A good definition of what free speech means

. 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?

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.

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?

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

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.

^ 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.

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

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

"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.

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,

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

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.

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

avoid

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.

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

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.

Hear hear and hear

Calling something free speech does not vindicate it. It doesn't make it polite, correct, or even marginally acceptable in civilized society. The sole and only thing it means is that it's not against the law.

Speech can be offensive, morally repugnant and appallingly stupid. We can condemn, malign and mock people for what they say. We shout them down, ban them from our message boards and generally refuse to be around them. All free speech means is that we can't lock them up because of the content of their speech.

Speech is legal. That doesn't make it right, good or socially acceptable, it just means the law has no hold on you.

Been out walking, got my thinking head back on.

On first look at MaizieD's link, that appears dreadful.
But actually, it is not actually asking whether they support Brexit at all I dont think?

I think the tweet in the op leaves out a huge number of things!

Also, I'm not sure how a business could be in favour of or against Brexit

They would be talking about the business owners.

What to your mind, is wrong with the laws we have about it at present, thatbags?

That's my understanding too,thatbags ie that it's not against the law to hold racist views or even to express them. However, it's against the law in certain circumstances, for example, if the Equality Act is broken or if it incites racial hatred. The Equality Act only covers discrimination and incitement needs to be proved legally.

Like Anya, I also am not firing on all cylinders.

I have actually totally lost track of what laws there are about this subject. It seems like the more I read about it, the less I know.