knockoff nige

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-2...randis/5343464

I find this a bit confusing and not entirely sure what this will entitle. Will it allow me to verbally abuse someone on the street or will it simply allow me to call someone racist if I truly believe they are. Are far as I can see, 18d already allows me the latter.

Not suggesting I need to yell in someone's face on the train.

What surprises me though is the AG being so passionate about it and blatantly calling it a right to be a biggot. Do I want or need that right? It all seems to e to protect some journos from being prosecuted for their printed words that they would have plenty of time to think about and even get peer reviewed ahead of going public with them.

Is Australia falling further back in time with this?

Amazulu

Stephen Fry can be a bit knob at times but he was spot on when he said this:

“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so ****ing what.”

You should be allowed to say what you want - apart from in a few extreme cases

If you want to express viewpoints and ideas that the majority find offensive then you should be permitted to

If someone doesn't like it then they need to build a bridge and get over it

GarryP

As far as I can see you need to draw a line somewhere, and it should be on this side of allowing people like Fred Phelps to spew bile. I'm not sure if the exemptions defined would do that - basically you couldn't shout at someone on a bus, but you could loudly discuss how bad black people were on that same bus, with the understanding that someone specific could hear you.

So, either incompetent at drawing up acts, or malicious in attempting to neuter such legislation.

knockoff nige

But did Stephen Fry not over simplify it? Does this current law not protect you from vernal abuse? Doesn't it also protect your right to have an opinion and share it? I think it also encourages education. Amendments to this law, as far as I read it, means people are open to abuse and it's up to themselves to 'get over it' as you put it.

Also, can you tell me what these 'few extreme examples' are?

Amazulu

promoting pedophilia
urging violence on individuals or organisations
calling for the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government
etc

If muslims want to burn bibles/poppies/flags then they should be allowed to
If non-muslims want to burn the koran, draw cartoons of mohammed then they should be allowed to
If people want to promote far-left viewpoints they should be allowed to
If people want to promote far-right viewpoints they should be allowed to

If someone is offended by this then express opposition, if they don't want to then just take a chill pill

the government interferes in too many aspects of our lives. This law is just another example of this. Ditch it

Fry is spot on

knockoff nige

Looks to me like you just pulled examples out of the air. What about verbal abuse towards a person from a minority? Should we be able to attack someone and call them names much like what that 13 year old girl did to Adam Goodes last year? I think this change will only be in favour of those idiots. There is no public demand for this to change and so why it's being spoken about with such passion by the AG with him telling us he wants to protect your right to be ignorant is just confusing. This is just blatant 'we can say what we want as we are in power' attitude. How is he qualified to see both sides of this anyway? He's a little too privileged to be saying 'it's alright to be a biggot'.

BadgeIsBack

I agree with Zulu and clearly his examples are the first that came to mind.

You could probably add most forms of discrimination to his list.

Amazulu

I didn't but if that's what you want to believe then party on

Look, I just believe that people in a democracy like ours should be allowed to say pretty much what they like. There is no need for the government to tell us what we can or cannot say (again there are exceptions). People need to take responsibilty for their own actions

I have certain libertarian viewpoints. This is one of them

knockoff nige

I see nothing wrong with having a view and sharing it. Surely there is reason to being protected from abuse, though? The current law allows you to have your view and share it. It doesn't allow you to attack someone with it or blatantly show your poor education by calling a black person a gorrilla. From what I read, the changes will allow this. And why? Why is George Brandis so determined to make this change? Do you feel threatened by it's current state? I feel threatened by the idiots being so important in parliament that they get their rights 'loosened' without even kicking up about it.

What a poor government this is.

Amazulu

I like them and voted for them
So did the majority of other Australians
At the time of the Bolt case, the then opposition said that they would change this law when in government
They were duly and democratically elected
They therefore have a mandate
In 2016 you will be able to cast your vote in an attempt to get them out of government - and as the opposition are wishy washy socialists, I'm sure that they will reintroduce this law

Democracy working as intended

knockoff nige

But we know that you didn't vote for this change as it wasn't a change they had campaigned with. It's also quite clear that you back these guys regardless of what you knew or didn't know they would do before they were elected.

I think it's dismissive to say that next time I get to do something about it. It's my view that this current government got in because the last governments party were on it's knees and falling apart. What choice had people got? I certainly didn't vote for the LNP but had no hope in not having them as a government.

Amazulu

But that's democracy and how it works all over the world some of the time

Them's the breaks

As usual socialism had failed yet again in Australia and a conservative government was elected in order to try and unravel their clusterf**k

And yes, I would have voted for them regardless

In 2016 you get to choose again

quoll

Absolutely!
The PC thought police have gone too far. I'm inclined to side with Voltaire on this one.

Amazulu

A great man

His views on Islam were spot on

knockoff nige

How exactly are they the 'Thought Police'? You are allowed to think what you like. I think you're being a little ignorant to the issue here as this isn't about restricting your thoughts or even your right to express your opinion. If your opinion is that a person/group/race are a bunch of whatever, why do you need the right to express that and offend? Do you defend racist verbal abuse? This government seems to. Should Sport associations give up trying to protect athletes from attacks from fans and other athletes?

Should people who have actually been verbally abused be totally ok with it and not have a means of standing up for themselves without throwing back an insult?