Australian man arrested over racist statements on Social Media

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

is nobody else making the connection that all these developed progressive nations who are prosecuting thought crime or free speech are the same ones that already progressively eviscerated their right to self defense with firearms?? You know that slippery slope we always bring up in 2nd amendment threads and laughed off only to be proven by persecution of free speech in those very same countries. How is noone seeing this?

a reply to: AmericanRealist

is nobody else making the connection that all these developed progressive nations who are prosecuting thought crime or free speech are the same ones that already progressively eviscerated their right to self defense with firearms?? You know that slippery slope we always bring up in 2nd amendment threads and laughed off only to be proven by persecution of free speech in those very same countries. How is noone seeing this?

American Realist - do you know how many times here at ATS I've seen people make believe threatened - (but threatened all the same) by gun lovers - with gun violence?

How interesting is that? That our thoughts, our words - our opinions - could provoke someone to the point where they pull an imaginary gun on us - because they want us to shut up and go away

Are those threats real? Of course not - but the impulse is

Is language ever a danger? Is it ever a threat?

I'm not making a case for limiting freedom of speech - but, it seems to me that you're saying that the only reason we haven't fallen like these other countries have is because we are fully armed

In this country - who is it that's the freest to speak?

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I have been in some of the most heated gun threads on here in my time, I cannot recall where people threaten to pull a gun unless they were removed for T&C violations before I read them or unless it was a reference to self defense in an outlined scenario, usually related to the OP.

I have been free to speak anything I have wanted IRL. on the internet though, privately run public communities such as this is usually where speech gets more regulated.

Like, I could go outside right now wrapped in a NAZI flag and hail Hitler all the way to the hwy without any legal consequences if I so wanted. Here on ATS, that is grounds for an edit. In Germany and sometimes Poland and Britain, I would be in jail.

I dont admire Hitler, he is just the easiest example to use.

As far as who is the freest to speak in this country right now, it would be any single citizen not already in law enforcement custody, not advocating for violent harm upon others, and not trying to rationalize turning children into victims.

That covers most all law abiding citizens.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

I have been in some of the most heated gun threads on here in my time, I cannot recall where people threaten to pull a gun unless they were removed for T&C violations before I read them or unless it was a reference to self defense in an outlined scenario, usually related to the OP.

You've been here since October 2015 - I've been here a bit longer

Like, I could go outside right now wrapped in a NAZI flag and hail Hitler all the way to the hwy without any legal consequences if I so wanted. Here on ATS, that is grounds for an edit. In Germany and sometimes Poland and Britain, I would be in jail.

I dont admire Hitler, he is just the easiest example to use.

He is the easiest - I use him too. Symbolism is just a shortcut

ATS is not your government- it's a privately owned place that's invited us in to shout at each other. And sometimes make nice :-)

If you don't like their rules you're free to leave - but it's their house, their rules. In Germany, Poland, Britain - they suffered at the hands of real Nazis. Also their house - their rules. People agreed on those rules together. If they want to change them - they will do so - together

I think those things should be allowed there personally - so long as they aren't part of a threat

That's where it gets interesting - and that's worth talking about

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Those countries also happen to be some of the most restrictive nation states on firearms and self defense. That is the connection, and if we yield our second amendment rights we will also end up in the same boat for free speech.

My whole point with adding ATS was simply to show a sliding scale of speech restriction, which I also acknowledged was a result of a privately held business.

But now its not just about pretending to be Hitler is it? It has regressed to offensive language, and in some cases what shirt people are wearing.

All in countries who eviscerated their rights to firearms and self defense.

I say the glove fits.

BTW, I have been here since 2004, I simply changed my name because my old one was too close to my real one.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Spineless you say? You mean - like this:

I bet you are familiar with no more than 1% of the laws in your country.

:-)

You're the champ kiddo

Am I wrong?

Have you seen the volumes of Statutes at Large in the Library of Congress? Have you opened any of their pages? I have and its pretty overwhelming.

Start here here and let me know when you get to 1%.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You meant what you meant - at least own up to it

Followed up with: I'm not sure anyone cares about that. But since you would, like any layman, be unfamiliar with your country's laws, we'll have to doubt your advice.

Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence.

Societal implementation In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[87] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.

You dress it up however you need to so things don't look like what they are. Your average American has a pretty good idea of how things work

a reply to: AmericanRealist

Those countries also happen to be some of the most restrictive nation states on firearms and self defense. That is the connection, and if we yield our second amendment rights we will also end up in the same boat for free speech.

I didn't miss your point. I just don't agree

BTW, I have been here since 2004, I simply changed my name because my old one was too close to my real one.

I'm going to assume you're big on the 2nd Amendment? It wouldn't be a stretch to say we both noticed different things

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

You dress it up however you need to so things don't look like what they are. Your average American has a pretty good idea of how things work

When someone advises you to be familiar with something, when they themselves are not, we call that hypocrisy. That's what I was responding to.

Nonetheless, dress it up how you see fit. Apparently we're dressing everything clown suits today.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

yes indeed we do see things differently. Guess their is no point in playing the repeating record game now that we both know where each other stand.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

When someone advises you to be familiar with something, when they themselves are not, we call that hypocrisy. That's what I was responding to.

I am not familiar with the laws in Australia, but I'm assuming there are laws that deal with this type of incident, or the authorities would not have charged him. If you live in a country, it would behoove you to be familiar with its laws. If you are dumb enough to break one of those laws, then you deserve what you get. Don't like the laws? Work through your political representatives to get them changed -- or move to a country whose laws you like better.

It is true that in America, you would not be arrested for making the types of comments he made. You are free to make those comments. However, other citizens are free to publicly bash you, protest to your employer to get you fired, or boycott and essentially end your business. Freedom works both ways in this country.

This is what you were responding to. You dismissed what she was saying by implying she was ignorant

But, hey - tomato/tomahto

Why so defensive?

a reply to: AmericanRealist

:-)

On a lighter note - love your avatar

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

This is what you were responding to. You dismissed what she was saying by implying she was ignorant

That's strange. That is not what I quoted in my reply. Your psychic powers seem to be dwindling, among others.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You are correct - copied from the wrong post - corrected

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Woops. Did it again. Here is the specific argument I quoted and responded to:

I am not familiar with the laws in Australia, but I'm assuming there are laws that deal with this type of incident, or the authorities would not have charged him. If you live in a country, it would behoove you to be familiar with its laws. If you are dumb enough to break one of those laws, then you deserve what you get. Don't like the laws? Work through your political representatives to get them changed -- or move to a country whose laws you like better.

To which I replied: I bet you don't know more than 1% of the laws in your country.

Anyways, it was a decent effort I suppose.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I quoted the whole thing - she makes a good point. You were quoted correctly

Your post is still insufferable - regardless

In the name of accuracy and all that, it's good we go the long way round sometimes

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Your post is still insufferable - regardless

To you. I guess sometimes truth requires a trigger warning. I'll keep you in mind next time.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

:-)

Wouldn't have it any other way

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Yep. As I said, if you don't like the law or think it's unfair - work to get it changed. Or leave. Or a 3rd option would be to intentionally break the law, knowing that you will get charged. But don't act shocked when you do get charged.

Hmm, I doubt you are being honest in this particular instance, but anyway, moving on...

I would estimate that the vast majority of Australians do not know that they could be arrested and obtain a criminal conviction for posting something deemed offensive on the internet. (Not talking about "sexting" laws or libel, but rather typing text that can be interpreted as causing offence by the government as the law currently stands.)

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Being an Aussie.....I can't stand hate speech, or racism.....but I can't stand suppression of free speech even moreso. Pity free speech isn't a right in this country.