigation of this kind (especially long running litigation) who, upon losing the litigation, are subsequently found to have no assets in their own name but are a beneficiary of a discretionary trust, then the assets of that trust should be used to satisfy any adverse costs order against them.

 

[SirRumpole]

Levy a fine (in addition to any other penalty) on a party who knowingly brought frivolous or inappropriate matters for adjudication; and

Should also be applied to those who spread fake news or misrepresent real people using technology.

 

[sptrawler]

Honest opinion is a defense in defamation cases.

Exactly Rumpy, there is a difference between an opinion and a statement of fact, that is why I try to differentiate when I post.
It also IMO, is why the media is getting into so much trouble, they write or present most stories as statement of fact, when in most cases they are just a collection of opinions that supports their belief or supports the underlying agenda they are trying to push.
If the media put a caveat on articles they present, that this is only my opinion, they would soon have the general public seeing it as a cartoon show, which is the way I see it. ?

 

[Smurf1976]

We don't have freedom of speech in Australia and we do not have a Bill of Rights.

Whilst true, I'd argue that most things in society exist not because government said they shall exist but rather because government hasn't said they must not exist. Not legally perhaps but in practice that's true - this forum exists not because government said it must exist but rather, because government hasn't said it can't exist.

Freedom of speech ought to be a protected right in my view though certainly and, more to the point here, any proven instance of corruption or misuse of power by Members of Parliament ought have a mandatory minimum penalty attached.

 

[rederob]

Freedom of speech ought to be a protected right in my view though certainly and, more to the point here, any proven instance of corruption or misuse of power by Members of Parliament ought have a mandatory minimum penalty attached.

I cannot agree with your ideas about free speech.
I do not believe you or anyone can say whatever they like in public without repercussions.
You have a right to truths about yourself that others should not be able to wilfully override because they believe their rights are greater!
Or as I consider my right to fresh air and its health benefit is greater than that of someone who chooses to pollute it for their own pleasure at my cost.

 

[Smurf1976]

I do not believe you or anyone can say whatever they like in public without repercussions.

The trouble is, silencing dissent is the way to stop progress in practice.

Pretty much all social change comes about because a minority, who by definition do not have mainstream support at the time, speak out against the mainstream view with an expectation that whilst others may not agree with what they have to say, they'll suffer no undue consequences from saying it.

If today's ideas of silencing dissent had been deemed acceptable over the past half century then almost certainly 2021 would look a lot more like 1970. We'd still be doing what the Church says we must do, we'd have trashed every last piece of wilderness and we'd probably still have racist jokes on mainstream TV as well.

Social progress happens because society allows minorities, who by definition are not supported by most, to express their views without undue consequence. By doing so it raises awareness of the points they raise, rational people consider the idea and, if it has merit, in due course it gains support.

An example of that from the past is the idea that the natural environment has any value other than that of the natural resources able to be extracted from it. The point was made, the media reported the news, rational people considered the idea and in due course society's attitudes slowly but surely changed. Very few would today argue that the only value of wilderness is measured in terms of the minerals, timber or water resources within it.

A more recent example is that there's some reason why the 26th of January is a day not to be celebrated. Again a radical idea being raised but people raise their concerns without undue consequence, the media reports the news, rational people consider the merits of the point being made and if deemed worthy it gains traction. My guess is we'll see that one changed in due course because of that, an idea is being raised and many are seeing it to have merit.

As I see it, you're basically arguing to entrench conservatism and stop social progress. That's the natural outcome if dissenting views at odds with mainstream conventional wisdom are able to be silenced.

You do of course in my opinion have a right to express that view.....

 

[SirRumpole]

The trouble is, silencing dissent is the way to stop progress in practice.

Pretty much all social change comes about because a minority, who by definition do not have mainstream support at the time, speak out against the mainstream view with an expectation that whilst others may not agree with what they have to say, they'll suffer no undue consequences from saying it.

If today's ideas of silencing dissent had been deemed acceptable over the past half century then almost certainly 2021 would look a lot more like 1970. We'd still be doing what the Church says we must do, we'd have trashed every last piece of wilderness and we'd probably still have racist jokes on mainstream TV as well.

Social progress happens because society allows minorities, who by definition are not supported by most, to express their views without undue consequence. By doing so it raises awareness of the points they raise, rational people consider the idea and, if it has merit, in due course it gains support.

An example of that from the past is the idea that the natural environment has any value other than that of the natural resources able to be extracted from it. The point was made, the media reported the news, rational people considered the idea and in due course society's attitudes slowly but surely changed. Very few would today argue that the only value of wilderness is measured in terms of the minerals, timber or water resources within it.

A more recent example is that there's some reason why the 26th of January is a day not to be celebrated. Again a radical idea being raised but people raise their concerns without undue consequence, the media reports the news, rational people consider the merits of the point being made and if deemed worthy it gains traction. My guess is we'll see that one changed in due course because of that, an idea is being raised and many are seeing it to have merit.

As I see it, you're basically arguing to entrench conservatism and stop social progress. That's the natural outcome if dissenting views at odds with mainstream conventional wisdom are able to be silenced.

You do of course in my opinion have a right to express that view.....

I certainly agree with your sentiments based on free discussion of issues, the difficulty arises when groups of people are verbally attacked on the grounds of perceived 'weaknesses' arising from racial or social characteristics, ie how far does society let those attacks go without disrupting the general peace ?

I'm disturbed by the 'cancel culture' that exists around criticism of certain religions or races where these groups seem to be a protected species immune from criticism simply on the grounds that they are a minority, but I'm also disturbed by far Right Wing groups that stir up hatred based on the grounds that minorities must conform to our expectations of social behaviour.

Where is the borderline between legitimate opinion and hate ? Is there one ? Should we try to legislate away bigotry or simply rely on the commonsense of the 'majority' to ignore it ? My preference is for the latter, but on the other hand as you pointed out , majorities are not always right.

It's a fine line and I don't have all the answers but I think we are being unduly constrained by the 'Left' on one hand from legitimate debate (see the Israel Folau case) and by the 'Right' on the other hand as witnessed by the treatment of whistleblowers by the current Federal government and the jackboot mentality of some in the NSW government.

We can only hope that genuine liberalism and goodwill prevails.

 

[rederob]

The trouble is, silencing dissent is the way to stop progress in practice.

This is a very small element of so called free speech, and I am not aware of it being silenced per se. People are able to disagree, but there may come a time where their views are proven unsound and their voices thereafter have little traction.

If today's ideas of silencing dissent had been deemed acceptable over the past half century then almost certainly 2021 would look a lot more like 1970. We'd still be doing what the Church says we must do, we'd have trashed every last piece of wilderness and we'd probably still have racist jokes on mainstream TV as well.

I have no idea what you mean when you say "today's ideas of silencing dissent".
However, I believe you are using a generalisation that is far removed from how progress has occurred in the fields you mention. For example, Bob Brown was never silenced. Governments used used their respective powers to prevent protesters from stopping what the majority of voters wanted. Bob Brown has been repeatedly (and to this day!) faced criminal charges for what he did rather than what he said.

As I see it, you're basically arguing to entrench conservatism and stop social progress.

No. You have created a straw man.
Moreover, you have not shown that those proposing social change have actually been silenced.

That's the natural outcome if dissenting views at odds with mainstream conventional wisdom are able to be silenced.

I think you have missed the point of the discussion about "free speech" per se.

I believe a better example would be Peter Ridd's case. Peter Ridd lost his job over his comments about science relating to the Great Barrier Reef. One could argue his employer attempted to silence him by sacking him. While that remains a moot point point, Peter Ridd need not be employed by JCU in order to make his claims. So there is often a context to where free speech sits in Australia so that there is no repercussion.

 

[Knobby22]

Here's the Tazzy version, found guilty today. 9 months prison.
He seems to be a sandwich short of a picnic.

'Self-styled journalist' and convicted conman jailed over videos about Liberal MP

A YouTuber and "self-employed journalist" is sentenced to nine months in prison after he published defamatory videos about a senior Tasmanian government minister.

www.abc.net.au

 

[moXJO]

Here's the Tazzy version, found guilty today. 9 months prison.
He seems to be a sandwich short of a picnic.

'Self-styled journalist' and convicted conman jailed over videos about Liberal MP

A YouTuber and "self-employed journalist" is sentenced to nine months in prison after he published defamatory videos about a senior Tasmanian government minister.

www.abc.net.au

I'm not sure who is lower on the scum scale. Journos or pollies. May they sue one another into oblivion.

 

[basilio]

This "Post Truth" world is a doozy isn't it ? Free speech ? Dissent ? The right to "Believe what we Want" ?

And then we reach the levels of the Sandy Hook massacre being a covert op. That the world is run by pedophile, shape changing, lizard people. That the earth is flat or hollow. hat the moon landings were faked. That millions and millions of people passionately believe these sorts of ideas or allow them to continue because they support their general political/social views.

I'm not sure where this stands in the range of conspiracy theories but the "Birds aren't Real" movement does bring another dimension to the conversation.

That's right. There are no real birds in the sky folks. What we see flying around are actually high sophisticated CIA surveillance drones.

It's on the net. There are hundreds of thousands of "believers " (Maybe ) Lot's of merchandising as well. And the back story is to die for. If you a Sandy Hook aficionado, if Q Anon seems pretty reasonable etc etc perhaps this is the theory that brings it all together.

THE HISTORY

WARNING: DISTURBING CONTENT The only way to properly explain, is with words. Chapter 1: Why? When asked to write the unabridged history of this organization, I was taken aback. I knew that I had reached many thousands in my quest to spread the truth, but I was bewildered and...

birdsarentreal.com

Birds Aren't Real | FAQ

birdsarentreal.com

‘The Birds Aren’t Real’ movement says federal government replaced all birds with surveillance drones

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that birds aren’t real. But the truther movement “Birds Aren’t Real” isn’t quitting — in fact they’re just getting started. Springfield, Mo., wa…

thehill.com

 

[rederob]

This "Post Truth" world is a doozy isn't it ? Free speech ? Dissent ? The right to "Believe what we Want" ?

And then we reach the levels of the Sandy Hook massacre being a covert op. That the world is run by pedophile, shape changing, lizard people. That the earth is flat or hollow. hat the moon landings were faked. That millions and millions of people passionately believe these sorts of ideas or allow them to continue because they support their general political/social views.

I'm not sure where this stands in the range of conspiracy theories but the "Birds aren't Real" movement does bring another dimension to the conversation.

That's right. There are no real birds in the sky folks. What we see flying around are actually high sophisticated CIA surveillance drones.

It's on the net. There are hundreds of thousands of "believers " (Maybe ) Lot's of merchandising as well. And the back story is to die for. If you a Sandy Hook aficionado, if Q Anon seems pretty reasonable etc etc perhaps this is the theory that brings it all together.

THE HISTORY

WARNING: DISTURBING CONTENT The only way to properly explain, is with words. Chapter 1: Why? When asked to write the unabridged history of this organization, I was taken aback. I knew that I had reached many thousands in my quest to spread the truth, but I was bewildered and...

birdsarentreal.com

Birds Aren't Real | FAQ

birdsarentreal.com

‘The Birds Aren’t Real’ movement says federal government replaced all birds with surveillance drones

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that birds aren’t real. But the truther movement “Birds Aren’t Real” isn’t quitting — in fact they’re just getting started. Springfield, Mo., wa…

thehill.com

West Australians have been spreading the truth that there are no birds for over 60 years @basilio, so please stop spouting conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories.

 

[Smurf1976]

I have no idea what you mean when you say "today's ideas of silencing dissent".
However, I believe you are using a generalisation that is far removed from how progress has occurred in the fields you mention. For example, Bob Brown was never silenced. Governments used used their respective powers to prevent protesters from stopping what the majority of voters wanted. Bob Brown has been repeatedly (and to this day!) faced criminal charges for what he did rather than what he said.

Using the Bob Brown example, Bob has throughout his political career (either as an actual MP or an activist) pursued a range of issues.

Some of those issues had strong public support right from the start.

Some of those issues had very significant numbers on both sides such that any claim for either having a majority was a "technical" one of scraping in over 50% but with plenty on both sides.

Some had clear public opposition.

Bob himself did, after all, once note that democracy would have to be suspended in order to win certain battles. In other words, the public wasn't on side and he knew it. That's his observation at the time not mine.

That he wasn't silenced is the point however.

If someone were to apply modern thinking to all of Bob's campaigns over the years well then I'm very sure they could find comments or views that would fall victim to the whole "cancel culture" type thinking prevalent today.

Bob's dislike of foreign owned companies could, for example, be argued as racist if someone was looking for a reason to silence him. Probably not his intent but someone could interpret it that way if they were looking to find a problem.

His attempt to shut down various industries could be seen as a direct attack on those who'd be put out of work by doing so. Putting someone out of a job's going to have a somewhat larger impact on them than simply calling them names after all, it's a fair bit worse than anything that words alone can do to someone. And yet today we do indeed shut people down for words alone.

His challenging of social norms at the time could, if someone wanted to, be seen as offensive. Mainstream society in the 1980's wasn't overly supportive of what was then termed gay rights for example.

Now to be clear I've no issue with Bob. On some issues I strongly agree with is views, on some I quite strongly disagree but I've no issue with him overall. He's made a contribution to society which exceeds that of most and I absolutely support that he has a right to have made the points he made, to have engaged in protests and so on. Just as those opposed also have a right to protest and make their point.

Modern standards would easily shut him down though and that is my point here. If we were arguing about that stuff today as new issues then the likes of Bob would very easily be silenced if someone wanted to.

Today we silence those who simply offend verbally. No need to put anyone out of a job or cause them any actual harm, just say something they deem offensive and you're done. Pretty much anyone will be tripped up on that if someone wants to.

For that matter well these days keeping someone quiet is as easy as just scheduling another press conference to clash with theirs. The ALP is well aware of that one because the federal government does it rather often - the ALP calls a press conference, someone starts speaking, then before they're a third of the way through there's a government one underway being shown live and that's it, done. That's one reason Labor has trouble getting their message out - the government quite literally cuts them off, a tactic that would have been considered totally unacceptable not that long ago.

 

[rederob]

Modern standards would easily shut him down though and that is my point here. If we were arguing about that stuff today as new issues then the likes of Bob would very easily be silenced if someone wanted to.

You have not shown this is the case in any way shape form or fashion.

Today we silence those who simply offend verbally. No need to put anyone out of a job or cause them any actual harm, just say something they deem offensive and you're done. Pretty much anyone will be tripped up on that if someone wants to.

Again, no demonstration that this occurs here... unless they are breaking laws we have previously covered in this thread.

For that matter well these days keeping someone quiet is as easy as just scheduling another press conference to clash with theirs.

That is not keeping anyone silent!

The ALP is well aware of that one because the federal government does it rather often - the ALP calls a press conference, someone starts speaking, then before they're a third of the way through there's a government one underway being shown live and that's it, done. That's one reason Labor has trouble getting their message out - the government quite literally cuts them off, a tactic that would have been considered totally unacceptable not that long ago.

I think you are confusing how people with power and influence can affect anyone's opportunity to send a message or otherwise inform, rather than their ability to say what they wish.

 

[SirRumpole]

That is not keeping anyone silent!

Taking away someone's ability to get their message to the public is effectively silencing them !

eg if you were banned from this forum you could still keep tapping away at your computer but no one here could read what you wrote. Sure you could take your message elsewhere but a portion of your potential audience would have to suffer the absence of your wisdom.