The right to free speech

[Philosopher]

Do you disagree with this law, given your earlier indication that free speech should be protected in such environments?

I feel I have been very consistent. In addressing this question, I have pointed out that one must distinguish between private and public properties. Public properties are public because they are tax payer funded. Because they are tax payer funded, employees of public institutions should not have the legal right to racially abuse or discriminate against someone, regardless of the reason, As an employee or official agent of a public institution, a person does not have the legal right to unbridled freedom of speech. There are positive laws pertaining to this, and there are codes of conduct employees and agents must abide by. Outside of work, speaking as a private citizen, yes, a person does. But as I pointed out, this can lead to problems.

Cheap labour is one reason. Another is that certain groups and individuals are ignorant of the rights they possess as members of the workforce, and can therefore be more easily manipulated by their employers.

The discussion or argument was never about racially abusing someone and the courts would never uphold a strictly private club granting membership to someone whose race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed was against the policy of the club only so they can be racially abused. This makes no sense whatsoever.

OK, but do they have a legal right to fire based on the same reasons? Do they have a legal right to tell an interviewee that they are not eligible for the job because they're African, Asian or whatever? If not, do you believe they should have such rights?

I do not believe a private business or private membership club can fire someone based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed, since they could never be hired or granted membership in the first place. The only way this may be possible is if a private club has a strict policy against homosexuality and a person granted club membership hid his homosexuality to gain membership. And then later came out of the closet. In such in instance, if the policy of the private club is clearly limited to heterosexuals, and it is openly stated, and the person granted membership signed acknowledging this policy, then the private club should have the legal right to expel the person. The same would be true with transvestites.

I support this.

In regard to interviews: if a strictly private club or business has a restricted discriminatory policy on hiring employees, and this is openly stated in the charter, then yes, they have every right to discriminate. They are not a public club or employer and they are not tax payer funded.

I fully support this too.

Earlier you suggested that free speech should be unbounded. I wanted to know if you think a government as a system itself (through its designated officials) should have the right to free speech, given your expectation that it secures free speech for individual citizens. Should Tony Abbott or Barack Obama have the right to free speech in an official capacity as PM or President, if free speech is supported by their respective political parties?

Again, I feel I have been very consistent, so I am not aware of what you are alleging here. The answer to your question depends on context. A member of government has a right to freedom of speech. A president of a country, for example, can expressly his personal views in a public forum or debate. However, his speech cannot be used to advocate policy against current laws. For example, he can state on a public forum that he would like to violate anti-discrimination laws by hiring only people of a certain color and creed, but he cannot implement this policy, as he would be violating current law. He can, however, express the argument that a law should change and that he should have the right to discriminate in his hiring. This would be political suicide in a multicultural society, however.

Privately, however, a member of government can speak in confidence whatever he wishes. This also may have its consequences, if the private conversation should also leak out. Not because the speech is illegal, but because it may be politically incorrect.

I do not see how this is at all applicable to Golden Dawn members. They are a minority political party who wants to change the laws of Greece. They have every legal right to work within the system to implement this change. And they should have every legal right to promote their political philosophy in an open forum. And the citizens should have the legal right to hear this message and choose whether to accept it or reject it.

[Vangelovski]

I agree that there should be some very limited restrictions on speech and that perhaps speech that incites violence could fall within those restrictions (though defining and interpreting what actually constitutes incitement of violence has proved to be very difficult and easily abused).

However, I agree with Philosopher that bad ideas are not killed by criminalising them. Bad ideas are killed by showing them for what they are...and I believe that was a central tenant of this forum.

In the conspiracy laden world of the Balkans, I can easily see how people from Golden Dawn would be viewed as martyrs for being banned in the "west" and how it was all a Jewish conspiracy etc etc and that Golden Dawn must really be onto something etc etc because the evil "west" is trying to destroy them etc etc.

While barring Golden Dawn from spreading their message in Australia (in person at least) might be a legitimate course of action, I think it would be much more effective to bring them into an organised public debate in order to show them for the fools that they really are. John Howard (for the enemy of freedom that he was), was smart enough to allow Pauline Hanson to talk and talk and talk until people realised she has no idea what she was actually talking about. Her vision quickly fizzled out and I doubt it will poke its silly head up ever again. Howard initially coped a lot of criticism for letting her go about her merry way, but he was at least smart enough in this instance to let her make or break herself.

[spitfire]

While barring Golden Dawn from spreading their message in Australia (in person at least) might be a legitimate course of action, I think it would be much more effective to bring them into an organised public debate in order to show them for the fools that they really are. John Howard (for the enemy of freedom that he was), was smart enough to allow Pauline Hanson to talk and talk and talk until people realised she has no idea what she was actually talking about. Her vision quickly fizzled out and I doubt it will poke its silly head up ever again. Howard initially coped a lot of criticism for letting her go about her merry way, but he was at least smart enough in this instance to let her make or break herself.

Very well put. Here's how a member of golden dawn was given the chance to speak, and look what a fool he made of himself.

ΞΥΛΟ ΚΑΣΙΔΙΑΡΗΣ VS ΚΑΝΕΛΛΗ Mortal Kombat 2 - YouTube

[Soldier of Macedon]

Because they are tax payer funded, employees of public institutions should not have the legal right to racially abuse or discriminate against someone, regardless of the reason

Earlier you said that free speech should be protected at public institutions like hospitals and schools. In trying to reconcile that statement with the one quoted above, can it then be understood that you believe the right to free speech in such environments should be available to non-employees such as patients and students? If not, then who exactly were you referring to?

The discussion or argument was never about racially abusing someone......

The discussion began with you supporting the right of Golden Dawn to hurl racist abuse towards Macedonians in Australia.

I do not believe a private business or private membership club can fire someone based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed, since they could never be hired or granted membership in the first place.

Are such discriminative policies and charters legal for a private business like a restaurant?

A president of a country, for example, can expressly his personal views in a public forum or debate. However, his speech cannot be used to advocate policy against current laws.

In your view, should unbounded free speech be enshrined in law?

I agree that there should be some very limited restrictions on speech.....

Can you define some of those restrictions in more detail?

In the conspiracy laden world of the Balkans, I can easily see how people from Golden Dawn would be viewed as martyrs for being banned in the "west" and how it was all a Jewish conspiracy etc etc and that Golden Dawn must really be onto something etc etc because the evil "west" is trying to destroy them etc etc.

I can see that happening also, but such views are neither regarded nor respected by most normal people.

While barring Golden Dawn from spreading their message in Australia (in person at least) might be a legitimate course of action, I think it would be much more effective to bring them into an organised public debate in order to show them for the fools that they really are.

Even if they did agree to something like that, they would be using insulting references for Macedonians (both in general and against those on the opposite side of the table) during the whole debate, because that is their whole philosophy. How many Macedonians would agree to such a debate?

[Philosopher]

Earlier you said that free speech should be protected at public institutions like hospitals and schools. In trying to reconcile that statement with the one quoted above, can it then be understood that you believe the right to free speech in such environments should be available to non-employees such as patients and students? If not, then who exactly were you referring to?

I think I understand the confusion. Let me clarify. Within the realm of “public property”, there are a number of different kinds. On a public road or street, for example, I have and should have the legal right to unbridled free speech. Although a public road or street is tax payer funded, I am not an employee of the state, or of any institution, and I am not representing a government agency or institution. I am representing myself, and I have the right to unbridled free speech.

A public hospital or school, however, is not the same as a street. These institutions have codes of conduct which are applicable to employees and visitors. These codes of conduct limit behavior, including speech. Individuals hired at such institutions must comply with these regulatory standards. Visitors too. As a visitor of such institutions, I should have the legal right to unbridled speech, but if I may exercise that right, I may be asked to leave the premises, depending on how the right is exercised. I will not be arrested, unless I break other laws, since my actions are not illegal; they only violate regulatory standards.

My position has been very clear and very consistent.

The discussion began with you supporting the right of Golden Dawn to hurl racist abuse towards Macedonians in Australia.

Yes, but that is not what I mean. What I mean is that I never used those words.

Are such discriminative policies and charters legal for a private business like a restaurant?

If it is a strictly private restaurant, then yes. By strictly private I mean it is not open to the general public, and only members who comply with the restaurant's regulatory standards may be invited. If it is a privately owned restaurant, and it is open to the general public, then no.

I also support this.

In your view, should unbounded free speech be enshrined in law?

No. Laws are too easy to repeal. I would favor that the right of free speech be considered a natural right and be represented as such in the constitution or as a constitutional amendment.

[Vangelovski]

Can you define some of those restrictions in more detail?

I'd say fraud and defamation would be instances in which speech could be legitimately curbed, and like I said, perhaps speech that incites violence but laws that regulate it are very open to abuse.

I can see that happening also, but such views are neither regarded nor respected by most normal people.

And that's why its better to kill bad ideas through public debate.

Even if they did agree to something like that, they would be using insulting references for Macedonians (both in general and against those on the opposite side of the table) during the whole debate, because that is their whole philosophy. How many Macedonians would agree to such a debate?

I wouldn't get Macedonians to debate them because it would turn into a Macedonian vs Greek thing rather than showing the foolishness of their ideological leanings. There are plenty of sensible Greeks that could debate them and I'd say its best left to them.

[Soldier of Macedon]

On a public road or street, for example, I have and should have the legal right to unbridled free speech.

I don't agree. There are too many morons in this world that would abuse such a right.

Yes, but that is not what I mean. What I mean is that I never used those words.

Whether or not you personally do is irrelevant because that is a matter of choice. The fact is, being a racist is acceptable when there are no limitations on free speech. And the right to free speech is what this thread (and therefore) discussion is about.

I wouldn't get Macedonians to debate them because it would turn into a Macedonian vs Greek thing rather than showing the foolishness of their ideological leanings. There are plenty of sensible Greeks that could debate them and I'd say its best left to them.

There are many sensible Greeks, but how many of them are actually influential enough or willing to participate in an organised public debate against such people in defence of the Macedonians? Is that even a realistic alternative to banning Golden Dawn from spreading their anti-Macedonian hate speeches in Australia?

[Vangelovski]

There are many sensible Greeks, but how many of them are actually influential enough or willing to participate in an organised public debate against such people in defence of the Macedonians? Is that even a realistic alternative to banning Golden Dawn from spreading their anti-Macedonian hate speeches in Australia?

I did not say they should defend Macedonians, I said they should debate GD on their Nazi ideology.

[Philosopher]

I don't agree. There are too many morons in this world that would abuse such a right.

I would rather live in a world where "morons" misuse free speech than live in a world where the government throws people into prison or fines them for using free speech deemed controversial, racist, offensive, or politically incorrect.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I would rather live in a world where "morons" misuse free speech than live in a world where the government throws people into prison or fines them for using free speech deemed controversial, racist, offensive, or politically incorrect.

A mother and her five year old daughter exit a grocery store and begin walking home. They come across a group of local thugs who begin to hurl verbal abuse at them of a racial and sexual nature. This goes on for several minutes. And it is not the first time. The mother and daughter are not physically attacked but feel deeply threatened and intimidated nonetheless due to the explicit language being used. But the thugs need not fear any legal consequences because there are none. This is the world you would rather live in?

[spitfire]

You can't use verbal abuse in a racist manner, especially since last tuesday in greece. There is an even stricter law now that will send you to jail. Furthermore those crimes are considered ex officio crimes. This means that in a case of such verbal abuse you are prosecuted immediately.

[Vangelovski]

I don't agree. There are too many morons in this world that would abuse such a right.

Who determines who is a moron and what constitutes abuse?

[Philosopher]

This is the world you would rather live in?

Ideally, no, but we do not live in an ideal world. However, I also recognize that freedom of speech should not be curtailed because some people are offended by words. She is free to file a police complaint against them. She is free to carry a weapon with her. She is free to ignore them. She is free to insult them back. So long as speech is limited to speech, I believe it should be a legally protected right.

We live in a world where virtually anyone can be offended by anything.

Under your world, SoM, and please correct me if I am wrong, you would ban speech that others find offensive. Tell me. Would you ban people from drawing depictions of Muhammad or using language characterizing him that Muslims hate? Muslims have been known to storm embassies for such actions. Should we ban this freedom of speech because Muslims are offended? Would you extend your censorship to include religious speech, or would you limit it to racial abuse?

Would you ban pornography because some people find pornography offensive?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Who determines who is a moron and what constitutes abuse?

The law should. The scenario I provided above is a good example of both.

She is free to file a police complaint against them.

There would be no point, because no laws have been broken.

She is free to carry a weapon with her.

To what end? There was no physical threat.

She is free to ignore them.

Easier said than done.

She is free to insult them back.

And risk the safety of herself and her daughter in the process? Where is the civility in a society where everybody freely insults each other?

So long as speech is limited to speech, I believe it should be a legally protected right.

Would you find this example an acceptable circumstance for your female relatives to endure on a daily basis?

We live in a world where virtually anyone can be offended by anything.

Perhaps, but that is why there need to be adequate parameters set on what constitutes an insult that is punishable by law.

Would you extend your censorship to include religious speech, or would you limit it to racial abuse?

That depends on the nature of the content. I am not an expert in this field and have not carried out comprehensive studies on the various situations that have and can occur. But I am sensible enough to know when a line has been crossed. And that should be the starting point.

Would you ban pornography because some people find pornography offensive?

No, but there would be limitations as to where such material can be promoted or sold. And I don't see this as being entirely comparable to directly insulting people about their ethnicity or religion.

[Vangelovski]

The law should. The scenario I provided above is a good example of both.

And on what basis should the law be determined? On whose values?