# Forum More Stuff At the end of the day  Rowan Atkinson on free speech

## Marc

https://youtu.be/BiqDZlAZygU

----------


## Moondog55

That man speaks well doesn't he.
I do agree with him on this aspect of modern/current society.

----------


## Marc

Someone need to tell our pretend conservative PM that pretending is not the same as acting ... unless you are acting and then it is all an act.  :Smilie:  
Scotty keeps on switching his blinker right yet turns to the left, just in case someone is offended.  
Actually that offends me  :Rofl5:

----------


## UseByDate

I totally agree with Rowan.  
 The person, in the video, did not have the protection of celebrity. At least in the USA free speech is enshrined in their constitution. In the rest of the world free speech is being lost. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm739aB98-M

----------


## UseByDate

Free speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY

----------


## joynz

Looks that presentation from Atkinson was from several years ago - and the campaign worked:  Reform Section 5 | Feel free to insult me 
‘The Reform Section 5 campaign succeeded in its aim to amend Section 5. The change is now incorporated in Section 57 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 which will come into force on 1 February 2014.’

----------


## John2b

> Scotty keeps on switching his blinker right yet turns to the left, just in case someone is offended

  On most current and recent past political issues 80%+ of Australians are on Scotty's left. But in Canberra for each elected politician (you know, the people that Australians PAY to represent the popular view) there are 100+ professional lobbyists of whom 99% are to the right of Scotty and most of the rest of us.

----------


## havabeer

Also dont forget we dont have free speech in australia orher then to question politicians.  
We have an implied free speech from the U.N but its not in our constitution like it is in the U.S. you also cant use "free speech" to circumvent other laws, like trying to use free speech to get around harassment laws.

----------


## UseByDate

> Also dont forget we dont have free speech in australia orher then to question politicians.  
> We have an implied free speech from the U.N but its not in our constitution like it is in the U.S. you also cant use "free speech" to circumvent other laws, like trying to use free speech to get around harassment laws.

  The Australian Law Reform Commission is concerned with the the implications of 18C of the RDA. 
 In the ALRC's view, s 18C of the RDA would benefit from more thorough review in relation to implications for freedom of speech. In particular, there are arguments that s 18C lacks sufficient precision and clarity, and unjustifiably interferes with freedom of speech by extending to speech that is reasonably likely to 'offend'. In some respects, the provision is broader than is required under international law, broader than similar laws in other jurisdictions, and may be susceptible to constitutional challenge.
  Traditional Rights and FreedomsEncroachments by Commonwealth Laws (ALRC Report 129)   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectio...ation_Act_1975

----------


## UseByDate

Should stupid people be allowed free speech? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQqbc-uPUNQ

----------


## Marc

When I agree on the epithet, the congress _person_ is talking rubbish not exercising free speech. Quite the opposite. He feels the needs to say "Amen and Awomen" because he feels compelled by political correctness. In this case his zeal for correctness met his deep ignorance and he made a spectacle of himself. No free speech applied here at all.

----------


## StanHansen

"Amen and Awomen" is a typical political stupidity.

----------


## Marc

All ladies called Carmen should also say "and Carwomen"  :Rofl5:

----------


## John2b

I am astounded by the palaver going on about claims that cancelling Trump's Twitter account is limiting freedom of speech. Just because someone has something to say does not mean all communication channels are obliged to convey what they say. Not publishing something said is not restricting freedom of speech. Twitter never published what 99.9999999% of "free speech", so what is special about Trump? What about the freedom of speech of 380,000 US citizens who have died of Covid-19 as a consequence of Trump's free speech denying the existence of the virus? 
How much more stupid could McCormack's and Frydenberg's statements about Twitter and freedom of speech be if they actually tried? Not much, I suspect. Did western allies fight WWII to defend Hitler's freedom of speech? Are we now going to defend Xi Jinping's freedom of speech and its consequential impacts on Australia and the Pacific nations?

----------


## Marc

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The term "freedom of expression" is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.Wikipedia 
Social media claimed since their inception that they are just a platform for people to exercise their freedom of speech and that they are therefore exempt from the responsibility of the editor.
The social media platform quickly lost this privilege when they decided to censor and selectively deny access to the platform according to their personal agenda.  The law that protects them should be abolished and the publishers treated like any other editor and made responsible for the content they publish. 
You can not have it both ways. But I am sure you knew this. It just irks you. 
It's called virtue signalling. Oh ... I am so outraged!  isn't the "right" oh so baaaad! ...  :Smilie:  Come on John ... where was your outrage when Hillary was doing her thing 4 years ago?, or when Kamila whatshername was inciting the 'troops' to riot over and over? 
la cucaracha, la cucaracha, ya no puede caminar ... etc.

----------


## John2b

> The law that protects them should be abolished and the publishers treated like any other editor and made responsible for the content they publish.

   I'd be happy with that. Of course one consequence of responsibility for published content is that Trump would have been kicked off Twitter years ago, which makes no difference to me as I don't read his (or anyone else's) Twitter posts.   

> It just irks you.

  What irks me has nothing to do with my post. In fact I'm not sure I even have an opinion about what someone is free to say, nor was that the subject of the post.

----------


## Marc

If my grandfather had wheels and a trolley he would be a tram. 
PS
You are more intelligent than that John. Social media is not responsible of the content and therefore have no right of censorship. The moment they censor, or allow and prefer one writer over another they become publishers. 
The freedom of speech is a basic right and either all have it or only the official flavour of the day have it. 
Not rocket science. 
THe alleged "right" or "wrong" of political content is irrelevant. No different from what happens in university, sponsored by the CCP were only communist propaganda is welcome and any non communist gathering is stormed and violated.

----------


## John2b

> Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The term "freedom of expression" is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.Wikipedia...

  I am confused - according numerous previous posts you have made, public servants, scientists, conservationists, school teachers and public figures and politicians who's ideology is left of neo-conservatism don't or shouldn't have a right to free speech as defined by your reference above.

----------


## Moondog55

Anybody who has ever read the Australian Constitution [ as written by a bunch of privileged English people] would know that there is no such "Freedom of Speech" in the document hoisted upon us 120 years ago. 
There are two exceptions, when in the dock speaking in your own defense or in Parliament speaking as an elected member.
We believe it to be so but it isn't, speak against the government at your own peril

----------


## Marc

I understand your urge to find a flaw in my post, however, you are getting mixed up a tad here and there. 
I spoke about freedom of speech in relation to the lack of it, as dictated by the social media mafia ... oops, "giant".
If social media choose to censor based on diverging political viewpoints, they turn into editors and should be treated as such. 
If you can not see the abysmal inequality dished at conservative vs lefties, I can not help you. You need professional help.  
As for my personal opinion, you are right. If it was up to me, i would impose a permanent gag on a lot of imbec ... I mean people. Unfortunately or fortunately it is not up to me. 
And ... the constitution? ... who mentioned the constitution? Did you John? Was it Bros? ... Metrix, that's it, it was he who spoke about the constitution bus ... or was it a constitutional? Mm, yes, it may have been a mention about a morning constitutional, yep that's it.

----------


## fredgassit

"I am astounded by the palaver going on about claims that cancelling Trump's Twitter account is limiting freedom of speech. Just because someone has something to say does not mean all communication channels are obliged to convey what they say. Not publishing something said is not restricting freedom of speech" 
He is the President of the USA you know and everyone, left or right, wants to read what he says, good or bad.

----------


## Marc

Palaver ... During the 18th century, Portuguese and English sailors often met during trading trips along the West African coast. This contact prompted the English to borrow the Portuguese _palavra_, which usually means "speech" or "word" but was used by Portuguese traders with the specific meaning "discussions with natives." 
i wonder who are the natives in your context John  :Rofl5:

----------


## John2b

> Now that all the "free speech" posts have been moved we can get down to the corona virus.

  Correction: _some_ of the _​recent_ free speech posts have been moved (apparently by a censor, Marc  :Biggrin: ).

----------


## UseByDate

*Big Tech Cleans House!*  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZGayFkjku8

----------


## John2b

> I understand your urge to find a flaw in my post, however, you are getting mixed up a tad here and there.

  I was referring to the definition of freedom of speech, which was your choice to use, and looking how you applied it to people you don't agree versus how you expect it to be applied to people you do agree with. Having read your posts on many topics over several years where freedom of speech is dragged into the thread, it is my unequivocal opinion, based on observations filtered through my own life experience, that you defend freedom of speech for people you agree with, whilst urging that people you don't agree with be silenced or ignored. Others are entitled to have a different view.

----------


## r3nov8or

> Correction: _some_ of the _​recent_ free speech posts have been moved (apparently by a censor, Marc ).

  This site has always censored. You can't even say @@@@ or @@@@ without the AI redacting them. 
See!?

----------


## Bros

> Correction: _some_ of the _​recent_ free speech posts have been moved (apparently by a censor, Marc ).

  No censorship just keeping threads as relevant as possible

----------


## John2b

> No censorship just keeping threads as relevant as possible

   Far from me to be pedantic  :Blush7:  but moving a post from one thread and placing it in another (and thus removing the context of the post in that thread) is a form of censorship to be sure.

----------


## Bros

> Far from me to be pedantic  but moving a post from one thread and placing it in another (and thus removing the context of the post in that thread) is a form of censorship to be sure.

  There was another choice.

----------


## John2b

> There was another choice.

  No doubt more draconian censorship was an option. Thanks for choosing what you did Bros. The notion of unrestricted 'free speech' is as nebulous as the notion of 'gun rights'. A freedom for one that impinges on the freedom of another is not a freedom, but a constraint.

----------


## UseByDate

> Anybody who has ever read the Australian Constitution [ as written by a bunch of privileged English people] would know that there is no such "Freedom of Speech" in the document hoisted upon us 120 years ago. 
> There are two exceptions, when in the dock speaking in your own defense or in Parliament speaking as an elected member.
> We believe it to be so but it isn't, speak against the government at your own peril

  As a privileged white male what would you change in the Australian Constitution? What would you add and what would you remove?

----------


## UseByDate

*On Being Offended* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78OevDyH7-Y

----------


## johnc

Free speech comes with caveats, in this country while we don't have it contained in the constitution (there is no right as such) we are able to discuss ideas without the fear of persecution so long as it doesn't cause harm or cause injury, it isn't defamation, doesn't promote violence, doesn't support illegal acts, doesn't promote terrorism, doesn't support or encourage pedophelia, the list goes on. In the case of Craig Kelly we have a very well paid individual meant to be a leader acting in our best interests. That means he may have the right to free speech but that is not a right to spread lies on Covid cures, these lies have the potential to cause injury or death to those who follows these unsupported views. He has a responsibilty to ensure his ideas are supported and factual and is held to higher level than a dish pig in upper Fumbucker West to be truthful. 
In other words we do have an implied right to speak and it comes with an implied obligation to be factual. That does not mean reliance on alternative facts or the lunacy of Mr Jones and his Infowars site. Depending on your position and education the bar for honesty is higher for those with access to information and lower for the more disadvantaged (weak minded) amongst us. 
In the U.S. private business does not have to allow free speech, Facebook can actually do what it wants (and does) however when Islamic Fundamentalists and others planning attacks in their home countries started to hit social media to commit their atrocities we began demanding they stifle that content for the betterment of society. Free speech across the full range of human behaviour has never existed, it is limited by the norms of the day.

----------


## Marc

Free speech is an illusion, or rather a delusion. Here and elsewhere.  
What exists is the right to curtail the action of making public one's ideas, under the banner of protecting others that do not need or don't ask for protection, from ideas only the censor himself does not like.  
Limiting free speech is always done unidirectionally and with an agenda. Stop what is undesirable for the censor whilst advertising virtue in his actions. There are countless examples of draconian actions taken by authorities pretending to protect minorities who never asked for that action and that declare publicly they are not offended or even that they agree with the statements in question. 
Stopping free speech under false pretenses is in itself offensive, yet the offence is allowed because the "cause" pretends to be just.  
Take the expression "privileged white male". Even someone with limited intellect can discern the racism, sexism and divisiveness in the expression, yet it is used extensively as a tool to achieve a divisive purpose to suit an agenda. What about 'mansplaining'? Another sexist remark aimed at limiting free speech based on pretend virtue signalling. 
And the list is very long.  
What we need, rather than free speech ... is to experiment with the concept of cognitive defusion. 
Look it up, it may be something we all need.  
"When I let go of what I am,
I become what I may be"
Lao Tzu  Or this one: "People become attached to their burdens sometimes more than the burdens are attached to them.” –
George Bernard Shaw 
I have a sign on my veranda that reads ... "Be the man your dog thinks you are"  :Smilie:

----------


## fredgassit

"Be the man your dog thinks you are" 
Best advice I've heard in a long time.

----------


## fredgassit

Breaking news:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8g2wFI7Ttw

----------


## Bros

> Breaking news:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8g2wFI7Ttw

  Rupert having a bet each way

----------


## fredgassit

Yes indeed. 
Read the Australian a few weeks ago and Greg Sheridan was pro-Trump. 
Then, magically in Saturday's edition, he said the election was "a victory for democracy: Looks like he received orders from above. 
Also noted in today's on-line edition all the columnists have gone anti-Trump! 
What a pack of turncoats. No more Aussie newspapers for me forever.

----------


## johnc

> Yes indeed. 
> Read the Australian a few weeks ago and Greg Sheridan was pro-Trump. 
> Then, magically in Saturday's edition, he said the election was "a victory for democracy: Looks like he received orders from above. 
> Also noted in today's on-line edition all the columnists have gone anti-Trump! 
> What a pack of turncoats. No more Aussie newspapers for me forever.

  Why all Aussie papers, this is a Murdoch rag, there are other publishers of papers.

----------


## John2b

> Read the Australian... What a pack of turncoats...

  Murdoch has had as many changes of allegiance as I have had birthdays. His papers don't print news, they print creative writing to market and advance Murdoch's personal interests, nothing more.

----------


## UseByDate

> This site has always censored. You can't even say @@@@ or @@@@ without the AI redacting them. 
> See!?

  I _can't_ see what you did there. :Smilie:

----------


## UseByDate

The end of free speech?   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0OCuL3OHFc

----------


## UseByDate

> Murdoch has had as many changes of allegiance as I have had birthdays. His papers don't print news, they print creative writing to market and advance Murdoch's personal interests, nothing more.

  Motor-boating? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yPH0mCQagY  :No:

----------


## Marc

On the assault of free speech (reed, censorship on conservatives )  https://youtu.be/ei-gfsvt2iM

----------


## johnc

Lou Dobbs, why would anyone listen to his ravings, he lost the plot years ago along with the ability to apply logic and ethics, if you want a partisan hack with an expired use by date he is your man.

----------


## Marc

Thank you Johnc ... what a classic reply. Attack the person, not the idea or in this case just plain facts. 
Trump has declassified a one foot high pile of documents that prove the Obamagate, and the scandal of the first so called impeachment, based on nothing and thin air. Documented and proven, the FBI colluded and hid the facts they knew Russia had nothing to do with his first win. And another fact ... the second so called impeachment again based on nothing since the assault of the congress was led by democratic party supporters. Fact.
And many more FACTS, like the censorship by Facebook and Twitter etc etc 
The reporter Lou Dobbs, has no hand in this FACTS. It may be distasteful to you and your personal political point of view, yet that is as relevant as declaring you don't like coriander. 
Me on the other hand ... I love coriander, particularly in Balti curry, be it chicken or lamb. I can facilitate proven recipe i have made for years if you like.  

> How do you know you were victorious in a debate with a leftist? When the progressive hippy prematurely ends the discussion with any of these popular modern-day insults: racist, homophobe, sexist, Nazi, or white supremacist. Unfortunately, because it has been condensed to 280-character talking points, the state of civil dialogue in 2018 is a disgrace, leaving us yearning for the days of riveting and insightful discourse on par with William F. Buckley, or even Dick Cavett. But this is what the left has worked towards for years, adopting Saul Alinsky’s meditation that “ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” While the right and libertarians have utilized logic and facts to craft and present their arguments, the left has relied on fabrication, ridicule, and emotion for their shrieks, er, contemplations on a panoply of subjects. In theory, the former should always be a successful tactic to gain ground in the culture war. In reality, the latter has been a far more effective approach in shaping young minds – blame our short attention spans, reality television, and out-of-context soundbites for this phenomenon. Saul Alinsky would be proud.

----------


## John2b

It's obvious to observers of this thread that some people love their coriander most when it's sprinkled with alternative facts.

----------


## johnc

Coriander is a useful herb, by all means Marc post the recipie. However you are welcome to alternative facts such as the ones you have stated.

----------


## Marc

Facts can not be "alternative", they just are. That news clip is pure fact, not debatable, not alleged. 
May be uncomfortable yes, may produce acute propaganda induced anti Trump hysteria, conceded ... Lets see who has the last laugh.

----------


## johnc

Trump has been a Zombie since the '80's when he first went broke but managed somehow to emerge from the mess he created and find financial backers. He has died financially, morally and politically but no doubt being the zombie he is there will be a rising of some sort from the ashes of his current mess.

----------


## Marc



----------


## fredgassit

I was going to keep my trap shut but... 
I watched the US election in great detail so that I could understand how the process worked. 
I couldn't believe what I was seeing.  
 I could write paragraphs on the voter fraud that took place. But don't take my word for it; look up Sidney Fielding on YouTube (if she's still there) and various interviews she did.   
What a woman!   Honest as the day is and a fighter for the truth. 
The whistleblowers are starting to appear to reveal O-Bummer's corruption and their courage might embolden others to come forward on the election corruption. 
Even in Britain, the intelligence bods have been trying to push through legislation to recruit child spies to dob in their parents if the don't report their Covoid (China virus). 
Watergate? To infinity!

----------


## fredgassit

Correction: Sidney Powell (I got excited).

----------


## PhilT2

> I was going to keep my trap shut but...

  Sometimes your first thought is best....

----------


## fredgassit

Agree.

----------


## Bros

With the internet and Google people can search for what suits your way of thinking. I see the flat earth society still exists.

----------


## Marc

Best summary of the USA pains.  https://youtu.be/Na7qaKAisP0

----------


## UseByDate

> With the internet and Google people can search for what suits your way of thinking. I see the flat earth society still exists.

  You do realise that that makes you a flat earth-er. :Wink:

----------


## fredgassit

Enough. We come to this site to share information and, if we're lucky, for a good laugh. 
A truce.

----------


## UseByDate

> Enough. We come to this site to share information and, if we're lucky, for a good laugh. 
> A truce.

  Yep. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etIqln7vT4w

----------


## fredgassit

Spot on.  
I worked at a Dutch bank for a while and every Friday night in the boardroom it was as much Heineken as you could drink.  Good times.

----------


## Marc

Not long to go now.

----------


## UseByDate

What does multicultural mean? It obviously has a literal meaning but some people use is as “code” for something else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejGz1q3dJfY

----------


## UseByDate

Sometimes free speech is not worth much. :Confused:  
 Anyone care to translate? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lAx2nhAjO0

----------


## Marc

Both videos are a punishment to watch, a real assault on common sense and intelligence.  
Ever since almost 200 years ago, Karl Marx invented a doctrine that liberates the poor from responsibility, allowing the shift of blame to others, we had this display of ignorance and bad taste. Today, after communist regimes killed between 100 and 200 million people, according to who writes the history, the lefties found themselves somewhat discredited as an alternative. The solution was to either invent other injustices, or create conflict derived from differences that are simply biological. 
It is no surprise that communism, beside being "anti" capitalism, even when funded by capitalism, is associated to environmental movements, feminism, anti men, anti white, pro or anti gender whatever, anti slim people, anti culture, anti history, anti religion, anti anything else that is handy to blame others, mainly white male.  
The psychological motivation for all this pretend altruistic movement, pretending to liberate those who need only to be liberated from their own bias and prejudice, is the same motivation that our friend Karl Marx found so handy all those years ago. Point the finger at those who are better off than you, and blame them for your own condition, and you will gather a crowd of angry followers.  
Simple really. What a relief to believe that being overweight is Coca Cola's fault!  
Divisive, unproductive, false, criminal. 
Yet oh so attractive!

----------


## Marc

Save the planet !!   :Smilie:   https://youtu.be/TqaEE9vzV2M

----------


## UseByDate

Now students being triggered by trigger warnings. :Rolleyes:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGsICCJMEFM

----------


## UseByDate

Now I am confused. Why can't we blame the Romans? After all, they were white (White). :Confused:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b6-oE55vdM

----------


## Jon

What have the Romans ever done for us ?

----------


## UseByDate

> What have the Romans ever done for us ?

  You mean; when they weren't oppressing us?  :Biggrin:

----------


## ForeverYoung

> Now I am confused. Why can't we blame the Romans? After all, they were white (White).

----------


## Bros

> What have the Romans ever done for us ?

  Well maybe not for us directly but they showed the poms how to have a bath.

----------


## r3nov8or

> What have the Romans ever done for us ?

  The Vatican? 
Oh yeah, that came a little later on, but, how?  :Biggrin:

----------


## UseByDate

> 

  The Roman Empire was not all-*white* but the Romans were, being from what is now northern Italy. The British Empire was also not all-*white*.

----------


## UseByDate

> Well maybe not for us directly but they showed the poms how to have a bath.

  The Romans Empire did not include what is now Australia. It took the British Empire to teach the Australians to bath. :Biggrin:

----------


## UseByDate

> The Vatican? 
> Oh yeah, that came a little later on, but, how?

  Cliche, but could not resist. :Biggrin:    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj8n4MfhjUc

----------


## ForeverYoung

> The Roman Empire was not all-*white* but the Romans were, being from what is now northern Italy. The British Empire was also not all-*white*.

  that's a good point.

----------

