The West has lost its freedom of speech

[Smurf1976]

Ran the dog whistle race / culture war, white victim card all the way to get a headline really disgusting IMHO.

Undoubtedly true but to be balanced there are people right across the political spectrum who'll use whatever argument happens to suit their objective at the time.

There's plenty who'll grab the "race" card if it suits them either directly or in thinly veiled terms such as highlighting that something is less than 100% Australian owned. That's an argument of convenience when the real issue they're on about has nothing to do with ownership and is something completely unrelated.

I'm no fan of Hanson but she's certainly not the only one to do it.

 

[rederob]

Rowe approached Hanson, for an interview, then Rowe published said interview, then left wing loonies went viral so Rowe removed said content.
We aren't talking letter of the law here Rob, we are talking perceptions and as you say an accepting society.
As I said the left aren't accepting and inclusive and they do stymie free speech, if the speech is something they don't agree with.

I think I'm middle of the road, accepting and inclusive, I've been a member of ASF for over 10 years and never been on an ignore, so obviously I listen and debate in a reasonable manner.
Yet you say quote:
If you are concerned about what is aired using media then take those concerns elsewhere.
How's that not passive aggressive, it's definitely not an accepting attitude, that we are trying to nurture in our society.

As I sai, I've been on the forum for over 10 years and not been on anyone's ignore list, that's because I know what being accepting and inclusive is.

You have not made a single point about free speech.
The power over what is aired or published is not a condition of free speech.
You continue to be confused by the difference and resort to trying to make this personal.

 

[sptrawler]

You are applying a legal definition to free speech, whereas I'm apply the conceptual definition, of course there are legal limits as to what can be said.

If those limits are contravened, then the person faces penalties, but what we have now is a sector of the population dictating what is socially acceptable and what isn't.
If you can't see that is happening in Western society, you aren't keeping abreast of of social news, it is called the cancel culture and is being driven by a certain sector.

From memory Jessica Rowe was attacked on social media a few years back, which resulted in her suffering financial a psychological problems, so the fear of the trolling could well have contributed to her removing the Hanson article.
So IMO it is an example of where the ability for people to freely express their opinion, has been stymied by the threat of social victimisation, you may not see it that way which is fine.
But I think it is just another example of how the West is losing its freedom of speech.
So as usual, we have to agree to disagree on yet another subject, so be it.

 

[sptrawler]

You have not made a single point about free speech.
The power over what is aired or published is not a condition of free speech.
You continue to be confused by the difference and resort to trying to make this personal.

With regard making it personal, you are the one that keeps saying "I don't get it", because I don't capitulate to your one dimensional argument, yet you don't accept there are legal Freedoms and social freedoms.
If standing up for my beliefs in a constructive and defensive manner, is making it personal, what is your constant barrage of of questioning my cognitive faculties?
Oh my apologies, I forgot, it's o.k for the left to say WTF they like, whereas if I say something it's a personal attack .

 

[The Triangle]

Being a gutless coward has nothing to do with free speech.

Nothing stopped Jessica Rowe from publishing her interview other then her own pathetic cowardice.

I would not be surprised if this is a manufactured controversy to boost her profile.

 

[IFocus]

You are applying a legal definition to free speech, whereas I'm apply the conceptual definition

So its a vibe sort of thing then, come on SP let go of that straw

 

[IFocus]

Undoubtedly true but to be balanced there are people right across the political spectrum who'll use whatever argument happens to suit their objective at the time.

There's plenty who'll grab the "race" card if it suits them either directly or in thinly veiled terms such as highlighting that something is less than 100% Australian owned. That's an argument of convenience when the real issue they're on about has nothing to do with ownership and is something completely unrelated.

I'm no fan of Hanson but she's certainly not the only one to do it.

Agree to an extent but few have been as divisive and deliberate in attacking, marginalising minorities for political gain as Hanson which is very un-Australian IMHO.

 

[sptrawler]

Agree to an extent but few have been as divisive and deliberate in attacking, marginalising minorities for political gain as Hanson which is very un-Australian IMHO.

She still receives votes and still represents a section of the community, or are you saying it is o.k to marginalise that sector of the community, which you don't agree with and you deem as un Australian?
A vibe sort of un Australian thing is it, or just your take on un Australian??

IMHO what is un Australian, is not letting people have their say, that's what contributes to marginalising people.
If people say their piece and it doesn't make sense, the general public will ignore it, not letting them say their piece escalates the problem and also treats the general publics intelligence with contempt.

Oh come on IFocus let go of the straw. ?

 

[sptrawler]

So its a vibe sort of thing then, come on SP let go of that straw

No IFocus it is this sort of thing, just for your personal growth.

Australia has 5 fundamental freedoms – freedom of speech, association, assembly, religion, and movement.

Freedom of speech:
Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write what we think privately or publicly, about the government, or about any topic. We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest. Free speech comes from facts, not rumours, and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. There are laws to protect a person’s good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others.


The guts of the the discussion is, "the intention of the topic is constructive and not intended to do harm":

The Jess Rowe Big Talk Show podcast - “isn’t about politics” but instead focused on “love, raising kids, and why [Hanson] keeps going”.

To which Rob replied:
Idiots like Hanson get ample media attention and her spreading more vitriol at every opportunity does not bode well for an accepting society.
Rowe did the intelligent thing, and listened to people with more sense.


To me that is a bigot, bagging a bigot, but hey everyone is allowed their opinion, aren't they??

Right to freedom of opinion and expression

The following guidance is designed to assist Commonwealth public officials involved in developing legislation, policy or programs. They have not been prepared for the purposes of informing administrative decision-making.

www.ag.gov.au

 

[IFocus]

She still receives votes and still represents a section of the community, or are you saying it is o.k to marginalise that sector of the community, which you don't agree with and you deem as un Australian?
A vibe sort of un Australian thing is it, or just your take on un Australian??

IMHO what is un Australian, is not letting people have their say, that's what contributes to marginalising people.
If people say their piece and it doesn't make sense, the general public will ignore it, not letting them say their piece escalates the problem and also treats the general publics intelligence with contempt.

Oh come on IFocus let go of the straw. ?

If you dont share the Australian ethos of a fair go and helping others to achieve higher aims then yeah go Hanson and her supporters give them a voice along with any one else who wants to start a civil war.

 

[moXJO]

If you dont share the Australian ethos of a fair go and helping others to achieve higher aims then yeah go Hanson and her supporters give them a voice along with any one else who wants to start a civil war.

I thought the "Australian ethos" was to lick authorities boot, dob one another in and enjoy an overbearing police state.

 

[IFocus]

I thought the "Australian ethos" was to lick authorities boot, dob one another in and enjoy an overbearing police state.

That's an east coast ethos, boom boom

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

That's an east coast ethos, boom boom

Jayzoo, I never thought I'd come to General Chat for some light relief.

Over on the financial threads they are talking about Covid and it is dreary.

gg

 

[rederob]

With regard making it personal, you are the one that keeps saying "I don't get it", because I don't capitulate to your one dimensional argument, yet you don't accept there are legal Freedoms and social freedoms.
If standing up for my beliefs in a constructive and defensive manner, is making it personal, what is your constant barrage of of questioning my cognitive faculties?
Oh my apologies, I forgot, it's o.k for the left to say WTF they like, whereas if I say something it's a personal attack .

This is about your posts here which are NOT about free speech.
Maybe you can explain how a commercial platform withdrawing a contribution is a breach of free speech.
At no point have you grasped that there is a gulf between a right to say something, and the privilege of having that expression "carried". And even after something is broadcast, it can be withdrawn or retracted, but these actions have zip to do with the concept of free speech.

 

[SirRumpole]

This is about your posts here which are NOT about free speech.
Maybe you can explain how a commercial platform withdrawing a contribution is a breach of free speech.
At no point have you grasped that there is a gulf between a right to say something, and the privilege of having that expression "carried". And even after something is broadcast, it can be withdrawn or retracted, but these actions have zip to do with the concept of free speech.

Freedom of speech is entwined with freedom to be heard.

What is "carried" depends on the prejudices of the "carrier".

If a politically correct carrier like the ABC doesn't like offending anyone, then it will cull posts even if they are factual.

If a Right Wing carrier doesn't like contrary posts it won't publish them or if its a shock jock will ridicule a caller or cut them off.

Fortunately we have a mentor here who is very broadminded up to a reasonable point, but if you express opinions on other carriers that don't agree with you, then prepare for your right to be heard to be curtailed.

 

[rederob]

Freedom of speech is entwined with freedom to be heard.

Only to the extent that your message is "carried".
You have very few privileges as to where or how you are heard.

What is "carried" depends on the prejudices of the "carrier".

Exactly!

If a politically correct carrier like the ABC doesn't like offending anyone, then it will cull posts even if they are factual.

I have no idea what that means. The ABC is "rules" driven. If their publishing rules are breached they get sanctioned.

If a Right Wing carrier doesn't like contrary posts it won't publish them or if its a shock jock will ridicule a caller or cut them off.

Correct.

Fortunately we have a mentor here who is very broadminded up to a reasonable point, but if you express opinions on other carriers that don't agree with you, then prepare for your right to be heard to be curtailed.

If you do not become a member of ASF you cannot post here.
@Joe Blow does not offer posting privileges to non-members so is discriminating against most Australians.
As I keep saying, you can shout what you like from the street corner - free speech - but don't expect that what you say to be carried beyond that. For that to occur other elements need to be involved. They are the ones with platforms who, like @Joe Blow, act discriminatingly as their interests determine.

 

[sptrawler]

This is about your posts here which are NOT about free speech.
Maybe you can explain how a commercial platform withdrawing a contribution is a breach of free speech.
At no point have you grasped that there is a gulf between a right to say something, and the privilege of having that expression "carried". And even after something is broadcast, it can be withdrawn or retracted, but these actions have zip to do with the concept of free speech.

Well this is about your posts and is about free speech
The platform or carrier, chose to write and carry that article, the subject was of and by the carriers choice, the carrier was pressure to remove the article by a vocal group that agitated her.
At no point have you grasped that the article wasn't a contribution by the subject (Hanson), it was an article chosen and written by the owner and carrier of the platform.
What the agitators did was intimidate Rowe to have have article removed, because they didn't agree with its content, that is a form of intimidation and a curtailment of free speech.
You may not agree with me, as you often don't, but there are many out there that do, as a quick google search highlighted.

Jessica Rowe caves into woke 'bullies' by deleting Hanson interview

When it comes to giving a platform to controversial public figures, Jessica Rowe has learned you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't

www.dailymail.co.uk

UKTIMENEWS.COM - Read the World Today

Read the World Today

www.uktimenews.com

hemantekkahotandviral.com

hemantekkahotandviral.com

 

[sptrawler]

If you dont share the Australian ethos of a fair go and helping others to achieve higher aims then yeah go Hanson and her supporters give them a voice along with any one else who wants to start a civil war.

The problem is IFocus, Australia is made up of all sorts of people, when you chose who has the "Australian ethos", you are immediately allowing that decision to be controlled by whoever holds the stage.
That works fine when the side "you" agree with are holding the stage, not so well when those who you don't agree with hold the stage and start curtailing your right to say what you believe.

That is where you hope the middle ground maintain control of the "stage", otherwise the loonies left or right, chose what is the "Australian ethos".

 

[rederob]

Well this is about your posts and is about free speech
The platform or carrier, chose to write and carry that article, the subject was of and by the carriers choice, the carrier was pressure to remove the article by a vocal group that agitated her.
At no point have you grasped that the article wasn't a contribution by the subject (Hanson), it was an article chosen and written by the owner and carrier of the platform.
What the agitators did was intimidate Rowe to have have article removed, because they didn't agree with its content, that is a form of intimidation and a curtailment of free speech.
You may not agree with me, as you often don't, but there are many out there that do, as a quick google search highlighted.

Jessica Rowe caves into woke 'bullies' by deleting Hanson interview

When it comes to giving a platform to controversial public figures, Jessica Rowe has learned you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't

www.dailymail.co.uk

UKTIMENEWS.COM - Read the World Today

Read the World Today

www.uktimenews.com

hemantekkahotandviral.com

hemantekkahotandviral.com

Once you involve the platform/carrier we cease discussing free speech.
I cannot make it any clearer.
What you are talking about in relation to Rowe's actions is the concept of "agency".

 

[sptrawler]

Once you involve the platform/carrier we cease discussing free speech.
I cannot make it any clearer.
What you are talking about in relation to Rowe's actions is the concept of "agency".

You're a funny guy. ?

I answered your points to the letter, now you want to change the issue, your a hoot.

History is littered with examples of sectors being bullied, ostracised, supressed and alienated.
All it did in the past was increase the resentment and resolve of the disenfranchised group, but I guess if you rant and chant that your doing it in the name of inclusion and acceptance, it's o.k this time.
Bashing people into forced submission somehow makes it right, or punishing them for voicing an alternative view, didn't work well in the past. ?
I would have thought engaging with them, discussing their objections and concerns and trying to resolve them, was a far better method that trying to gag them.
But hey I'm only a middle of the road pleb, not a Rhodes scholar, as some feel they are.

By the way the platform carrier, was involved from the very beginning, just in case it slipped your notice. ?