Free speech.

[jasonu]

Yeah but those are rules, rules can and should be broken to prevent fuckwitism, and how much threat would Mike Tyson be considering he is a major celebrity therefore his every movement will be documented .

Maybe in NZ, he barely, barely, BARELY rates a mention here.

[Graystone]

As is entirely your right.

But taking steps to deliberately shut down free speech goes way beyond that.

Depends on the 'free speech' you want to hear I guess, Joe Public is incabable of shutting down other people's free speech without breaking the law. It clearly pisses you off when people exercising their right to tell other people to shut the fuck up, results in just that action, but it is by no means going beyond the principles of free speech.

[Woodman]

Maybe in NZ, he barely, barely, BARELY rates a mention here.

He hardly rates a mention here either, but the news hungry celebrity obsessed media in NZ will be all over him like a rash the minute he is allowed in.

[Katman]

Depends on the 'free speech' you want to hear I guess, Joe Public is incabable of shutting down other people's free speech without breaking the law.

Except Phil Goff and Jan Thomas did exactly that.

And it's what Michael Woodhouse is now trying to bring about.

[Drew]

Except Phil Goff and Jan Thomas did exactly that.

And it's what Michael Woodhouse is now trying to bring about.

Bullshit. It's how you want to interpret it, but you're just into that sort of thing.

[TheDemonLord]

Depends on the 'free speech' you want to hear I guess, Joe Public is incabable of shutting down other people's free speech without breaking the law. It clearly pisses you off when people exercising their right to tell other people to shut the fuck up, results in just that action, but it is by no means going beyond the principles of free speech.

Hang on a sec there bud.

You are describing the Hecklers Veto - which is not Free Speech.

Group 1 screaming at Group 2 to shut the fuck up isn't free speech.

Group 1 arguing against what Group 2 is saying is.

The difference is subtle - but I increasing don't like this attempt to conflate the 2.

[Katman]

Hang on a sec there bud.

You are describing the Hecklers Veto - which is not Free Speech.

I have no problem with the idea of people demonstrating and screaming "shut the fuck up" at the top of their lungs.

If that's all they've got to offer it's a clear indication of the worthlessness of their particular 'free speech'.

What I do object to is individuals shutting down open discussion simply because they have the power to do so.

[jasonu]

I have no problem with the idea of people demonstrating and screaming "shut the fuck up" at the top of their lungs.

If that's all they've got to offer it's a clear indication of the worthlessness of their particular 'free speech'.

What I do object to is individuals shutting down open discussion simply because they have the power to do so.

Yes, yes and yes.

[TheDemonLord]

I have no problem with the idea of people demonstrating and screaming "shut the fuck up" at the top of their lungs.

If that's all they've got to offer it's a clear indication of the worthlessness of their particular 'free speech'.

What I do object to is individuals shutting down open discussion simply because they have the power to do so.

Okay - what if the first scenario, by nature of volume, ends up in the third scenario?

[Katman]

Okay - what if the first scenario, by nature of volume, ends up in the third scenario?

Then I still see that as the fault of the individual who shuts the discussion down.

And those who have nothing better to do then scream "shut the fuck up" (who graystone/bogan seems to have become the self-appointed spokesperson for), should be exposed for the vacuous fuckwits that they are.

[Paul in NZ]

Not that I really care but...

Free speech is exactly that... This (or that) person is free to say what ever the heck they want BUT it is entirely appropriate for an organisation, business or even a country to not allow a particular person to say what they are going to say on their patch. If I lean right and the left want to set up a speaking engagement in my café its my right to say no thanks. It gets trickier with countries of course but the same logic applies.

Say what you want but please don't say it here...

I'm actually OK with that. To a point...

[FJRider]

... If I lean right and the left want to set up a speaking engagement in my café its my right to say no thanks. It gets trickier with countries of course but the same logic applies.

Say what you want but please don't say it here...

I'm actually OK with that. To a point...

You can go a step further ... if you do not wish to hear whatever it is they want to say ... you should be free (entitled/lawful) to state "I do not want to hear what you wish to say" ... should you not ... ???

[Katman]

It gets trickier with countries of course but the same logic applies.

Say what you want but please don't say it here...

Yes Paul, a lot trickier.

What qualifies someone to speak on a whole country's behalf?

[Paul in NZ]

Yes Paul, a lot trickier.

What qualifies someone to speak on a whole country's behalf?

In our case its an elected official or someone appointed by the PM

Say David Lange didn't have universal support for the nuclear free thing BUT likely majority support. Besides any 'opinion' expressed is not set in granite - these things change with the times...

[Katman]

In our case its an elected official or someone appointed by the PM

Say David Lange didn't have universal support for the nuclear free thing BUT likely majority support. Besides any 'opinion' expressed is not set in granite - these things change with the times...

Well canvasing the percentage of support for something might be a useful measuring stick Paul.

Simply stating that someone's voice isn't to be heard smacks of a dictatorship.