A good definition of what free speech means

Hear hear and hear

Looking at the Tweet,it seems to have been a reaction to the sacking of a presenter over 'inappropriate' Anzac Day tweets:

www.smh.com.au/national/ww1/sbs-presenter-scott-mcintyre-sacked-over-inappropriate-anzac-day-tweets-20150426-1mtbx8.html

I can understand that the remarks would have provoked backlash and presumably negative publicity for the broadcaster, but I agree that the presenter should have been free to express his views. I know nothing of Australian law, but it looks like bowing to populist pressure or maybe the views of the broadcaster's editor/chief.

I would add to the definition that free speech is not about the right to take away another person's freedom from harrassment.

Apparently the Tweets broke the 'SBS Code of Conduct and social media policy' (whatever they might be).

I think there's a huge difference, anya, between holding distasteful views, including expressing them, and acting upon them to the detriment of others. If you never act in a nasty way towards other people, why would your views, whatever they are and on whatever subject, matter to anyone else? If you express them to someone who disagrees with them, you can tell them you disagree and why, or you can do what you did and simply aboid them as you don't like their attitude. Why should any of that have laws against it?

If people with horrible ideas are never allowed to express them, how can we work to prevent such ideas gaining ground?

ankers
1. How is telling someone they're welcome to hijack the conversation shutting anything down?
2. Yes, 140 characters, by its limited nature, does tend to leave a lot out, but the sentiment expressed is perfectly comprehensible to me.
3. I don't know the details of free speech law. I do think any law that prevents people from saying what they think (which is not the same as laws preventing or discouraging people from harming others) is a bad law.

avoid

It is not Blackmore's tweets that were problematic. I haven't seen the ones that apparently were.

In short, I think Brexit is irrelevant to my OP and subsequent posts, though you are free to hijack the thread and turn it into one about Brexit if you so choose. I can always start another about free speech.

You would have had no need to say all that to MaizieD if she was really welcome to turn the thread into talking about Brexit.

These are the Tweets which caused the sacking. (Hope it's OK to post the here. Disclaimer: They're not MY views.)

Remembering the summary execution, widespread rape and theft committed by these ‘brave’ Anzacs in Egypt, Palestine and Japan.

Wonder if the poorly-read, largely white, nationalist drinkers and gamblers pause today to consider the horror that all mankind suffered.

The cultification of an imperialist invasion of a foreign nation that Australia had no quarrel with is against all ideals of modern society.

Not forgetting that the largest single-day terrorist attacks in history were committed by this nation & their allies in Hiroshima & Nagasaki

If people with horrible ideas are never allowed to express them, how can we work to prevent such ideas gaining ground?

Or indeed, how would we even know who they are and what views they hold?

Sorry to lower the tone of the debate,

"Mr McIntyre's actions have breached the SBS Code of Conduct and social media policy and as a result

I havent copied and pasted correctly but no matter.
The point is, is it not, that like in the Jenni Murray case, she broke her employers' rules and therefore her contract.

As I said before on that thread, I, like others, not just at work but outside of work too, had to abide by certain rules else it would have got me fired.

I do think that people should be much more aware of what they sign up to when they agree a work contract. If you dont like the contract, either try to get it changed, or dont take the job in the first place.

They are tweets but his work had a social media policy.

So no, peole cannot just go around shouting their mouths off, and expecting no comeback.

^ n short, I think Brexit is irrelevant to my OP and subsequent posts, though you are free to hijack the thread and turn it into one about Brexit if you so choose. I can always start another about free speech.^

You would have had no need to say all that to MaizieD if she was really welcome to turn the thread into talking about Brexit.

Thank you for that, ankers. I live and learn.

But she really is welcome to cause a diversion. I was not being sarcastic. I meant it. It wouldn't bother me. I'd just bugger off and do my own thing elsewhere.

Who said people should expect no comeback if they shout their mouths off?

Thanks for the tweets that got a man sacked, dd. It would certainly seem that he was expressing what looks, where Anzacs are concerned, like an offensive point of view. But why not argue with him about it with factual and correct historical information? If what he says is untrue, surely the record can be put right? And if what he says is true....

It seems illiberal to me to sack someone for saying something offensive. It's saying that people are not allowed to express what are seen as wrong-headed views. Which takes us back to Galileo. What he said was regarded as wrong-headed and heretical. Then it turned out that what he said was correct.

The sacked guy may be mistaken in his views but how is sacking him going to change his mind? Or anyone else's?

I guess the difference between me and some who have a problem with the idea of free speech is that I believe in the power of argument and think that addressing offensiveness is and will be far more effective than silencing it.

. I don't know the details of free speech law. I do think any law that prevents people from saying what they think (which is not the same as laws preventing or discouraging people from harming others) is a bad law.

And "If you try to shut down speech that you dislike, using economic duress such as boycotts, you're an authoritarian and a fanatic. by Russell Blackford?

I am confused again in that case.
Should the man who got fired have got fired in your opinion?

x post. I need to read the above posts now.

The sacked guy may be mistaken in his views but how is sacking him going to change his mind? Or anyone else's?

and

It seems illiberal to me to sack someone for saying something offensive. It's saying that people are not allowed to express what are seen as wrong-headed views

It is not about having his mind changed. He broke his work contract!

"Once he has resigned I want @uklabour to address how this happened and root out his entire culture so they cant threaten democracy again."

Said by Lisa Muggeridge about Corbyn. She obviously doesn't believe in free speech.

At SBS, employees on and off air are encouraged to participate in social media, however maintaining the integrity of the network and audience trust is vital. It is unfortunate that on this very important occasion, Mr McIntyre's comments have compromised bothAt SBS, employees on and off air are encouraged to participate in social media, however maintaining the integrity of the network and audience trust is vital. It is unfortunate that on this very important occasion, Mr McIntyre's comments have compromised both

I have no idea how many employees the radio station has.
But if the bosses had to continually monitor everything their employees were saying on twitter and elsewhere, and then talk to them and address any offensiveness, they might have to employ a lot of people to do that.

So much easier and cheaper to have a work social media policy, which presumably every potential employee has to sign.

If they dont like it, they can leave I presume.

Rather like on gransnet really. Their rules. If a poster doesnt like it, they are free to leave.

As in the Jenni Murray caes, I think broadcasters are in a bit of a special case as to what they can say in and out of work.

Hang on though, dd. You've lost me. What have those tweets about Anzacs got to do with the debate about charitable work by the Australian Bible Society? Is that what those tweets you quoted were about? Or is it another freedom of speech scenario altogether?

Ankers
But actually, it is not actually asking whether they support Brexit at all I dont think?

Not overtly, but what does be committed to the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom following its departure from the European Union mean if it doesn't mean 'You need to believe in Brexit'?

I'm not trying to hi jack your thread and make it into a brexit thread, thatbags; it was just that that example of apparent use of 'economic duress' was topical and would perhaps indicate a serious impairment of the belief in 'freedom of speech'which we, as a nation, pride ouselves on.

As people have rightly said, how can a business express any sort of 'attitude'. The individuals who comprise 'the business' might have a huge range of different beliefs. How many people in the business have to have a negative attitude towards Brexit before it becomes ineligible to tender for a contract? How does anyone know what its people are thinking? If the business wants the work they'll tender for it whatever its constituents private views. Why would those views make them unfit to do the work?

Can there be more than one freedom of speech?