[LINK] Academics branded 'anti-US over FTA research'

[Craig Sanders]

On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 08:43:29AM +1000, Alan L Tyree wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 08:24:51 +1000
> Jan Whitaker <jwhit at melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> 
> > At 07:12 AM 1/08/2006, Alan L Tyree wrote:
> > 
> > >We also support laws which restrict the right of people to say things
> > >that we do not agree with.
> > 
> > Careful with the broad brush there, Alan. The 'royal we' may apply to
> > you and and Howard's crew, but not me or many other people around the
> > world. That position of restricted speech and putting people away in
> > jail because they think and talk about doing something is not part of
> > my value structure. I may not like the position taken, but as long as
> > they don't act on it, then I have the same right to counter their
> > position with my own facts and opinions and feelings. Shouting
> > matches don't hurt people, guns and jails hurt people.  I just wish
> > Ruddock-ler and Little Johnny Howard-ler took that view.
> 
> Thanks for lumping me in with "Howard's crew". My own view is that
> neither side of politics in Australia have a general support for free
> speech. The right of politics never has, but the left of Australian
> politics doesn't either. I also hasten to add that exceptions abound on
> both sides.

actually, one of the left's major moral strong points (and
simultaneously one of their strategic weaknesses) is their willingness
to let others have their say, even if they vehemently disagree with
them. it can't be any different, that is one of the things that
distinguishes the left from the right...to adopt the same oppressive
strategy as the right is to become them.


> Your view, that it is ok even if you do not like the position taken, is
> not the norm, Jan. Students disrupt speakers that they don't like,
> universities don't let people like David Irving or Andrew Fraser have
> the right to speak, 

the right to free speech does NOT include the right to demand a forum or the
right to force others to listen or the right to silence opposing voices.

> and governments of all varieties disagree with your
> view that "shouting matches don't hurt people". 

disagreement is not the same thing as censorship.

i disagree with nearly everything you've said on this topic so far.
i don't, however, dispute your right to say it. you are entitled to
be wrong, entitled to be misguided, even entitled to lie through your
teeth (although there may be social and/or legal consequences to being
caught out at the latter - perjury, fraud, deception etc are, or can be,
crimes).

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)