A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
In that people say some profoundly dumb and offensive things that should be left unsaid I agree with you. But I would rather live where somebody can act like and imbecile or stick their foot in their mouth than be subject to speech codes stifling the marketplace of ideas.
Im not so sure about laws being used to promote harmony, Victoria has had a racial and religious vilification law on the cards for a few years now and it has been used against some evangelical pastors from Catch the Fire Ministries who said that Islam was influenced by devils. These laws are very dangerous things, they grant undue protection to religious ideas that in themselves deserve absolutely no protection and I would argue forment more distrust and animosity than unlimited free speech on the matter.
Inciting violence and hate speech can be divided. Infringing on free speech that is not incitement or the equivalent of screaming fire in a theatre is a dangerous position, if you can ban one type of speech that you find offensive then why not another - the demands across Europe from for such laws betray a lack of respect for free speech and the liberal tradition (e.g. Iqbal Sacranie and the MCB in Britain and the uproar over Jyllands-Posten publishing cartoon depictions of Mohammed in Denmark as well as the support for those laws from Christian and Jewish groups; when Christians, Jews and Muslims are working together you know something bad is going down for the rest of us).
Just off the top of my head in the context of the Cronulla riots some hypothetical declarations.
Bash Lebs - that would be incitement to violence and should not be protected speech.
Go Home Osama! - that should be protected speech. It is ignorant and hate filled to be sure but it is not in itself instigating violence.
Im not so sure about laws being used to promote harmony, Victoria has had a racial and religious vilification law on the cards for a few years now and it has been used against some evangelical pastors from Catch the Fire Ministries who said that Islam was influenced by devils. These laws are very dangerous things, they grant undue protection to religious ideas that in themselves deserve absolutely no protection and I would argue forment more distrust and animosity than unlimited free speech on the matter.
Inciting violence and hate speech can be divided. Infringing on free speech that is not incitement or the equivalent of screaming fire in a theatre is a dangerous position, if you can ban one type of speech that you find offensive then why not another - the demands across Europe from for such laws betray a lack of respect for free speech and the liberal tradition (e.g. Iqbal Sacranie and the MCB in Britain and the uproar over Jyllands-Posten publishing cartoon depictions of Mohammed in Denmark as well as the support for those laws from Christian and Jewish groups; when Christians, Jews and Muslims are working together you know something bad is going down for the rest of us).
Just off the top of my head in the context of the Cronulla riots some hypothetical declarations.
Bash Lebs - that would be incitement to violence and should not be protected speech.
Go Home Osama! - that should be protected speech. It is ignorant and hate filled to be sure but it is not in itself instigating violence.
Last edited: