The arguments here essentially are between people who are rooted in a principle of pretty much absolute freedom from any prior restraint and those who think prior restraint should exist in certain situations.
Such an argument will never be resolved because it ends up being a matter of opinion and culture.
Precisely why groups like Menzies’ go out there and places like Red State publish content like this…it riles the tribes up!
What does that have to do with speech?
I know that. That’s why I am pointing out that they really do not have freedom of speech in Canada.
Which make the law arbitrary and subjective. The only thing worse than legislating away free speech is subjective enforcement of such a law. That inevitably will result in the law being used to persecute people who express unpopular positions.
And as I pointed out there have been very few such prosecutions as you describe and which are invariably dismissed. Albeit some RWNJs want to change this law, as evidenced by the rejection of such amendments in the Senate show that we Australians believe that the law is appropriate.
That serves to make my point.
No it doesn’t. What it does show is that it is a very worthy and useful law and Australia and Australian is the better for its presence.
Wrong. A law that applies to innumerable instances, but is rarely used is by definition being used for subjective prosecution. That means it can be easily abused by authorities to control the population by threatening their freedom of expression. Are you so far gone that you not recognize that?
That is not what I said. I most certainly did not say that the number of incidents couldn’t be counted. Because some RWNJs domiciled in Australia want this legislation repealed in no way speaks to any merit in that action.
That is what you said. You just don’t seem to understand that.
I understand what I said. What I don’t understand why it has been misrepresented.
It hasn’t been. My thesis is entirely valid.
Your assertion is not correct.
Or Australia.
Except they really do, we are not the pinnacle of freedom.
I’m very sorry for you that you cannot see it.
We may not be the pinnacle of freedom, but as this thread demonstrates, freedom of speech is subjective in Canada. And it is their lack of a Bill of Rights that makes that possible.
I can’t see it because your assertion is not correct.
Yes it is. You even posted in support of it. Unwittingly of course.
