Free speech.

[Katman]

....and tell me the world didn't need to know about what was going on.

And undoubtedly still is.

[FJRider]

If that was the case then Immigration could just block her entry on arrival.

It wouldn't require a National MP getting his panties all bunched up.

They can and do ... and have had plenty of bad press for doing so. Special (big name) cases that are getting a lot of publicity ... get passed "Upstairs" for the final decision.

In the case of most "Joe Bloggs" applications ... If their visa application is declined, they can apply to the Minister for exemption.

Opposition MP's wanting publicity have been known to get their knickers in a twist ... nothing new there ...

[TheDemonLord]

"The Hecklers Veto" is when the authorities (ie: Police) shut down a speaker "In the interest of Public Order" simply because of what the hecklers "Possible" actions might be if the speaker was allowed to be heard. Entirely lawful under the international rules of Freedom of Expression .. Under article 19(3) ICCPR ( https://www.ohchr.org/en/professiona...ages/ccpr.aspx )

Group 1 screaming at Group 2 to shut the fuck up is free speech. However ... if Group 2 take offense at that, Group 1 can be held accountable in a court of law ... should they choose to take that action/option.

You've referred to the strict legal definition - the common parlance definition is as I described it.

I'll re-iterate for clarity sake - If (as an example) during a Talk - a Heckler yelled "Shut the Fuck up" Loud enough to be heard - that's not a Veto, the Talk can continue - both parties have exercised their right to Free Speech, likewise if during a Q and A - someone approached the microphone and said the same - completely fine. If you get a group of people together, and repeatedly chant the phrase, in order to drown out the Speech being given, or Pull a fire alarm, in an attempt to get the venue evacuated and the talk shut down - that's not acceptable, because in supposedly excising their right to free speech, they are violating someone elses.

In relation to Chelsea Manning - I don't entirely agree with what she did (I also don't entirely disagree either) - I've got no interest in what she has to say myself, but I do believe that what she has to say is in the public interest and that she should be allowed into the country to Speak.

[Graystone]

One is attempting to suppress the other - that's not a value judgement.

That's exactly what it is, shut the fuck up can mean a judgement based on the lack of merit in what someone else is saying. Anti vaccers and conspiracy theorists are not reachable through debate, they should just be told to shut the fuck up, and ignored. That is not an effort to curtail their freedom from saying such drivel, just curtail the consequences of it.

[Graystone]

Nobody was forcing anyone to listen to Stefan Molyneux, Lauren Southern or Don Brash.

What exactly is the point you're trying to make?

That venue isn't everything, if you start forcing the venue, then you do start forcing people to listen to this garbage.

[Katman]

That's exactly what it is, shut the fuck up can mean a judgement based on the lack of merit in what someone else is saying. Anti vaccers and conspiracy theorists are not reachable through debate, they should just be told to shut the fuck up, and ignored. That is not an effort to curtail their freedom from saying such drivel, just curtail the consequences of it.

"Shut the fuck up" is not a counter-argument though.

That venue isn't everything, if you start forcing the venue, then you do start forcing people to listen to this garbage.

In an open-minded society there should be absolutely no reason to even suggest the idea of forcing a venue to provide a setting for open discussion.

[Katman]

Some regard Chelsea Manning as a traitor, in similar circumstances I might agree, but not this time. View those murderous doped up arseholes in a helicopter shooting up photographers and tell me the world didn't need to know about what was going on.

And that raises an interesting point.....

I wonder how many of those who are condemning Manning as a traitor, even know what it was that she exposed the public to.

[jasonu]

Yes Paul, a lot trickier.

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

Get less votes than the opposition, suck off Winston Peters and become prime minister

[Banditbandit]

Internet users seem to think free speech means you can say anything you like.

Yes - and internet sites are privately owned and often paid for. They are not public spaces, even if they are publicly accessible - but usually even then you have to sign up and accept the rules to participate ..

The Internet is not public domain.

Who owns this site? It is clearly paid for by advertising .. and the owners control what is said here .. just try to push the limits and see how quickly yo get an infarction ..

Generally you have a right to speak - within the law. Nobody has to provide a platform. Nobody has to listen.

Exactly ...

That venue isn't everything, if you start forcing the venue, then you do start forcing people to listen to this garbage.

Exactly ... You cannot force private owners to open their venue to whomever asks or demands ..

Even if you force venues to open up, you can't force people to listen .. not ever, no way, no how - it is possible for force people to go - but they will listen or not on their own choice.

In an open-minded society there should be absolutely no reason to even suggest the idea of forcing a venue to provide a setting for open discussion.

I'm not sure I follow that ... I agree that venues should not be forced to provide a setting for open discussion - I am not sure what that has to do with an open-minded society ..

[Katman]

I'm not sure I follow that ... I agree that venues should not be forced to provide a setting for open discussion - I am not sure what that has to do with an open-minded society ..

In a truly open minded society, venues would welcome open discussion on contentious issues.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that.

[TheDemonLord]

That's exactly what it is, shut the fuck up can mean a judgement based on the lack of merit in what someone else is saying. Anti vaccers and conspiracy theorists are not reachable through debate, they should just be told to shut the fuck up, and ignored. That is not an effort to curtail their freedom from saying such drivel, just curtail the consequences of it.

And who is the arbiter of what should and should not be curtailed? Because history shows that the type of person that wants that sort of job, is exactly the type of person that should NEVER have that type of job.

And what guarantee do you have that this standard you've setup won't one day be turned upon something you love?

To speak to the group you referenced - I've given my opinion, at great length, in detail and on multiple occasions on the AntiVaxx crowd - I hold them in particular contempt as theirs is the only conspiracy that has a real world effect (Children who have unnecessarily died)

And even in that scenario - it is still the lesser of the 2 evils compared to censoring of them.

[oldrider]

The adage:- "you can lead a horse to water (In KB's case donkeys and mules abound) but you cant make it drink" - springs to mind.

[Banditbandit]

In a truly open minded society, venues would welcome open discussion on contentious issues.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that.

Thank you - that is clear ..

No, I disagree - the owner of the venues will always have a say ... and not all venue owners will welcome open discussion some will always only allow those who agree with them.

I would say that in a truly open society there will be plenty of venues that welcome open discussion.

[Katman]

... and not all venue owners will welcome open discussion some will always only allow those who agree with them.

Then those ones sure as fuck don't qualify as being open minded.

[Graystone]

"Shut the fuck up" is not a counter-argument though.



In an open-minded society there should be absolutely no reason to even suggest the idea of forcing a venue to provide a setting for open discussion.

Does it need to be a counter argument?

Then stop bitching about venues not providing the settings for the discussions you wanted...