The West has lost its freedom of speech

[SirRumpole]

What does the expression "AJ" mean in the context of soldiers ?

OK, so it stands for "Army Jerk". Seems relatively innocuous, but when used in the context of a satirical cartoon would it be likely to offend army personnel ?

Could the use of the term be called "bigoted" in that case ?

And it's interesting that VC said that the use of "AJ" in a derogatory manner could result in a "punch up".

That seems to be what happen in France only on a larger scale.

Obviously soldiers have little respect for freedom of speech

Not trying to pick a fight VC, but it seems that the definition of "bigotry" and the consequences of it is a constantly shifting battleground.

 

[Calliope]

Once again verballing members. Low brow does not translate into the slurs you obviously and thuggishly enjoy attaching to others. I suspect you gain pleasure in distortion so you can maintain the charade of perspicacity; you ain't that clever, trust me. Your high horse is imagined IMO

WOW. I certainly have got under your skin, and destroyed "your charade of perspicacity". I suggest you take a bex and have a good lie down and chill out.

And you must try to stop attributing your qualities to others.

 

[Value Collector]

What does the expression "AJ" mean in the context of soldiers ?

Army Jerk. A derogatory term often used by civilians, RAAF and Navy personnel in reference to soldiers in townships with large concentrations of soldiers (particularly Darwin and Townsville). Also often used by soldiers in reference to other soldiers behaving badly in public, for example "He was being a real AJ" or "They were acting like a bunch of real AJ's and giving the rest of us a bad name". As in 'this was written by an A.J....'. Like many derogatory terms, AJ has been "taken back" by the AJs. In other words it's OK for us to say it, but you might get a slap if you say it, depending on tone and location.

OK, so it stands for "Army Jerk". Seems relatively innocuous, but when used in the context of a satirical cartoon would it be likely to offend army personnel ?

Depends on context, and who's saying it, a young girl might walk into a room of friends and say hello by saying "Hey B#tchs", yet it probably wouldn't fly for me to offer that greeting, unless I was very close to the group of young women.

 

[Value Collector]

And it's interesting that VC said that the use of "AJ" in a derogatory manner could result in a "punch up".

I didn't say I condoned it, but yes, young drunk idiots (military or civilian) can resort to pugilism when they feel disrespected, I would think that if your from a Military town, and find yourself using the term AJ in a way that is designed to offend an individual you have encountered, you may actually want a fight, which many idiots do, they like to try their hand at boxing a couple of "AJ's", especially around singleton, so much so the training courses there often ban the trainees from drinking in town now.

There is a big difference to working out a difference between two idiots fighting with their fists due to a direct personal attack, than a mass murder because of a cartoon in a newspaper no one is forcing you to read.

 

[Tisme]

WOW. I certainly have got under your skin, .

My guess is that is what you set out to do as a recidivist troll, but I have been around too long to care about small mindsets.

 

[Julia]

But you can't publish a caricacture of him.

Yes, you can, in theory. But as VC has pointed out, a personal choice might rather not do so.

Huh??? Keeping your mouth shut is exercising your freedom of speech? I'm afraid you've blown what little credibility you had VC.

Well, I think VC has actually enhanced his credibility with a sensible explanation of why we would often choose not to go round gratuitously being rude to others.

It's you and another that are putting the "ill-educated, culturally illiterate" tag on those people...

Tisme, please don't distort what others have said. I did not put any such tag on the 'battlers'. I suggested that your determination that they don't like the ABC because it's too 'high brow' implied that they were ill-educated and culturally illiterate. Big difference!

That group of people seemed often to include people like teachers, nurses et al, especially in single income families, not just people whom you regard as, apparently, low brow.

For that matter, barring esoteric discussions about the finer points of poetry or orchestration, eg, I don't see what's so culturally uber sophisticated about the ABC. Have a listen to some of the absolute junk on Local Radio some time.

 

[SirRumpole]

you may actually want a fight, which many idiots do, they like to try their hand at boxing a couple of "AJ's", especially around singleton, so much so the training courses there often ban the trainees from drinking in town now.

That is very sad.

I wonder why this disrespect for the armed forces has arisen. There seems to be a general disrespect from certain bogan communities for authority figures that is not warranted.

I wonder if it's linked to disrespect for the police who some in lower socio-economic communities perceive as the "enemy".

To me, both groups are doing an important and necessary job and as long as they do it with respect to those they come in contact with, deserve respect in return.

 

[Calliope]

Yes, you can, in theory.

But not in practice.

Well, I think VC has actually enhanced his credibility with a sensible explanation of why we would often choose not to go round gratuitously being rude to others.

I don't think I am being gratuitously rude if my considered opinon is that most of what he says, has no bearing on Freedom of Speech...he is just giving us a gratuitous lesson in his version of manners in his defence of Political Correctness.

VC and I are poles apart on Political Correctness, and never the twain shall meet. But I think we can agree on the old adage that "manners maketh man" and leave it at that.

 

[Bintang]

But as I said, you are free to do what you like on your own website or publication. No one is stopping you saying what you like on your own website.

That is not what you said originally because you have now qualified the statement by adding "on your own website". Your original statement was simply

…... but you are free to use it.

but this is not true because this forum has yielded to political correctness (Joe has his reasons). I am just pointing out the reality. It's one thing to be politically correct, it is another to be delusional. I like to call a sp#de a spade and in this case it is abundantly clear that our freedom is constrained.

 

[Tisme]

For that matter, barring esoteric discussions about the finer points of poetry or orchestration, eg, I don't see what's so culturally uber sophisticated about the ABC. Have a listen to some of the absolute junk on Local Radio some time.

Me neither and that was the point of my post, that the ABC appears to suffer a stigma of being high brow among many battlers, the corollary being a self imposed low brow opinion.

I think I have made it fairly clear in previous posts that I do spend a lot of time with those people both of you tagged as " ill-educated and culturally illiterate", which I did not. My wife and I have paid rents for many out of our/my own pockets to keep a roof over their heads, fed them, furnished their digs etc all for no gain whatsoever except the pride I get in helping out, I have no doubt they are equal to me in many respects.

I don't care that you and Calliope assume I'm worth caustic attention, I know I have the runs on the board and I don't apologise for using my freedom of speech on this board. By all means attack the opinion, but you might like to ask for clarification rather than predicate an argument on a formulated myth of your own making. Being a troll, Calliope will jump on that bandwagon first chance he/she gets, hardly the support you could deem valuable.

I hope I have made you uncomfortable, like you made me in having to defend an indefensible slight you put on me by inference. I also hope you don't feel it for too long though because I do admire like your underlying niceness.

 

[Value Collector]

That is not what you said originally because you have now qualified the statement by adding "on your own website". Your original statement was simply

.

That is what I meant, Offcourse the owners of private media platforms don't have to publish anything you want.

A newspaper editor refusing to put your letter in his newspaper is not taking away your free speech, he is exercising his own rights to publish what he wants. Same with this and other websites.

Free speech is about having

the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.

You have the right to express your opinion, but that doesn't mean owners of private media have to publish it, If you want that opinion published you may have to do it yourself.

but this is not true because this forum has yielded to political correctness (Joe has his reasons).

And Joe has the right to do that, If you come to my house, and I say you can't smoke in my house, I am not taking away you right to smoke, I am enforcing my right to control what goes on in my property. You can leave and smoke in your home, on the street corner or even someone else's home who doesn't mind you smoking.

Same thing with a private website, Newspaper, billboard etc the owners of that media can control how that media is used, and that's not a breech of your free speech.

 

[SirRumpole]

I wonder if anyone has any comment on this

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-13/wilson-calls-for-discrimination-law-changes/6013946

I think we have discussed 18C at length, but I wonder if the French experience is any reason to re-visit them.

To me, the laws we have now strike a reasonable balance between freedom of speech and unnecessary vilification.

Why should the Charlie Hebdo affair have any impact on those laws ?

 

[Tisme]

I wonder if anyone has any comment on this

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-13/wilson-calls-for-discrimination-law-changes/6013946

I think we have discussed 18C at length, but I wonder if the French experience is any reason to re-visit them.

To me, the laws we have now strike a reasonable balance between freedom of speech and unnecessary vilification.

Why should the Charlie Hebdo affair have any impact on those laws ?

Apparently murder is a great shock absorber:

THE leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia has described the callous killing of Charlie Hebdo staff by Parisian Islamic terrorists as a “cure”.

Ismail Alwahwah, who also attended rallies with Martin Place gunman Man Haron Monis, wrote a lengthy diatribe on the attack in which he claimed the attacks were a reaction to “daily humiliation” of Muslims and “insults to their book and prophet”.

The Bankstown man – whose organisation describe themselves as a “political party whose ideology is Islam” – headed his vile article “Commentary on Charlie Hebdo and the physical law of compression” and used scientific analogies to justify the brutal slaughter.

“The pressure ”” is responsible for triggering the explosion, the cure has always focused on eliminating pressure or reducing it,” he wrote.
“As a result, it is assumed necessary in all cases to ensure that the pressure does not exceed the red lines, which will then ultimately lead to irreversible problems.”

He said the Islamic extremists who stormed the Charlie Hebdo offices and murdered 12 people ”” including editors, staff, policemen and maintenance workers ”” were part of an explosion triggered by pressure from the west.

“Woe, time and again, to all those who point the finger at any pressure when it gets a blast from the Muslims, regardless of size......For the accusation is ready; You justify the explosion, you justify terorism,” Alwahwah wrote.

 

[Bintang]

And Joe has the right to do that …..

I did not say he doesn't.

You are completely missing the point VC that you made an incorrect statement. I am simply stating that we do not in reality have the level of freedom that you claimed we have.

 

[Calliope]

Being a troll, Calliope will jump on that bandwagon first chance he/she gets, hardly the support you could deem valuable.

I fully understand your problem. I know you were just shooting off your mouth when you said the ABC was too highbrow for some Liberal supporters. As a Labor supporter is is quite natural that you would say that type of thing...and of course you meant it to be derogatory.

What I don't understand is why you have put some much time and energy and bile into attacking those who recognised your intention to belittle those people.

No amount of weasel words lke;

point of my post, that the ABC appears to suffer a stigma of being high brow among many battlers, the corollary being a self imposed low brow opinion

or

I think I have made it fairly clear in previous posts that I do spend a lot of time with those people both of you tagged as " ill-educated and culturally illiterate", which I did not.

or

by all means attack the opinion, but you might like to ask for clarification rather than predicate an argument on a formulated myth of your own making

can change what you said, nor your intent.

And now are you trying to give the impression that you and your wife succour all battlers, or just the Howard battlers that you belittled.? Strange that you have never let on the number of these Howard battlers (i.e. Liberals), whom you claim gave you your anecdotal evidence that the ABC was too high-brow for them.

 

[SirRumpole]

“Woe, time and again, to all those who point the finger at any pressure when it gets a blast from the Muslims, regardless of size......For the accusation is ready; You justify the explosion, you justify terrorism,” Alwahwah wrote.

Well, in a free society he is obviously allowed to say such things, but do we have a right to say he can't say them here, and to deport him to from whence he came, if we can legally do that ?

Freedom of speech has its consequences after all ...

 

[Value Collector]

You are completely missing the point VC that you made an incorrect statement. I am simply stating that we do not in reality have the level of freedom that you claimed we have.

How so, What's stopping you getting a soap box standing in the public space, and clearly stating any opinions you have?

That's free speech,

Me ignoring you, or refusing to video you and put you on the TV is not me taking away your freedom of speech.

Free speech is about not being arrested for stating an opinion, and not having you book banned or censored.

Look at north korea, they don't have free speech, Australia does, In North Korea standing on your soap box in public results in you being jailed or killed, your books burned etc. Give me a specific example of an opinion that would be illegal to hold or talk about in Australia.

 

[Bintang]

That's free speech,

Me ignoring you, or refusing to video you and put you on the TV is not me taking away your freedom of speech.

Free speech is about not being arrested for stating an opinion, and not having you book banned or censored.

Last time I looked in the dictionary the word freedom (as in the state of being free) was defined as, “the unrestricted use of something”.
So any kind of restriction will mean that freedom has been lost.
On this forum we do not have complete freedom of speech because certain words are censored. I am not complaining about this. I am just calling it how it is.

Nonetheless on this forum we do at least have free speech because Joe does not charge us anything for the words we post. Imagine if we all had to pay Joe one cent for every word we posted. It would have its benefits. Some posters might choose to be more economical with their words (not mentioning any names).

Look at north korea, they don't have free speech, Australia does, In North Korea standing on your soap box in public results in you being jailed or killed, your books burned etc. Give me a specific example of an opinion that would be illegal to hold or talk about in Australia.

How about the same opinions as Geert Wilders? And how about you ask him if he thinks Australia has freedom of speech.

 

[Julia]

Me neither and that was the point of my post, that the ABC appears to suffer a stigma of being high brow among many battlers, the corollary being a self imposed low brow opinion.

Tisme, what you said, and what I responded to, was:

I think the ABC has probably been too high brow for many of Howard's Battlers to concern themselves with first hand viewing... they have Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones to tell them what to think and complain of the ABC.

That is unequivocally being derogatory to the people you call Howard's Battlers, especially the determination that they are dependent on shock jocks to provide them with an opinion they would otherwise be unable to form.

My wife and I have paid rents for many out of our/my own pockets to keep a roof over their heads, fed them, furnished their digs etc all for no gain whatsoever except the pride I get in helping out,

I share your satisfaction in being able to help. I've said many times that money is meaningless of itself, but so useful for what it can do.

I don't care that you and Calliope assume I'm worth caustic attention,

Please don't lump me in with Calliope who seems to set out to inflame much of the time. I have no wish to be unnecessarily involved in any sort of altercation, but at the same time find it difficult to ignore what come across as class/wealth/education/culture divides.

I know I have the runs on the board and I don't apologise for using my freedom of speech on this board.

And neither you should. But as VC has lucidly explained, a likely corollary of using that freedom of speech means that others who take issue with a point you might make will express that disagreement.

I hope I have made you uncomfortable, like you made me in having to defend an indefensible slight you put on me by inference. I also hope you don't feel it for too long though because I do admire like your underlying niceness.

No, you've not made me uncomfortable, Tisme. I stand by my original objection to what you wrote.

But I'll also acknowledge that pretty much all of yesterday I found your posts incomprehensible, as others also noted, and am perfectly willing to take the comment to which I objected as something you wouldn't have meant to sound as superior as it did.

The typed word, devoid of voice tone, body language, general demeanour can create impressions we never intended which is probably the case here.

 

[Tisme]

Interesting reaction from another hater from the other side of the fence:

Conservative “Christian” blowhard Bryan Fischer claimed on his radio show that God sanctioned the terrorist attack in France as punishment for blasphemy against Christianity.

The terrorist attack on satirical publication Charlie Hebdo in Paris left 12 people dead and caused international outrage and grief. But here in America, conservative “Christians” have used the tragedy to call for censorship, an increase of religious fervor, and hate against Muslims.

Bryan Fischer, however, claims that God allowed the attack to punish the Charlie Hebdo staff for committing blasphemy and referred to Muslims as a “pagan, evil, foreign, wicked nation” that God uses to punish Christians.

"It’s striking to me that if you look at the Ten Commandments, Exodus 20, and this is a commandment that’s never been rescinded- still in force today. He says, God speaking through Moses, you shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. This magazine, Charlie Hebdo, they made a career out of taking the name of God- the God of the Bible, the Father of the Lord Jesus- they made a career, they made their bones out of taking His name in vain.

Now listen to what God says next. You’re not supposed to take the name of the Lord your God in vain. If you do, whose responsibility is it to deal with that? He says, the Lord himself will not hold him guiltless who him who takes His name in vain. God used a pagan nation, he used idolaters, he used the savage armies of Babylon to discipline His own people. He brought them in as the rod of his wrath… so he used this pagan foreign evil malicious wicked nation as a rod of correction and as a rod of discipline for the people of Judah".