Discussion:
Good read
(too old to reply)
Tony
2020-02-04 19:57:17 UTC
Permalink
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/119089031/who-exactly-would-speech-restrictions-be-protecting
Exactly, far too many people shot from the hip and we need balance.
Rich80105
2020-02-05 04:08:40 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:57:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/119089031/who-exactly-would-speech-restrictions-be-protecting
Exactly, far too many people shot from the hip and we need balance.
You are referring to a fairly shallow and misguided article, Tony, and
I agree that the author appears to have shot from the hip a bit.

A significant action taken immediately following the Christchurch
attack was the banning of holding or publication of the video - a
ruling made under existing laws and largely unopposed. There has been
worldwide condemnation of the incitement to acts of terrorism and
violence, but few solutions found - to pretend that any law should not
be enacted if it would not have stopped that specific attack is
specious nonsense equivalent to saying we should not have speed limits
because they have not stopped road deaths - but then cheap articles by
a comedy write probably do have a place.

Still not to fear, the government appears to be in no urgent rush to
respond to those calling for urgent action, or to those who wish to
pretend there are no problems. Generally it is accepted that it is OK
for individuals to be wrong, but it does become problematic when that
affects others. The classis argument arisies from consideration of
shouiting fire in a crowded theatre, causing a panic and harm when
there is in fact no fire. To a lesser extent we can point to the
recent deaths from measles in Samoa, arising from misunderstandings
and false opinions. The same issue for different reasons affects our
ability to take appropriate action relating to global change - there
mischevious denial of scientific analysis for short term profit
motives has led to many gullible New Zealanders sharing inappropriate
denial. What actions do you propose in relation to the real problems
we face from time to time, Tonyu? Certainly our censorship rules,
developed over many years, appear to have coped quite well regarding
the Christchurch attack . . .
Tony
2020-02-05 04:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:57:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/119089031/who-exactly-would-speech-restrictions-be-protecting
Exactly, far too many people shot from the hip and we need balance.
You are referring to a fairly shallow and misguided article, Tony, and
I agree that the author appears to have shot from the hip a bit.
It is only shallow to you and other people who wish to enforce unreasonable
rules on ordinary people, something you have supported here many times.
And of course you have deliberately misunderstood what I wrote. I was referring
to you and your ilk that have shot from the hip, but no matter that is what we
have to contend with here when you post.
Post by Rich80105
A significant action taken immediately following the Christchurch
attack was the banning of holding or publication of the video - a
ruling made under existing laws and largely unopposed. There has been
worldwide condemnation of the incitement to acts of terrorism and
violence, but few solutions found - to pretend that any law should not
be enacted if it would not have stopped that specific attack is
specious nonsense equivalent to saying we should not have speed limits
because they have not stopped road deaths - but then cheap articles by
a comedy write probably do have a place.
Irrelevant and silly, nothing to do with the article as usual.
Post by Rich80105
Still not to fear, the government appears to be in no urgent rush to
respond to those calling for urgent action, or to those who wish to
pretend there are no problems. Generally it is accepted that it is OK
for individuals to be wrong, but it does become problematic when that
affects others. The classis argument arisies from consideration of
shouiting fire in a crowded theatre, causing a panic and harm when
there is in fact no fire. To a lesser extent we can point to the
recent deaths from measles in Samoa, arising from misunderstandings
and false opinions. The same issue for different reasons affects our
ability to take appropriate action relating to global change - there
mischevious denial of scientific analysis for short term profit
motives has led to many gullible New Zealanders sharing inappropriate
denial. What actions do you propose in relation to the real problems
we face from time to time, Tonyu? Certainly our censorship rules,
developed over many years, appear to have coped quite well regarding
the Christchurch attack .
This government is following the party line and will continue to attempt to
remove freedom of speech with absolutely no legitimate reason to do so other
than a desire to control the proletariat (notably they have achieved that with
you once more).
You will continue to dismiss the opinion of skilled and knowledgeable people
like the author of the posted article as shallow and misguided despite the fact
that those people leave you behind both morally and intellectually.
You should be ashamed but that requires honesty and that would be a first!
Rich80105
2020-02-05 04:43:03 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 22:20:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:57:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/119089031/who-exactly-would-speech-restrictions-be-protecting
Exactly, far too many people shot from the hip and we need balance.
You are referring to a fairly shallow and misguided article, Tony, and
I agree that the author appears to have shot from the hip a bit.
It is only shallow to you and other people who wish to enforce unreasonable
rules on ordinary people, something you have supported here many times.
And of course you have deliberately misunderstood what I wrote. I was referring
to you and your ilk that have shot from the hip, but no matter that is what we
have to contend with here when you post.
Post by Rich80105
A significant action taken immediately following the Christchurch
attack was the banning of holding or publication of the video - a
ruling made under existing laws and largely unopposed. There has been
worldwide condemnation of the incitement to acts of terrorism and
violence, but few solutions found - to pretend that any law should not
be enacted if it would not have stopped that specific attack is
specious nonsense equivalent to saying we should not have speed limits
because they have not stopped road deaths - but then cheap articles by
a comedy write probably do have a place.
Irrelevant and silly, nothing to do with the article as usual.
Post by Rich80105
Still not to fear, the government appears to be in no urgent rush to
respond to those calling for urgent action, or to those who wish to
pretend there are no problems. Generally it is accepted that it is OK
for individuals to be wrong, but it does become problematic when that
affects others. The classis argument arisies from consideration of
shouiting fire in a crowded theatre, causing a panic and harm when
there is in fact no fire. To a lesser extent we can point to the
recent deaths from measles in Samoa, arising from misunderstandings
and false opinions. The same issue for different reasons affects our
ability to take appropriate action relating to global change - there
mischevious denial of scientific analysis for short term profit
motives has led to many gullible New Zealanders sharing inappropriate
denial. What actions do you propose in relation to the real problems
we face from time to time, Tonyu? Certainly our censorship rules,
developed over many years, appear to have coped quite well regarding
the Christchurch attack .
This government is following the party line and will continue to attempt to
remove freedom of speech with absolutely no legitimate reason to do so other
than a desire to control the proletariat (notably they have achieved that with
you once more).
Why do you resort to lying, Tony! There is no indication whatsoever
that the government (with three parties) is following any single
"party line", or that they are attempting to remove freesom of speech.
If you are going to make such a stupis assertion, think a bit first
then try to find some credible evidence - hint, don't look for
anything authoritative about the governmetn from National's
spin-merchants!
Post by Tony
You will continue to dismiss the opinion of skilled and knowledgeable people
like the author of the posted article as shallow and misguided despite the fact
that those people leave you behind both morally and intellectually.
You should be ashamed but that requires honesty and that would be a first!
And you will claim (rightly) that these are merely your opinions and
therefore do not have to be supported by any evidence whatsoever (and
indeed they are of course not supported by any facts!)

Time to double flush your opinions, Tony . . .
Tony
2020-02-05 04:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 22:20:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:57:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/119089031/who-exactly-would-speech-restrictions-be-protecting
Exactly, far too many people shot from the hip and we need balance.
You are referring to a fairly shallow and misguided article, Tony, and
I agree that the author appears to have shot from the hip a bit.
It is only shallow to you and other people who wish to enforce unreasonable
rules on ordinary people, something you have supported here many times.
And of course you have deliberately misunderstood what I wrote. I was referring
to you and your ilk that have shot from the hip, but no matter that is what we
have to contend with here when you post.
Post by Rich80105
A significant action taken immediately following the Christchurch
attack was the banning of holding or publication of the video - a
ruling made under existing laws and largely unopposed. There has been
worldwide condemnation of the incitement to acts of terrorism and
violence, but few solutions found - to pretend that any law should not
be enacted if it would not have stopped that specific attack is
specious nonsense equivalent to saying we should not have speed limits
because they have not stopped road deaths - but then cheap articles by
a comedy write probably do have a place.
Irrelevant and silly, nothing to do with the article as usual.
Post by Rich80105
Still not to fear, the government appears to be in no urgent rush to
respond to those calling for urgent action, or to those who wish to
pretend there are no problems. Generally it is accepted that it is OK
for individuals to be wrong, but it does become problematic when that
affects others. The classis argument arisies from consideration of
shouiting fire in a crowded theatre, causing a panic and harm when
there is in fact no fire. To a lesser extent we can point to the
recent deaths from measles in Samoa, arising from misunderstandings
and false opinions. The same issue for different reasons affects our
ability to take appropriate action relating to global change - there
mischevious denial of scientific analysis for short term profit
motives has led to many gullible New Zealanders sharing inappropriate
denial. What actions do you propose in relation to the real problems
we face from time to time, Tonyu? Certainly our censorship rules,
developed over many years, appear to have coped quite well regarding
the Christchurch attack .
This government is following the party line and will continue to attempt to
remove freedom of speech with absolutely no legitimate reason to do so other
than a desire to control the proletariat (notably they have achieved that with
you once more).
Idiotic abuse removed.
This Rich idiot has no ability to debate, merely practices rudeness.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
You will continue to dismiss the opinion of skilled and knowledgeable people
like the author of the posted article as shallow and misguided despite the fact
that those people leave you behind both morally and intellectually.
You should be ashamed but that requires honesty and that would be a first!
Abusive nonsense deleted.
John Bowes
2020-02-05 05:31:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 22:20:08 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:57:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/119089031/who-exactly-would-speech-restrictions-be-protecting
Exactly, far too many people shot from the hip and we need balance.
You are referring to a fairly shallow and misguided article, Tony, and
I agree that the author appears to have shot from the hip a bit.
It is only shallow to you and other people who wish to enforce unreasonable
rules on ordinary people, something you have supported here many times.
And of course you have deliberately misunderstood what I wrote. I was referring
to you and your ilk that have shot from the hip, but no matter that is what we
have to contend with here when you post.
Post by Rich80105
A significant action taken immediately following the Christchurch
attack was the banning of holding or publication of the video - a
ruling made under existing laws and largely unopposed. There has been
worldwide condemnation of the incitement to acts of terrorism and
violence, but few solutions found - to pretend that any law should not
be enacted if it would not have stopped that specific attack is
specious nonsense equivalent to saying we should not have speed limits
because they have not stopped road deaths - but then cheap articles by
a comedy write probably do have a place.
Irrelevant and silly, nothing to do with the article as usual.
Post by Rich80105
Still not to fear, the government appears to be in no urgent rush to
respond to those calling for urgent action, or to those who wish to
pretend there are no problems. Generally it is accepted that it is OK
for individuals to be wrong, but it does become problematic when that
affects others. The classis argument arisies from consideration of
shouiting fire in a crowded theatre, causing a panic and harm when
there is in fact no fire. To a lesser extent we can point to the
recent deaths from measles in Samoa, arising from misunderstandings
and false opinions. The same issue for different reasons affects our
ability to take appropriate action relating to global change - there
mischevious denial of scientific analysis for short term profit
motives has led to many gullible New Zealanders sharing inappropriate
denial. What actions do you propose in relation to the real problems
we face from time to time, Tonyu? Certainly our censorship rules,
developed over many years, appear to have coped quite well regarding
the Christchurch attack .
This government is following the party line and will continue to attempt to
remove freedom of speech with absolutely no legitimate reason to do so other
than a desire to control the proletariat (notably they have achieved that with
you once more).
Why do you resort to lying, Tony!
No lies from Tony! Lying is your forte Rich!
Post by Rich80105
There is no indication whatsoever
that the government (with three parties) is following any single
"party line", or that they are attempting to remove freesom of speech.
If you are going to make such a stupis assertion, think a bit first
then try to find some credible evidence - hint, don't look for
anything authoritative about the governmetn from National's
spin-merchants!
As soon as you bring in hate speech you remove freedom of speech and invariably ALL other freedoms. Andrew Little has assured us on several occasions that he's bringing in hate speech laws this year. Your denial only shows your either pig ignorant or lacking in comprehension skills along with a very selective memory when it comes to the CoL and where it's heading!
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
You will continue to dismiss the opinion of skilled and knowledgeable people
like the author of the posted article as shallow and misguided despite the fact
that those people leave you behind both morally and intellectually.
You should be ashamed but that requires honesty and that would be a first!
And you will claim (rightly) that these are merely your opinions and
therefore do not have to be supported by any evidence whatsoever (and
indeed they are of course not supported by any facts!)
Yes Rich they are Tony's oppinions just as your stupid and blind support of everything the government does are only opinions. The difference Rich is that your biased and stupid while Tony is reasonable with no indications of bias anywhere but in what passes for your tiny little mind!
Post by Rich80105
Time to double flush your opinions, Tony . . .
WRONG! Time for you to admit your like the government corrupt, stupid and useless Rich!
John Bowes
2020-02-05 05:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Feb 2020 13:57:17 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/119089031/who-exactly-would-speech-restrictions-be-protecting
Exactly, far too many people shot from the hip and we need balance.
You are referring to a fairly shallow and misguided article, Tony, and
I agree that the author appears to have shot from the hip a bit.
No Rich! It is YOU shooting from the hip (so typical of you and the despotic government you blindly support) Shallow is the garbled garbage I snipped! Little is hell bent on bringing in so called 'hate laws' the sort of laws that have never ever prevented the massacre of innocents and frequently the massacres have been by the governments that brought these laws in! Go look at Nazi Germany and Russia and even you might be able to comprehend where these laws invariably lead!
<fairly typical garbled garbage from Rich snipped>
James Christophers
2020-02-05 05:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/119089031/who-exactly-would-speech-restrictions-be-protecting
Exactly, far too many people shot from the hip and we need balance.
The writer barely skims the surface of the problem, if that, but if nothing else he once again brings a perfectly valid opinion to public notice in his own way. In toto, though, nothing new is learned.

But if it's learning and the deeper nitty-gritty you seek then you'll be doing yourself a favour by tracking down:

“Democracy off Balance”: Freedom of Expression and Hate Propaganda Law in Canada, by Stefan Braun.

The book deals mainly with the Canadian/N American experience, but Braun’s well-judged insights are no less valid in a global context, not to mention his sheer lucidity on such a complex subject.

Unsurprisingly, his work is of infinitely greater worth than any ephemeral thumb-twiddling Usenet discourse on what, today, amounts to an intractable condition affecting all modern societies, what with the rise and rise of social media and the putative benefits and blessings it has bestowed on all mankind.
Loading...