The West has lost its freedom of speech

[rederob]

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, makes it right, well it didn't work well for the Romans with the Christians, or the Germans with the Jews. ?

It's groundhog day all over again: not a single point you have made relates to free speech.
And you have not worked this out yet!

 

[sptrawler]

It's groundhog day all over again: not a single point you have made relates to free speech.
And you have not worked this out yet!

Because you ordain it.
In my opinion and many others, as I posted, they interpret what happened as a attack on the a persons right to freely discuss a subject, without fear of reprisal or personal attack.
We are trying to encourage our children to not bully and to accept others, yet we openly attack those that have differing views, no wonder our kids are having identity issues.
Personally I'm pleased that those in Parliament, seem to have a lot more balanced view.
But I've thoroughly enjoyed the discussion as usual.

 

[rederob]

Because you ordain it.

No, because you cannot show that Hanson was stopped saying what she did to Rowe.
That Rowe changed her mind in relation to how Hanson's story was told is a matter of agency.

In my opinion and many others, as I posted, they interpret what happened as a attack on the a persons right to freely discuss a subject, without fear of reprisal or personal attack.

How is a reaction to what has been said a violation of one's free speech?
The fact they said something means they exercised their right to free speech.

We are trying to encourage our children to not bully and to accept others, yet we openly attack those that have differing views, no wonder our kids are having identity issues.

That's a different subject altogether.

Once your comments deviate from an individual's right to say something then you move away from the topic of free speech. Not a single comment of yours was on topic.

 

[sptrawler]

Unlike you, I will allow the other members to decide that.

 

[wayneL]

Unlike you, I will allow the other members to decide that.

For we need to do here is indulge in a bit of reductive reasoning.

You can say whatever the f*** you want, but you can only say it exactly at halfway point between Meekatharra and Mt Magnet, between the hours of 1 a.m. and 2 a.m., on any February 29th, providing no vehicle headlights or tail lights are visible.

Yes you can say whatever you want, you have free speech.

Rederob reasoning 101

 

[sptrawler]

For we need to do here is indulge in a bit of reductive reasoning.

You can say whatever the f*** you want, but you can only say it exactly at halfway point between Meekatharra and Mt Magnet, between the hours of 1 a.m. and 2 a.m., on any February 29th, providing no vehicle headlights or tail lights are visible.

Yes you can say whatever you want, you have free speech.

Rederob reasoning 101

Yes you are free to say it, but if anyone dares to repeat it, they are fair game and a public target for acceptable abuse.
In the name of inclusiveness, acceptance and free speech.
Rob reasoning 101

 

[Smurf1976]

We are trying to encourage our children to not bully and to accept others, yet we openly attack those that have differing views, no wonder our kids are having identity issues.

That's a different subject altogether.

If someone is attacked in some way for expressing their view then that might not be a legal restriction on free speech but it's a deterrent that's highly effective in practice.

If someone's going to be falsely accused, sacked from their employment, evicted or whatever well that doesn't outright stop them saying something but it does in practice unless they're one of the <0.01% who can afford to face the consequences and are willing to do so.

If your boss or landlord votes Liberal, and you say something publicly in support of Labor and that costs you your job or sees you evicted, well that's not a legal gag but it's a practical one.

 

[sptrawler]

If someone is attacked in some way for expressing their view then that might not be a legal restriction on free speech but it's a deterrent that's highly effective in practice.

If someone's going to be falsely accused, sacked from their employment, evicted or whatever well that doesn't outright stop them saying something but it does in practice unless they're one of the <0.01% who can afford to face the consequences and are willing to do so.

If your boss or landlord votes Liberal, and you say something publicly in support of Labor and that costs you your job or sees you evicted, well that's not a legal gag but it's a practical one.

No smurf that isn't curtailing "free speech", it is just someone exercising their dominant position, apparently that is o.k because no one is stopping them from speaking up. ?

Also that doen't fall under "free speech", that falls under "right to remain silent", as Rob said, Rowe should have exercised it, then she wouldn't get bullied.

Looney left book of rights.
Chapter 3, do as we say and you'll be o.k

 

[SirRumpole]

If someone is attacked in some way for expressing their view then that might not be a legal restriction on free speech but it's a deterrent that's highly effective in practice.

If someone's going to be falsely accused, sacked from their employment, evicted or whatever well that doesn't outright stop them saying something but it does in practice unless they're one of the <0.01% who can afford to face the consequences and are willing to do so.

If your boss or landlord votes Liberal, and you say something publicly in support of Labor and that costs you your job or sees you evicted, well that's not a legal gag but it's a practical one.

Great response smurf.

To summarise for rederob,

The right to free speech includes the right to be free from repercussions apart from someone disagreeing with you.

 

[basilio]

The right to free speech includes the right to be free from repercussions apart from someone disagreeing with you.

I think you missed Rederobs point. No one was denying Pauline Hanson the right to speak. Someone just had think about it and decided she gets enough opportunities to be heard without giving her another platform. End of story.

 

[SirRumpole]

I think you missed Rederobs point. No one was denying Pauline Hanson the right to speak. Someone just had think about it and decided she gets enough opportunities to be heard without giving her another platform. End of story.

I've no idea what the issue with Hanson was , I was speaking generally.

 

[sptrawler]

I think you missed Rederobs point. No one was denying Pauline Hanson the right to speak. Someone just had think about it and decided she gets enough opportunities to be heard without giving her another platform. End of story.

Nobody did deny Pauline Hanson the right to speak, she wasn't the one who was attacked, come on Bas, get up to speed.
Rowe published, on her own platform, a non political expose on the human side of Paulin Hanson, for that she was attacked and intimidated to remove the content.
Well at least your post, highlights why the silent majority, remains silent.

 

[IFocus]

Nobody did deny Pauline Hanson the right to speak, she wasn't the one who was attacked, come on Bas, get up to speed.
Rowe published, on her own platform, a non political expose on the human side of Paulin Hanson, for that she was attacked and intimidated to remove the content.
Well at least your post, highlights why the silent majority, remains silent.

That hole you are digging is getting rather large SP.

 

[sptrawler]

That hole you are digging is getting rather large SP.

Well as long as I can keep filling in the ones you dig, I'm happy. ?

Luckily there are plenty of posters who don't think I'm digging a hole, beside you, Rob, Bas and of course Humid, but hey if I wasn't stepping on your toes I'd be worried.

When you guys start agreeing with me, it is time to call it a day.

 

[rederob]

To summarise for rederob,

The right to free speech includes the right to be free from repercussions apart from someone disagreeing with you.

Not apt.
Free speech carries repercussions. Smurf provided examples.

 

[wayneL]

That hole you are digging is getting rather large SP.

What hole?

 

[sptrawler]

What hole?

Dont worry about it, the difference between me and them is, I would have the same stance whether the issue was over Pauline Hanson, or Greta Thunberg.
They are that concerned with inclusiveness and acceptance, they choke on their hypocrisy. ?

 

[Smurf1976]

Dont worry about it, the difference between me and them is, I would have the same stance whether the issue was over Pauline Hanson, or Greta Thunberg.
They are that concerned with inclusiveness and acceptance, they choke on their hypocrisy. ?

The strange thing about all this is that it's the progressive side of politics that loses from limitations on free speech.

Conservatives have nothing to fear from someone being gagged since by their very nature they're not seeking change in the first place.

 

[SirRumpole]

The strange thing about all this is that it's the progressive side of politics that loses from limitations on free speech.

Conservatives have nothing to fear from someone being gagged since by their very nature they're not seeking change in the first place.

Not that I have all that much sympathy with Conservatives, but they are often the ones gagged by the progressive Left via the 'cancel culture' that has emerged against anyone that speaks out against political correctness when it contravenes the facts.

 

[Smurf1976]

Not that I have all that much sympathy with Conservatives, but they are often the ones gagged

Agreed they're generally the ones gagged but they don't greatly lose from it.

If the debate's killed off or goes nowhere then that suits a conservative just fine.

Environmentalism is a case in point. Arguments for or against aside, a generation ago well it was whales, sand mining, uranium, dams, forests and so on and society did indeed change.

Today it's "climate change" which has gone around and around forever and isn't actually being addressed. It's just become one of those background sort of subjects that's perpetually in the news with nothing much being done about it. Environmentalism isn't what it used to be, it has been largely neutered in practice.