Australian state (ACT) passes blasphemy law to protect Muslims

[Excited Penguin]

All of them.

When I said the the most extreme of cases, I was thinking information regarding a possible terrorist attack that might impede an investigation being broadcasted on social media during an actual terrorist attack. In a case like that, limiting free speech would be a good thing.

Really?  You support people calling HIV/AIDS patients 'faggots', and telling them that they deserve what's happened to them?

You must be a thoroughly unpleasant person in RL.

Boru

I only support them in the sense that I think they should have the right to say it. I do not agree with such statements at all and abhore anyone who would say them.

[Jesster]

Really?  You support people calling HIV/AIDS patients 'faggots', and telling them that they deserve what's happened to them?

You must be a thoroughly unpleasant person in RL.

Boru

I only support them in the sense that I think they should have the right to say it. I do not agree with such statements at all and abhore anyone who would say them.

As someone who gets called a faggot and a tranny by hateful biggots, I still have to agree with you. They should have the right to say that to me and anyone else should have the right to call them out on their speech. The law should not be involved.

[Excited Penguin]

Fact of the matter is, laws have to be interpreted on a case by case basis where a jury/a judge is involved. And the legal system isn't perfect. That is one of the reasons I disagree with criminalizing free speech in that manner, there are others though. I'll get into them if you like.

[Jesster]

Now if someone makes actions according to their hateful speech, I absolutely think the law should be involved. That's different though.

[Excited Penguin]

Now if someone makes actions according to their hateful speech, I absolutely think the law should be involved. That's different though.

Yes. Actions should be policed. Not speech, though.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, rioting is a crime, but 'inciting to riot' should not be?

Boru

[Excited Penguin]

So, rioting is a crime, but 'inciting to riot' should not be?

Boru

From what I gather, this law isn't concerned particularly/only with incitement. If it was, I'd want to see some specific language concerning what said incitement amounts to before giving my opinion on the matter.

But, yes, that's the gist of it. I think people shouldn't have their speech censored. I think they should be allowed to speak freely and the law should only be concerned with their actions. So yes, rioting should be a crime, and incitement to it shouldn't, generally speaking.

[mralstoner]

The video is largely incorrect.  The anti-vilification (NOT anti-criticism) laws specifically says in part that you may not discriminate against or vilify someone based on disability, religion, race, sexuality, gender identity, and HIV/AIDS status.  There isn't anything in the law that says you can't criticize a Muslim or criticize Islam in general.  Vilification, under the law, means that you cannot take actions (yes, including speech) that would '...incite hatred, contempt, ridicule or revulsion'.

It isn't a perfect law, certainly, but it in no wise criminalizes criticism of religion.

Boru

I don't know the details, but I did see the word "offensive" in the article, and that's an open door for the victim to interpret any sort of criticism as offensive e.g. Muslims are often offended if you simply point out the violent facts of Mohammed's life, or quote the violent passages of the Koran.

There was a recent Australia-wide similar law that included the "offended" characteristic, so I wouldn't be surprised if this Canberra law is the same. (Yes, I know Canberra is not a state, I used to live there. A title must be short, not a thesis).

[CapnAwesome]

All of them.

When I said the the most extreme of cases, I was thinking information regarding a possible terrorist attack that might impede an investigation being broadcasted on social media during an actual terrorist attack. In a case like that, limiting free speech would be a good thing.

Really?  You support people calling HIV/AIDS patients 'faggots', and telling them that they deserve what's happened to them?

You must be a thoroughly unpleasant person in RL.

Boru

There is a difference between saying someone should have the right to say something, and supporting that kind of speech. A huge difference. Freedom of speech is there to protect controversial speech, not give us the right to talk about the weather.

[CapnAwesome]

I'd prefer there wasn't such a law to begin with, no matter what groups it might protect. That's limiting free speech. And that can only be acceptable in the most extreme of cases.

Horseshit.  ALL freedoms are limited, of necessity.  As a test, which of the following statements do you think should be protected speech?

1.  All you fucking mud niggers should go back to Africa.

2.  You have HIV?  Serves you right, faggot.

3.  So, Hafez - fucked your 12 year old daughter lately?  If it was good enough for Mohammed, it should be good enough for you.

4.  You know, gimpy - you might not be in that wheelchair if your mother hadn't fucked your brother.

I await your reply with something approaching boredom.

Boru

All of them. There is no point in protecting non-controversial speech. Talking about the weather, or debating the quality of cats or dogs doesn't need to be protected. It's only controversial speech that needs protection anyway and that is exactly what freedom of speech was designed for.