Violence erupts in Sydney over anti-Islam film (1 Viewer)

[Absolutezero]

It's actually *reiterating* !

They're interchangeable. Iterate has technical accuracy however.

 

[moll.]

I really couldn't give a shit u dickhead. Fuckn smart ass.

Hahaha what are you going to do, get angry and threaten to behead me because you're too stupid to solve things except through violence?

 

[7eleven]

Neither of you see the irony and hypocrisy involved in using freedom of speech to attack freedom of speech?

You dont see the irony in people like u who are attacking those who are holding placards?

 

[Azure]

Listen brother (yeah sorry bro, thought you were from another), what you said is all correct, and i do support you in that. I would have liked to stayed but my dad ordered me outta there.

But still i keep reilleterating that its not a one way street here. Both sides, including the police and the protestors, have wrongdoings.


So some ppl think that the video is fine as it is freedom of speech. Isn't it freedom of speech to hold placards askin for beheadings? What if i burn the Aussie flag? Its wrong, i know but isn't it freedom of speech? What if i burn someone's daughter. LOL. Its freedom of speech isn't it? What i'm tryin to get to, is that u can't go out there in the world postin whatever u want to, sayin whatever u want to. Everything needs to come with regulation.

First of all, freedom of expression is embedded within the US Constitution. It is merely an implied right within Australia, which is essentially derived from common law and international conventions. When we talk about freedom of expression, within the context of this scenario, we are essentially describing the right of the producer of the video (being an American citizen) to basically say anything he likes, given that it does not incite violence or imminent unlawful actions.

As I've previously mentioned, you are not free to incite violence. In the United States, the right to freedom of expression is not all encompassing and has limitations, as mentioned in the case I listed earlier. In Australia, inciting violence is an offence under the Criminal Code Act (Cwth) and the Crime Prevention Act (NSW). So yes, there is a clear distinction in that the video does not appear to have been created with the intention of evoking a violent response, hence why the U.S was powerless to prevent its distribution.

Interestingly, the Crime Prevention Act also covers the act of creating of writing material that is intended to incite violence. Applicable in this context because it conveys the underlying principles of the law.

3 Printing or publishing writing inciting to crimes

If any person prints or publishes any writing which incites to, urges, aids, or encourages the commission of crimes or the carrying on of any operations for or by the commission of crimes, such person shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to a penalty not exceeding 1 penalty unit.

Incites, urges, aids, encourages. Strong words and not applicable within this context because there is no command made by the producer regarding violence. A good example of something that incites violence, in my opinion, would be a terrorist video inciting people to go out and engage in acts of terrorism, or something created by the KKK urging whites to kill non-whites. Something that actually puts people in a position where they feel motivated or compelled to become violent as a result of some sort of directive. On the other hand, the signs created calling for beheadings do exactly this in my opinion.

Burning somebodies daughter has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with murder/assault occasioning GBH/etc...

Keeping in mind this is all my own interpretation.

 

[hobozforlife]

Um, this is awkward. Did you even read my post?

Oh shyt :$

 

[Lolsmith]

A forum is moderated for a reason dickhead.
I never said he isn't allowed to say what he has said I just requested he be warned about it within this thread because it is trolling.
He makes a lot of invalid contributions like the prophet is a pedophile and stipulating that his opinion of christians is that they are "Dumb fucks". How in your mind are they valid contributions?

I didn't say Christians were dumb fucks

I said that some dumb fucks were Christian

Srsly do u happen to be from a jew-ish background?

YESSSSSSS HERE IT IS

 

[JINOUGA]

Srsly do u happen to be from a jew-ish background?

Haha wow

 

[moll.]

Oh shyt :$

No worries. All's well that end's well.

 

[moll.]

You dont see the irony in people like u who are attacking those who are holding placards?

No, because I object to their threats of violence, not the fact that they are saying things I disagree with.

 

[PakiPrince]

Hahaha what are you going to do, get angry and threaten to behead me because you're too stupid to solve things except through violence?

*Sigh... And with comments like that they expect us to be peaceful.. I'm just going to ignore that.

 

[hobozforlife]

*Sigh... And with comments like that they expect us to be peaceful.. I'm just going to ignore that.

+1

 

[moll.]

*Sigh... And with comments like that they expect us to be peaceful.. I'm just going to ignore that.

Yes, because posts like this:

I really couldn't give a shit u dickhead. Fuckn smart ass.

are so very peaceful in nature.

 

[Peccadillo]

I didn't say Christians were dumb fucks

I said that some dumb fucks were Christian


YESSSSSSS HERE IT IS

Nice try

You actually said "Plenty of dumb fuck Christians".

To me this implies that ALL christians are dumb as you fail to specify otherwise.

 

[Lolsmith]

I do condemn the violence, however i don't see why people cant hold such placards, isn't this "their freedom of speech" , under which the production of the movie is justified?

Yes it is, they have every right to brandish this sign and I would never say otherwise.

I could say the same to you!!
Who sed I was insulting anyone, it's called *freedom of speech*

You can still be insulting under freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not absolve people of insensitivity.

So some ppl think that the video is fine as it is freedom of speech. Isn't it freedom of speech to hold placards askin for beheadings? What if i burn the Aussie flag? Its wrong, i know but isn't it freedom of speech? What if i burn someone's daughter. LOL. Its freedom of speech isn't it? What i'm tryin to get to, is that u can't go out there in the world postin whatever u want to, sayin whatever u want to. Everything needs to come with regulation.

Burning a flag is fine as long as it is your flag. It is your property and as long as your actions do not negatively impact upon the property or person of others, there is no infringement here. If, however, you caused some greater fire which damaged property, then you would be held liable and it would not constitute an act of dissent or an expression of free speech. Burning a person is obviously a violation of this.

No one opinion is more valid than another? Therefore my belief in god is no more invalid than his disbelief? True? I repeat - you're a dickhead.

To say "Christians are dumb fucks" is a sweeping generalisation, has no method of intelligent thought behind it and certainly doesnt not support your backing of his intelect.

To say the prophet was a pedophile is his opinion and he is entitled to that opinion. But it's relevance to this discussion goes no further than unnecessary trolling.

His undeylying statement is what???? What underlying statement is there to "christians are dumb fucks".. I dont get it? Are there some lines I'm meant to be reading between here?

I didn't even say that, you did. My point was that there are methods of protest to express your outrage that don't involve being dangers to the public. Did you even read the entirety of my post?

 

[Lolsmith]

Nice try

You actually said "Plenty of dumb fuck Christians".

To me this implies that ALL christians are dumb as you fail to specify otherwise.

Yeah, no this is not how words work guy

 

[PakiPrince]

Yes it is, they have every right to brandish this sign and I would never say otherwise.

You can still be insulting under freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not absolve people of insensitivity.

Burning a flag is fine as long as it is your flag. It is your property and as long as your actions do not negatively impact upon the property or person of others, there is no infringement here. If, however, you caused some greater fire which damaged property, then you would be held liable and it would not constitute an act of dissent or an expression of free speech. Burning a person is obviously a violation of this.

I didn't even say that, you did. My point was that there are methods of protest to express your outrage that don't involve being dangers to the public. Did you even read the entirety of my post?

That is exactly what the video has done.

 

[JINOUGA]

That is exactly what the video has done.

What property of yours did it negatively impact on again?

Inb4"fak off u jew"

 

[moll.]

Hey Lolsmith, philosophical side note (fuck off everyone else): do you think that freedom of speech still holds if it is used to inhibit someone else's freedom of speech, especially through violence or threats thereof?

 

[hobozforlife]

You can still be insulting under freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not absolve people of insensitivity.

.

 

[PakiPrince]

What property of yours did it negatively impact on again?



Inb4"fak off u jew"

Brother, do i have to spell it out for you? The video has negatively impacted person/s. Meaning it has negatively impacted the entire muslim world, thus the protests. Therefore it is an infringement according to the guy's views.

"fak off u jew"

Wat?