If National wins ...

[BlackPeter]

So he should be - not that I agree with him, but I fully support free speech - whatever it is.

Are you sure? So - you would have supported Adolf Hitler at the time he called for the final solution of the Jewish question? He was using just words and surely free speech is allowed ?

I don't hope so.

Speech is actually the most dangerous tool available to us humans ... and no war, no genocide, no crusade and no witch hunt would have been possible without reckless and bad people using free speech to inflame and incite others to commit unspeakable crimes.

Any freedom needs to be regulated and balanced where its use impacts on the freedom of others ... and this is true for every right - including the right of free speech.

You don't have the right to make as much noise as you please on your property - if it infringes on the right of your neighbor to enjoy his property

You don't have the right to drive with unlimited speed over our roads, because the accident you might cause might limit someone else's right of living without injuries or living at all.

You don't have the right to discharge any firearm as you please, if you endanger other people standing in the shooting line.

And you clearly don't have the right to free speech if what you are saying is harming or likely to harm others.

Are you sure you are supporting crooks and liars rights to incite the masses in order to harm and kill others including yourself?

[fungus pudding]

Are you sure? So - you would have supported Adolf Hitler at the time he called for the final solution of the Jewish question? He was using just words and surely free speech is allowed ?

I don't hope so.

Speech is actually the most dangerous tool available to us humans ... and no war, no genocide, no crusade and no witch hunt would have been possible without reckless and bad people using free speech to inflame and incite others to commit unspeakable crimes.

Any freedom needs to be regulated and balanced where its use impacts on the freedom of others ... and this is true for every right - including the right of free speech.

You don't have the right to make as much noise as you please on your property - if it infringes on the right of your neighbor to enjoy his property

You don't have the right to drive with unlimited speed over our roads, because the accident you might cause might limit someone else's right of living without injuries or living at all.

You don't have the right to discharge any firearm as you please, if you endanger other people standing in the shooting line.

And you clearly don't have the right to free speech if what you are saying is harming or likely to harm others.

Are you sure you are supporting crooks and liars rights to incite the masses in order to harm and kill others including yourself?

Are you sure? Would you be quite happy for some dictatorial govt. to gain power and decide what can be said? No - we don't have the right to do those things you mention, or to incite others - they are controlled by laws. But laws controlling what we can say is going too far - what's next? Laws against what we think? I'll stick with my right to speak my mind.

[BlackPeter]

Are you sure? Would you be quite happy for some dictatorial govt. to gain power and decide what can be said? No - we don't have the right to do those things you mention - they are controlled by laws. But laws controlling what we can say is going too far - what's next? Laws against what we think? I'll stick with my right to speak my mind.

Well yes - I am sure that the right to free speech needs to end where it interferes with the legitimate rights of others ... and it needs to be balanced with the rights of others like any other right.

I don't think either that the argument of the dictatorial government is a flier.

No dictatorial government on this globe (and there are ways too many) does allow free speech - and free speech laws never prevented them from taking control. Quite easy - just take the government kill whoever resists and cr*p on the laws ...

I can't think about many examples where the right of free speech prevented a dictatorial dictatorship to establish itself or to end a dictatorial dictatorship, however I can think about endless examples where crooks used in weak democracies the right to free speech in order to establish their dictatorship.

The right to free speech brought Hitler into power. Trump used the right to free speech to spread his alternative realities and incite a riot. The idea of free speech stopped neither Stalin nor Putin nor Mao nor Xi suppressing their people.

We need to prevent dictatorial governments, but the way to do this is not to fight for unlimited free speech. Ask the people in Russia, or China, or Turkey or the Philippines or Iran or Syria on in 2/3rds of all countries of this globe.

The most important thing is not unlimited free speech but a democratically controlled government and the rule of law - and while the country of free speech (the US) is still sort of a democracy (but they left already a long time ago the "one man one vote" principle), they are already a long way down a slippery slope towards a dictatorship of a far right minority which uses the "right" of free speech to spread unlimited lies to the people. Are alternative facts covered by your right of unlimited free speech?

[fungus pudding]

Well yes - I am sure that the right to free speech needs to end where it interferes with the legitimate rights of others ... and it needs to be balanced with the rights of others like any other right.

I don't think either that the argument of the dictatorial government is a flier.

No dictatorial government on this globe (and there are ways too many) does allow free speech - and free speech laws never prevented them from taking control. Quite easy - just take the government kill whoever resists and cr*p on the laws ...

I can't think about many examples where the right of free speech prevented a dictatorial dictatorship to establish itself or to end a dictatorial dictatorship, however I can think about endless examples where crooks used in weak democracies the right to free speech in order to establish their dictatorship.

The right to free speech brought Hitler into power. Trump used the right to free speech to spread his alternative realities and incite a riot. The idea of free speech stopped neither Stalin nor Putin nor Mao nor Xi suppressing their people.

We need to prevent dictatorial governments, but the way to do this is not to fight for unlimited free speech. Ask the people in Russia, or China, or Turkey or the Philippines or Iran or Syria on in 2/3rds of all countries of this globe.

The most important thing is not unlimited free speech but a democratically controlled government and the rule of law - and while the country of free speech (the US) is still sort of a democracy (but they left already a long time ago the "one man one vote" principle), they are already a long way down a slippery slope towards a dictatorship of a far right minority which uses the "right" of free speech to spread unlimited lies to the people. Are alternative facts covered by your right of unlimited free speech?

Libel and defamation laws provide the remedy for 'alternative facts'. Trying to prevent certain types of speech, e.g hate speech (whatever that is) will never acheive anything.

[Bjauck]

Imagine, people like Israel Folau will be able to spout all that gays will go to hell & damnation stuff with complete impunity, Australian Rugby Union would not be able to terminate his contract under this law.

Folau materially embellished a biblical passage, so would Morrison's "protection of religion from criticism" apply?

[Blue Skies]

Folau materially embellished a biblical passage, so would Morrison's "protection of religion from criticism" apply?

From what I understand the contentious 'Folau clause' which the Australian Christian Lobby successfully pressured the govt to include in the Bill (& would give someone legal protection expressing a statement of belief ), has now been dropped in an effort to get the Bill passed.
Coalition MP's are split over the final draft of the Bill with some saying it goes too far & others not far enough.

The Bill was an election promise Scott Morrison (who wants Australians to know he is a Pentecostal Christian ) made to various heads of churches prior to the last election.


https://www.theguardian.com/australi...r-folau-clause


Anyway we should probably go back to discussing the National party as getting a bit off topic.

[777]

Well Luxon has confirmed he will run.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nation...Y6FUWRHKJAPOI/

[BlackPeter]

Libel and defamation laws provide the remedy for 'alternative facts'. Trying to prevent certain types of speech, e.g hate speech (whatever that is) will never acheive anything.

Libel and defamation laws might work for people who have unlimited financial means. This is neither fair nor just.

It looks like we disagree that hate speech laws will never achieve anything, but sure - they won't be perfect - no law is.

(Some) people will always lie, steal and kill others no matter whether there is a law against it or not, and the same will apply to hate speech laws.

Still - they will help society to deal with the problem and manage it, and a problem it is.

[fungus pudding]

Libel and defamation laws might work for people who have unlimited financial means. This is neither fair nor just.

It looks like we disagree that hate speech laws will never achieve anything, but sure - they won't be perfect - no law is.

(Some) people will always lie, steal and kill others no matter whether there is a law against it or not, and the same will apply to hate speech laws.

Still - they will help society to deal with the problem and manage it, and a problem it is.

Do you think it's about time we sent a few undercover cops to listen in on the Friday night drinking schools at the pub - ready to pounce the moment someone calls homosexuals 'bluudy poofters'?
What about somone who says 'I can't stand Jacinda - she's ###', or 'I hope Soimon doesn't win - can't go the #####' How about 'I hate the minister of xyz." The first problem with hate speech is defining it.

[Balance]

Do you think it's about time we sent a few undercover cops to listen in on the Friday night drinking schools at the pub - ready to pounce the moment someone calls homosexuals 'bluudy poofters'?
What about somone who says 'I can't stand Jacinda - she's ###', or 'I hope Soimon doesn't win - can't go the #####' How about 'I hate the minister of xyz." The first problem with hate speech is defining it.

Which is why Kris 'I know nothing' Faafoi has gone into hiding with his bill on hate speech.