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

[Frank O'Connor]

At 12:24 PM +1000 on 1/8/06 you wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 12:10:33PM +1000, Frank O'Connor wrote:
>>  At 11:00 AM +1000 on 1/8/06 you wrote:
>>  >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.
>
>there's a long history of oppressive fascists exploiting the left to
>gain power. the fact that they can mouth a few lefty-sounding sentiments
>doesn't mean that they're left wing.

And Stalin and his ilk, and the Republican government in Spain, and 
the various leftist regimes across the globe throughout the 20th 
century were better?

When Kim Beasley espouses a Bill of Rights as part of his electoral 
platform and finally implements it, then and only then will I accept 
that the ;left is in any way differentiated from the right in 
Australia ... viz-a-viz free speech.

>
>if you're not in favour of universal civil liberties such as free speech
>and other human rights, then you aren't a lefty, no matter how you label
>yourself. it's one of the defining characteristics of what it is to be
>"left". it's not unique to the left, but it's a requirement to be left.

Read my post on Free Speech in Australia.

And the big theorists on Freedom of Speech were what you would term 
Liberals (big L) ... in the UK in the 18th Century and in the US in 
the 19th Century. Name me a single left wing giant of the cause of 
freedom of speech and I'll name you 10 right wing luminaries.

Left and right on the issue of 'free speech' are a furphy.

>
>
>>  >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
>
>mostly. laws against specific kinds of speech that don't directly
>involve other crimes (e.g. fraud, misleading advertising, etc) are
>definitely a free speech issue.

I didn't say they weren't an issue.

>
>for example, laws against 'hate speech' are bogus and oppressive.
>actually beating the crap out of someone is a crime. directly inciting,
>instructing, inducing or ordering someone to harm or kill a specific
>person or group of persons is, or can be, a crime depending on
>circumstances. but merely being offensive and saying "i dont like <some
>particular group> because of <some complete load of bullshit>" is not
>and should not be a crime.
>

And where is this going, if I may ask?


>  > ... 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.
>
>no, that's bullshit. that's the language of censors. the right to free
>speech means that not only can i say whatever i want, i can say it in
>whatever manner i want.

Only if you phrase your argument in terms of the existing debate.

>
>the right to free speech also does not include the right to demand
>respect for your opinions.  in fact, feeling or expressing contempt
>for objectionable viewpoints is entirely consistent with free speech.

Contempt for objectionable viewpoints is fine, contempt for the 
speaker is not. Ad hominem attacks debase the argument, the debate, 
the ideas you are arguing about and the attacker ... as well as the 
attacked..

					Regards,