- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,438
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!
It's groundhog day all over again: not a single point you have made relates to free speech.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. ?
Because you ordain it.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!
No, because you cannot show that Hanson was stopped saying what she did to Rowe.Because you ordain it.
How is a reaction to what has been said a violation of one's free speech?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.
That's a different subject altogether.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.
For we need to do here is indulge in a bit of reductive reasoning.Unlike you, I will allow the other members to decide that.
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.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
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.
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.That's a different subject altogether.
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. ?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.
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.
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.
Nobody did deny Pauline Hanson the right to speak, she wasn't the one who was attacked, come on Bas, get up to speed.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.
Well as long as I can keep filling in the ones you dig, I'm happy. ?That hole you are digging is getting rather large SP.
Not apt.To summarise for rederob,
The right to free speech includes the right to be free from repercussions apart from someone disagreeing with you.
What hole?That hole you are digging is getting rather large SP.
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.What hole?
The strange thing about all this is that it's the progressive side of politics that loses from limitations on free speech.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.
Agreed they're generally the ones gagged but they don't greatly lose from it.Not that I have all that much sympathy with Conservatives, but they are often the ones gagged
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?