andrew bolt GUILTY (2 Viewers)

[antonio primo]

no free speech for anti racists

 

[antonio primo]

tHE CARTOGRAPHY OF THE INVERSION RIGHT HERE

 

[antonio primo]

lmao my avatar makes every post i make a million times more funny

SIR THE GOOMBAS ARE DANCING AGAIN

 

[LonelyWolf]

nah i just call myself an outright racist now

look at the definition of racism in the dictionary:

1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

i think its correct to say that racial realist and racists are the same. fuck i dunno

 

[katie tully]

whatever guys i hate abos so sue me

 

[Funky Monk]

Lentern how do you feel about people being found guilty of crimes they didn't commit?

Probs great 'cause it suits your narrative.

 

[Lolsmith]

The reason why I support unfettered freedom of speech is because opinion is subjective.

If I were to allow one position to be deemed "unworthy" why should I then not allow any other position to be deemed "unworthy".

 

[zombie omie jay]

thought crimes best crimes

 

[Phoenix Fury]

The reason why I support unfettered freedom of speech is because opinion is subjective.

If I were to allow one position to be deemed "unworthy" why should I then not allow any other position to be deemed "unworthy".

But-but people might get ~offended~

oh the horror

 

[Lentern]

Lentern how do you feel about people being found guilty of crimes they didn't commit?

Probs great 'cause it suits your narrative.

I'm sorry, today a court applies the rule of law perfectly, you lot hark on about it like its a travesty then you say I'm advocating the persecution of the innocent? Get real.

 

[Lentern]

The reason why I support unfettered freedom of speech is because opinion is subjective.

If I were to allow one position to be deemed "unworthy" why should I then not allow any other position to be deemed "unworthy".

Do you support the right of doctors to break doctor patient confidentiality? I've read cases where this was alleged to be an infringement on their freedom of speech.

 

[Rafy]

Exemptions
Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing:
(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or
(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

I believe His Honour erred in not finding that the articles were covered by the above exception. His reasons aren't very convincing, especially weighed against the greater interest in protecting the right to debate and discuss such issues.

 

[Blastus]

Let's see how many of those jigoistic bogans will defend Al Hilali's right to free speech when he says Australians are all ugly liars or whatever.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-to-families-of-dead-Australian-soldiers.html

I SUPPORT THIS MAN

I do

 

[Blastus]

lentern freedom of speech I agree with bos poster

 

[Blastus]

I hate this topic more than anything

 

[Lolsmith]

Do you support the right of doctors to break doctor patient confidentiality? I've read cases where this was alleged to be an infringement on their freedom of speech.

No I don't because they've entered a contract saying they will limit their freedom of speech to suit the needs of their client

Come on man

 

[Lolsmith]

I hate this topic more than anything

stop the boats

 

[Graney]

The reason why I support unfettered freedom of speech is because opinion is subjective.

If I were to allow one position to be deemed "unworthy" why should I then not allow any other position to be deemed "unworthy".

What about defamation. It can be objective.

A Galaxy poll conducted last weekend:

In your opinion, which of these two options is the most important? That the government protect the right to free speech, or that people are protected from being offended?

Right to free speech 82%
Protection from being offended 15%
Don't know 3%

That is the most loaded and poorly elucidated question.

 

[Lolsmith]

What about defamation. It can be objective.



That is the most loaded and poorly elucidated question.

What constitutes "defamation" first of all

 

[Graney]

I guess making claims about others in slander or libel that are demonstrably untrue and likely to harm reputation.