- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,307
- Reactions
- 17,552
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.Ran the dog whistle race / culture war, white victim card all the way to get a headline really disgusting IMHO.
You have not made a single point about free speech.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.
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.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.
You are applying a legal definition to free speech, whereas I'm apply the conceptual definition
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.
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?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.
No IFocus it is this sort of thing, just for your personal growth.So its a vibe sort of thing then, come on SP let go of that straw
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. ?
I thought the "Australian ethos" was to lick authorities boot, dob one another in and enjoy an overbearing police state.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.
Jayzoo, I never thought I'd come to General Chat for some light relief.That's an east coast ethos, boom boom
This is about your posts here which are NOT about free speech.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.
Only to the extent that your message is "carried".Freedom of speech is entwined with freedom to be heard.
Exactly!What is "carried" depends on the prejudices of the "carrier".
I have no idea what that means. The ABC is "rules" driven. If their publishing rules are breached they get sanctioned.If a politically correct carrier like the ABC doesn't like offending anyone, then it will cull posts even if they are factual.
Correct.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.
If you do not become a member of ASF you cannot post here.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.
Well this is about your posts and is about free speechThis 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.
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.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.
Once you involve the platform/carrier we cease discussing 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'twww.dailymail.co.uk
You're a funny guy. ?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".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?