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

[Frank O'Connor]

At 11:00 AM +1000 on 1/8/06 you wrote:
>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.

Not in any history I've read. The left has a long tradition of 
stifling free speech, just as long as the right.

Fascist or communist, capitalist or socialist, conservative or 
radical ... it makes no difference. Free speech is generally viewed 
by those in power, by fanatics pushing viewpoints, by political 
luminaries of whatever persuasion, or whoever has a 'position to 
protect' - as a threat.

You'll find various luminaries from all these viewpoints noisily 
protesting their committed adherence to free speech ... but that's 
generally just gas and wind.

>
>>  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.

Agreed ... but those same luminaries (left and right) seem to think 
that it does ... as if their POV deserves airing to the exclusion of 
others.

>
>>  and governments of all varieties disagree with your
>>  view that "shouting matches don't hurt people".
>
>disagreement is not the same thing as censorship.

It is if the disagreement involves suppressing the POV or viewpoint of others.

Hey, simple editorial policy is censorship ... as you well know. And 
papers and the media do this routinely.

>
>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).

Social, legal and other consequences  are irrelevant to free speech 
... and phrasing your reply in the manner you have done could 
probably be regarded as an attack on free speech.

As soon as derogatory terms or phrases like 'all right thinking 
people' or 'liars' or whatever are aired you attack the Man rather 
than the argument or debate ... and could very easily be criticised 
for stifling freedom of speech.

					Regards,