Freedom of speech.

[Slyer]

Fuck do you hear me protesting? lol
I'm saying let them refuse to let men join if they like.

[Katman]

You wouldn't recognise logic if it jumped up, bit you on the arse, crawled up your rectum and strangled you with your own intestines.

Maybe not, but I bet there'd be a Michael Hutchence-like smile on his face.

[Mikkel]

Found it. Phew. Not very offensive , but. I hope I got the right one.

That can not be it! Seriously, WTF?

[nodrog:Me]

move to edgecumbe and take it international

[Pedrostt500]

Web forums are the 20th century equivalent of the wall in a public toilet.

I wouldn't worry about it.

With out the stink of a dirty urinal.

[CookMySock]

Success! Thread is fully sidetracked, perpretrators get off scott free, thread starter and supporters fully ridiculed, impending PD.

Welcome to KB.

Steve

[Hitcher]

Success! Thread is fully sidetracked

It's not sidetracked, it's just resting.

And how can a thread about freedom of speech ever be off topic?

[Headbanger]

You do realise that it's a gym for chicks who are ugly enough to not want to be seen by males in anything less than five layers of trackpants and sweaters, don't you?

It's not discrimination; they're doing you a favour bro.

I figured it was so they could perve on each other, then break off into pairs for some lesbo sex, finishing off with an all in orgy.

[Paul in NZ]

Wikipedia is your friend....

The freedom of speech is not absolute. Legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[17] Exercising freedom of speech always takes place within a context of competing values. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech".[18] Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction and/or social disapprobation.[19]

In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[19] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[19]

In 1985 Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offence principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviours of others. Feinberg wrote "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end."[20] Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm.[20] In contrast Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle.[19] Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large.[19]

[FJRider]

So in short... free speech comes with a price... it is only much later, the full price is known...

[SPman]

You have the freedom to slag me off, as long as I have the freedom to bust your teeth!

[Usarka]

You have the freedom to slag me off, as long as I have the freedom to bust your teeth!

Then the freedom of speech will sound like this "faah euw euw shhtuupa maatha fuha"

[Forest]

Curves, for example, does not allow male members to join. How is this not sexual discrimination?

Men also aren't allowed in women's toilets and changing rooms.

As in the case of Curves Gym, our society recognises that our right to be protected against sexual discrimination needs to balanced against our right of free association.

You are quite welcome to form a male only gym if you want to. Such a gym would not be prohibited under NZ law.

[Slyer]

Yeah but what if I wanted to open a gym that jews or black people weren't allowed to enter?

What if I called the Gym "Fuck the Pope"?

We have a long way to go.

[Fatt Max]

Which brings me to my point, where do you draw the line when it comes to postings that are racist, derogatory to ones sex, or sexuality, or religion etc.

I met a black lesbian muslim once, jeez she was a fecking pain in the arse...!