Libel
Slander
Persecution of whistleblowers
Disturbance of the peace
Official secrets
Industrial secrets
Don’t talk to the press
Admission of criminal activity
Redaction of wikipedia submissions
Rejection from facebook groups
Political correctness
Don’t be racist towards minorities
No sexism
Censorship
Rejections of submissions for scientific publications
Threat of blackmail
Nothing opposed to the policies of at least one major political party
Verbal abuse
Verbal support of terrorist group

All of these can be threats leading to loss of job, villifiction by the press, and/or arrest.

Hypothesis: the only thing people are allowed to say is to regurgitate what they’ve already been told. In their own words because otherwise that’s plagiarism.

are concepts often misrepresented yes

mollwollfumble said:

Libel
Slander
Persecution of whistleblowers
Disturbance of the peace
Official secrets
Industrial secrets
Don’t talk to the press
Admission of criminal activity
Redaction of wikipedia submissions
Rejection from facebook groups
Political correctness
Don’t be racist towards minorities
No sexism
Censorship
Rejections of submissions for scientific publications
Threat of blackmail
Nothing opposed to the policies of at least one major political party
Verbal abuse
Verbal support of terrorist group

All of these can be threats leading to loss of job, villifiction by the press, and/or arrest.

Hypothesis: the only thing people are allowed to say is to regurgitate what they’ve already been told. In their own words because otherwise that’s plagiarism.

Yes, “free speech” is almost as much a myth as “free markets”.

I say almost, because it is widely recognised that there is no such thing as free speech, whereas “free markets” are usually spoken of as though they were a real thing.

In most countries, you are free to hold whatever thoughts and opinions you like, but there’s restriction on the expression of those thoughts and opinions, for reasons that are well understood and uncontroversial.

Rule 303 said:

In most countries, you are free to hold whatever thoughts and opinions you like, but there’s restriction on the expression of those thoughts and opinions, for reasons that are well understood and uncontroversial.

In other words you can think what you like but take care who you tell it to.

i’d expect everyone (normal adults) exercises discretion with their words, large part of the inhibiting forces internally is so whatever grunts are not negatively consequential (intentionally, unintentionally, accidentally, or incidentally), they are inconsequential, irrelevant to potential hostile feelings and forces external, or unlikely to cause anxiety or worries unnecessarily, troubles, or mischief

people with verbal tics are excused, so too delirious people that are medicated, perhaps disordered minds also to some extent, and very young children (say up to age around four years), the latter really do have free speech

up to around age four or five years, about the time children are prepared for school, the little humans really do have free speech

a child learns you can think things but don’t need say them, have feeling and don’t need act on them, and even not have some feelings at all, they are not necessary (impulse control and whatever)

possibly one downside to a loss of playfulness with language (acceptance) is that more of it might be seen as mischief, and as it goes there are different shades of mischief, subject to interpretations, and consider a world where humans increasingly believed that human reality was just that, all interpretations, derived so

there was a time words were just spoken, verbal, sound waves, and they dissipated into the aether, subject to the inverse square law thing, then came writing, then the printing press, then the digital world

Do people on here call people out when they are unreasonable, being bullies, talking nonsense, not being a team plater, etc or just let it go.

I notice how unwilling people are at work to call people out for the above and let the behaviour slide as they don’t want to face them.

So the dead weight wins and the hard workers get shafted

Cymek said:

Do people on here call people out when they are unreasonable, being bullies, talking nonsense, not being a team plater, etc or just let it go.

I notice how unwilling people are at work to call people out for the above and let the behaviour slide as they don’t want to face them.

So the dead weight wins and the hard workers get shafted

I think here on the forum people are called out. Most times with reasonable counter argument but sometimes a little more forcefully.

Cymek said:

Do people on here call people out when they are unreasonable, being bullies, talking nonsense, not being a team plater, etc or just let it go.

I do if I think it might be necessary. Do you?
Cymek said:

I notice how unwilling people are at work to call people out for the above and let the behaviour slide as they don’t want to face them.

So the dead weight wins and the hard workers get shafted

I’d speak to management if you think people aren’t pulling their weight.

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Do people on here call people out when they are unreasonable, being bullies, talking nonsense, not being a team plater, etc or just let it go.

I notice how unwilling people are at work to call people out for the above and let the behaviour slide as they don’t want to face them.

So the dead weight wins and the hard workers get shafted

I think here on the forum people are called out. Most times with reasonable counter argument but sometimes a little more forcefully.

That’s true

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Do people on here call people out when they are unreasonable, being bullies, talking nonsense, not being a team plater, etc or just let it go.

I do if I think it might be necessary. Do you?
Cymek said:

I notice how unwilling people are at work to call people out for the above and let the behaviour slide as they don’t want to face them.

So the dead weight wins and the hard workers get shafted

I’d speak to management if you think people aren’t pulling their weight.

I do yes, we have a few bully people at work and I call them out all the time
Like people in the street using intimidation to get something from you, I tell them to were to go.
It seems the unreasonable get away with it as others don’t want to make a scene or get them off side

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Do people on here call people out when they are unreasonable, being bullies, talking nonsense, not being a team plater, etc or just let it go.

I do if I think it might be necessary. Do you?
Cymek said:

I notice how unwilling people are at work to call people out for the above and let the behaviour slide as they don’t want to face them.

So the dead weight wins and the hard workers get shafted

I’d speak to management if you think people aren’t pulling their weight.

I do yes, we have a few bully people at work and I call them out all the time
Like people in the street using intimidation to get something from you, I tell them to were to go.
It seems the unreasonable get away with it as others don’t want to make a scene or get them off side

Most people do not like confrontation unfortunately.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Most people do not like confrontation unfortunately.

Broadly speaking, it’s probably fortunate that most people do not like confrontation :)

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Most people do not like confrontation unfortunately.

Broadly speaking, it’s probably fortunate that most people do not like confrontation :)

Well you right there is ‘good’ confrontation and ‘bad’ confrontation.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I’d speak to management if you think people aren’t pulling their weight.

I do yes, we have a few bully people at work and I call them out all the time
Like people in the street using intimidation to get something from you, I tell them to were to go.
It seems the unreasonable get away with it as others don’t want to make a scene or get them off side

Most people do not like confrontation unfortunately.

I don’t either but decided I’m also not going to be pushed around or bullied by unreasonable people

Just pondering that if you act like a low life you often get away with it as no one wants to say anything

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Most people do not like confrontation unfortunately.

Broadly speaking, it’s probably fortunate that most people do not like confrontation :)

Well you right there is ‘good’ confrontation and ‘bad’ confrontation.

Yes I’ll stick up for coworkers being bullied as I like them and don’t like the bullies so have nothing to lose anyway.
I do wonder is it me but when others say they person isn’t nice I do feel vindicated

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I’d speak to management if you think people aren’t pulling their weight.

I do yes, we have a few bully people at work and I call them out all the time
Like people in the street using intimidation to get something from you, I tell them to were to go.
It seems the unreasonable get away with it as others don’t want to make a scene or get them off side

Most people do not like confrontation unfortunately.

Depends how it is put. My FiL told me “You can’t tell people, you need to cause them to think they thought of it themselves”. This is how to be a leader.

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Most people do not like confrontation unfortunately.

Broadly speaking, it’s probably fortunate that most people do not like confrontation :)

Once bitten, twice shy.

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.

freedom from intellect

Divine Angel said:

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.

No
What seems to happen though is people think the freedom to repress is the same as someone else’s freedom to have equality

Yes. There is free speech. I’ve never been paid for anything I’ve ever said, ever.

Woodie said:

Yes. There is free speech. I’ve never been paid for anything I’ve ever said, ever.

They are gold though, you much be disappointed

Divine Angel said:

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.

What does it mean than?

If “free speech” was a real thing it would mean freedom to speak without fear of the consequences, wouldn’t it?

You’d have to ask Parler.

Woodie said:

Yes. There is free speech. I’ve never been paid for anything I’ve ever said, ever.

there’s a dimension to that to do with what people say and don’t say, are likely or unlikely to think about and say, being restrained and shaped by pecuniary interest, whatever benefit, maybe not material or physical, could be even intangibles like status

few people are entirely unaffected by their personal pecuniary interests, how they obtain the convertible currency, that performs that magic of actualizing and realizing the rewards from instrumental desires

The Rev Dodgson said:

Divine Angel said:

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.

What does it mean than?

If “free speech” was a real thing it would mean freedom to speak without fear of the consequences, wouldn’t it?

Rule 303 said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Divine Angel said:

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.

What does it mean than?

If “free speech” was a real thing it would mean freedom to speak without fear of the consequences, wouldn’t it?

Feel free to tell what you think Rule.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Divine Angel said:

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.

What does it mean than?

If “free speech” was a real thing it would mean freedom to speak without fear of the consequences, wouldn’t it?

I don’t think anybody expects freedom of expression (or if they do, it only takes about 5 seconds to explain why it’s completely unworkable and dangerous), but freedom of thought is a hot-spot of attention in countries that maintain certain types of government.

It’s usually regarded as a basic human right: Freedom from persecution for holding a belief (remember McCarthy in the US?), freedom from interrogation of one’s beliefs, freedom from death / violence / abuse / social disadvantage, freedom from mistreatment of one’s friends and family, freedom from coercion and forced agreement contrary to one’s beliefs… and so on.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Divine Angel said:

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.

What does it mean than?

If “free speech” was a real thing it would mean freedom to speak without fear of the consequences, wouldn’t it?

what if we welcome and embrace the consequences and do not know what fear is

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Divine Angel said:

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.

What does it mean than?

If “free speech” was a real thing it would mean freedom to speak without fear of the consequences, wouldn’t it?

what if we welcome and embrace the consequences and do not know what fear is

I suppose that strange person would indeed have freedom of speech.

what is this grumbling about freedom of thought, let us ask how this is enforced against, if it is claimed that it is

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What does it mean than?

If “free speech” was a real thing it would mean freedom to speak without fear of the consequences, wouldn’t it?

what if we welcome and embrace the consequences and do not know what fear is

I suppose that strange person would indeed have freedom of speech.

so the secret of free speech is not the freedom from consequences but the acceptance of them

Siddhartha Gautama would be proud

I got free speech in my head all the time, I mutter when alone also

so yeah everyone has free speech, the possibility of, of course what I say to others is less free, and if I talk about others similarly

one of the joys of the space in my cranium, and having a cranium, keeps the stuff from leaking out, mostly, sometimes there’s an avalanche of ideas, too important to contain, a cerebral explosion

In any half-decent moral system, there is always the choice between saying something to make people feel good or saying something truthful. The two are seldom the same.

>>> Is free speech a myth?

Yes.

mollwollfumble said:

In any half-decent moral system, there is always the choice between saying something to make people feel good or saying something truthful. The two are seldom the same.

What if what feels good is the basis of truth like something he done ¿

mollwollfumble said:

In any half-decent moral system, there is always the choice between saying something to make people feel good or saying something truthful. The two are seldom the same.

I don’t know what having a decency index of 50% has got to do with it.

The truth and what makes people feel good are very often the same.

It happens so often it just merges into the background, and we don’t realise it is happening.

mollwollfumble said:

In any half-decent moral system, there is always the choice between saying something to make people feel good or saying something truthful. The two are seldom the same.

dunno, much is in the territory of soft reality, so why does communicating anything of that, about that, for that, need be a punch in the head, so to speak

transition said:

mollwollfumble said:

In any half-decent moral system, there is always the choice between saying something to make people feel good or saying something truthful. The two are seldom the same.

dunno, much is in the territory of soft reality, so why does communicating anything of that, about that, for that, need be a punch in the head, so to speak

fairly much the entirety of mental activity, representational, whatever, could be said to be from a soft reality, generate a soft reality, work of soft reality, the business of the wetware, that organ of the fleshy world, lot of water in it, think of it as a pond for a moment

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

In any half-decent moral system, there is always the choice between saying something to make people feel good or saying something truthful. The two are seldom the same.

I don’t know what having a decency index of 50% has got to do with it.

The truth and what makes people feel good are very often the same.

It happens so often it just merges into the background, and we don’t realise it is happening.

maybe the brain learns to consider true things as feeling good, and there’s no specific other reason for it, so equally the fantasisers find truth and good feeling seldom the same

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

In any half-decent moral system, there is always the choice between saying something to make people feel good or saying something truthful. The two are seldom the same.

I don’t know what having a decency index of 50% has got to do with it.

The truth and what makes people feel good are very often the same.

It happens so often it just merges into the background, and we don’t realise it is happening.

maybe the brain learns to consider true things as feeling good, and there’s no specific other reason for it, so equally the fantasisers find truth and good feeling seldom the same

are you using truth in a sort of normative way, as if it’s universally the same thing, or should be

how much truth do you want today, I might ask

Is it always wrong to shout “CINEMA!” in a crowded fire?

Bubblecar said:

Is it always wrong to shout “CINEMA!” in a crowded fire?

Not if you’re indicating a possible escape route.

Bubblecar said:

Is it always wrong to shout “CINEMA!” in a crowded fire?

Interesting notion.

“No rest for the wicked.”

The converse is true as well.

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know what having a decency index of 50% has got to do with it.

The truth and what makes people feel good are very often the same.

It happens so often it just merges into the background, and we don’t realise it is happening.

maybe the brain learns to consider true things as feeling good, and there’s no specific other reason for it, so equally the fantasisers find truth and good feeling seldom the same

are you using truth in a sort of normative way, as if it’s universally the same thing, or should be

how much truth do you want today, I might ask

in fact i’d go further, and state that if you were by some magic able to absorb every truth possible, and set about doing that, the journey would destroy you long before you got near that objective, you’d self-destruct

>If “free speech” was a real thing it would mean freedom to speak without fear of the consequences, wouldn’t it?

Not necessarily. It may just mean you are free to decide whether the consequences (if any) are worth the exercise of your legal right to speak.

transition said:

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

maybe the brain learns to consider true things as feeling good, and there’s no specific other reason for it, so equally the fantasisers find truth and good feeling seldom the same

are you using truth in a sort of normative way, as if it’s universally the same thing, or should be

how much truth do you want today, I might ask

in fact i’d go further, and state that if you were by some magic able to absorb every truth possible, and set about doing that, the journey would destroy you long before you got near that objective, you’d self-destruct

This notion was explored in the astronomer Fred Hoyle’s novel “The Black Cloud” in the 1950’s.

just to be clear we’re using truth the way anyone else uses it, as a word

SCIENCE said:

just to be clear we’re using truth the way anyone else uses it, as a word

yeah I guess, any use of the word precedes the working concepts regard from which it comes, the word emanates from a vacuum, and is delivered into or received by a vacuum, and there’s an exchange between vacuums

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

just to be clear we’re using truth the way anyone else uses it, as a word

yeah I guess, any use of the word precedes the working concepts regard from which it comes, the word emanates from a vacuum, and is delivered into or received by a vacuum, and there’s an exchange between vacuums

I hoover.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

just to be clear we’re using truth the way anyone else uses it, as a word

yeah I guess, any use of the word precedes the working concepts regard from which it comes, the word emanates from a vacuum, and is delivered into or received by a vacuum, and there’s an exchange between vacuums

I hoover.

u sux

What if everybody claimed free speech ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

What if everybody claimed free speech ?

I do but I’m up against free not listening.

“Free speech” is not specifically mentioned in the Australian constitution – therefore it does not exist here.

You have to remember that in 1901 it was an administrative handover to people already running the country, the last prisoner transport was 40 years before – Australia was still effectively a prison run by defacto wardens and guards.

Britain suffers from the same problem

Free speech only exists in the American constitution

In Canada they gaol you for free speech, some fellah won’t call his daughter his son ( or is it the other way round?) So he sits in gaol.

wookiemeister said:

“Free speech” is not specifically mentioned in the Australian constitution – therefore it does not exist here.

You have to remember that in 1901 it was an administrative handover to people already running the country, the last prisoner transport was 40 years before – Australia was still effectively a prison run by defacto wardens and guards.

Britain suffers from the same problem

Free speech only exists in the American constitution

In Canada they gaol you for free speech, some fellah won’t call his daughter his son ( or is it the other way round?) So he sits in gaol.

go shout it from a mountain top when nobody is listening then that’s free and inconsequential

SCIENCE said:

wookiemeister said:

“Free speech” is not specifically mentioned in the Australian constitution – therefore it does not exist here.

You have to remember that in 1901 it was an administrative handover to people already running the country, the last prisoner transport was 40 years before – Australia was still effectively a prison run by defacto wardens and guards.

Britain suffers from the same problem

Free speech only exists in the American constitution

In Canada they gaol you for free speech, some fellah won’t call his daughter his son ( or is it the other way round?) So he sits in gaol.

go shout it from a mountain top when nobody is listening then that’s free and inconsequential

Or post in an online forum with about 23 members.

wookiemeister said:

“Free speech” is not specifically mentioned in the Australian constitution – therefore it does not exist here.

Right to freedom of opinion and expression
Public sector guidance sheet
https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/right-freedom-opinion-and-expression

Australia is a party to seven core international human rights treaties. The right to freedom of opinion and expression is contained in articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The right in article 19(1) to hold opinions without interference cannot be subject to any exception or restriction. The right in article 19(2) protects freedom of expression in any medium, for example written and oral communications, the media, public protest, broadcasting, artistic works and commercial advertising. The right protects not only favourable information or ideas, but also unpopular ideas including those that may offend or shock (subject to limitations). Freedom of expression carries with it special responsibilities, and may be restricted on several grounds….

Derogation
Under article 4 of the ICCPR, countries may take measures derogating from certain of their obligations under the Covenant, including the right to freedom of opinion and expression ‘in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed’. Such measures may only be taken ‘to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin’.

Limitation
In addition, under article 19(3) freedom of expression may be limited as provided for by law and when necessary to protect the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, or public health or morals. Limitations must be prescribed by legislation necessary to achieve the desired purpose and proportionate to the need on which the limitation is predicated.

Rights of reputation of others
In a case which involved a complaint about a law prohibiting denial of the holocaust, the UN Human Rights Committee stated that the restriction of the complainant’s freedom of expression was permissible as it was necessary for respect of the rights and reputations of others.

National security
The national security limitation would justify prohibitions on transmission of information, including ‘official secrets’, which would adversely affect the security of the nation, provided the prohibition is reasonable, is effective to protect national security, and restricts freedom of expression no more than is necessary to protect national security.

Public order
‘Public order’ is understood to mean the rules which ensure the peaceful and effective functioning of society. The limitation in article 19(3) would justify prohibitions on speech that may incite crime, violence or mass panic, provided the prohibition is reasonable, is effective to protect public order, and restricts freedom of expression no more than is necessary to protect public order.

Public health
The public health limitation has not been tested before the Human Rights Committee.

Public morals
The Human Rights Committee has stated that there is no universally applicable standard for what constitutes public morality. A restriction on certain pornographic material, for example pornographic material depicting minors, would be an example of a limitation on freedom of expression based on public morality. In Australia, the National Classification Scheme is designed to provide consumers with information about publications, films and computer games, to allow them to make informed decisions about appropriate entertainment material for themselves and their children. The Scheme is based on the following principles:
-adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want
-minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them
-everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive
-the need to take account of community concerns about depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence, and the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.

>“Free speech” is not specifically mentioned in the Australian constitution – therefore it does not exist here.

or it’s an assumed operating space of an informal dimension, that if overly formalized might become less of an informal dimension

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

wookiemeister said:

“Free speech” is not specifically mentioned in the Australian constitution – therefore it does not exist here.

You have to remember that in 1901 it was an administrative handover to people already running the country, the last prisoner transport was 40 years before – Australia was still effectively a prison run by defacto wardens and guards.

Britain suffers from the same problem

Free speech only exists in the American constitution

In Canada they gaol you for free speech, some fellah won’t call his daughter his son ( or is it the other way round?) So he sits in gaol.

go shout it from a mountain top when nobody is listening then that’s free and inconsequential

Or post in an online forum with about 23 members.

That’s why all 22 of us come here ¡

wookiemeister said:

“Free speech” is not specifically mentioned in the Australian constitution – therefore it does not exist here.

You have to remember that in 1901 it was an administrative handover to people already running the country, the last prisoner transport was 40 years before – Australia was still effectively a prison run by defacto wardens and guards.

Britain suffers from the same problem

Free speech only exists in the American constitution

In Canada they gaol you for free speech, some fellah won’t call his daughter his son ( or is it the other way round?) So he sits in gaol.

i hate the wookieposts as much as anyone, but on this occasion it does seem that what is going on in Canada is worthy of reasonable debate:

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/03/19/father-arrested-after-continuing-to-call-his-child-she-after-court-ordered-gender-transition-treatments/

There is an extraordinary case out of British Columbia where a father referenced as CD was arrested after he continued to refer to his biological 14-year-old daughter (known as AB) as “she” and his “daughter” after he transitioned to a male gender. The Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada ordered that the child receive testosterone injections without obtaining parental consent. CD opposed the transition as the parent but he was overruled after physicians at BC Children’s Hospital who decided the girl should receive testosterone injections. The father continued to defy gag orders, including a bar on his trying to persuade with his own child to wait before making such a change.

this kind of thing has been solved before with the use of ‘e, h’ and h’

The Rev Dodgson said:

wookiemeister said:

“Free speech” is not specifically mentioned in the Australian constitution – therefore it does not exist here.

You have to remember that in 1901 it was an administrative handover to people already running the country, the last prisoner transport was 40 years before – Australia was still effectively a prison run by defacto wardens and guards.

Britain suffers from the same problem

Free speech only exists in the American constitution

In Canada they gaol you for free speech, some fellah won’t call his daughter his son ( or is it the other way round?) So he sits in gaol.

i hate the wookieposts as much as anyone, but on this occasion it does seem that what is going on in Canada is worthy of reasonable debate:

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/03/19/father-arrested-after-continuing-to-call-his-child-she-after-court-ordered-gender-transition-treatments/

There is an extraordinary case out of British Columbia where a father referenced as CD was arrested after he continued to refer to his biological 14-year-old daughter (known as AB) as “she” and his “daughter” after he transitioned to a male gender. The Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada ordered that the child receive testosterone injections without obtaining parental consent. CD opposed the transition as the parent but he was overruled after physicians at BC Children’s Hospital who decided the girl should receive testosterone injections. The father continued to defy gag orders, including a bar on his trying to persuade with his own child to wait before making such a change.

can’t see how this has anything to do with free speech.

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

wookiemeister said:

“Free speech” is not specifically mentioned in the Australian constitution – therefore it does not exist here.

You have to remember that in 1901 it was an administrative handover to people already running the country, the last prisoner transport was 40 years before – Australia was still effectively a prison run by defacto wardens and guards.

Britain suffers from the same problem

Free speech only exists in the American constitution

In Canada they gaol you for free speech, some fellah won’t call his daughter his son ( or is it the other way round?) So he sits in gaol.

i hate the wookieposts as much as anyone, but on this occasion it does seem that what is going on in Canada is worthy of reasonable debate:

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/03/19/father-arrested-after-continuing-to-call-his-child-she-after-court-ordered-gender-transition-treatments/

There is an extraordinary case out of British Columbia where a father referenced as CD was arrested after he continued to refer to his biological 14-year-old daughter (known as AB) as “she” and his “daughter” after he transitioned to a male gender. The Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada ordered that the child receive testosterone injections without obtaining parental consent. CD opposed the transition as the parent but he was overruled after physicians at BC Children’s Hospital who decided the girl should receive testosterone injections. The father continued to defy gag orders, including a bar on his trying to persuade with his own child to wait before making such a change.

can’t see how this has anything to do with free speech.

did ‘e try to use it as a défense

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

wookiemeister said:

“Free speech” is not specifically mentioned in the Australian constitution – therefore it does not exist here.

You have to remember that in 1901 it was an administrative handover to people already running the country, the last prisoner transport was 40 years before – Australia was still effectively a prison run by defacto wardens and guards.

Britain suffers from the same problem

Free speech only exists in the American constitution

In Canada they gaol you for free speech, some fellah won’t call his daughter his son ( or is it the other way round?) So he sits in gaol.

i hate the wookieposts as much as anyone, but on this occasion it does seem that what is going on in Canada is worthy of reasonable debate:

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/03/19/father-arrested-after-continuing-to-call-his-child-she-after-court-ordered-gender-transition-treatments/

There is an extraordinary case out of British Columbia where a father referenced as CD was arrested after he continued to refer to his biological 14-year-old daughter (known as AB) as “she” and his “daughter” after he transitioned to a male gender. The Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada ordered that the child receive testosterone injections without obtaining parental consent. CD opposed the transition as the parent but he was overruled after physicians at BC Children’s Hospital who decided the girl should receive testosterone injections. The father continued to defy gag orders, including a bar on his trying to persuade with his own child to wait before making such a change.

can’t see how this has anything to do with free speech.

Can you explain how restrictions on what a man says to, and in reference to, his child has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

go shout it from a mountain top when nobody is listening then that’s free and inconsequential

Or post in an online forum with about 23 members.

That’s why all 22 of us come here ¡

Where does the other one go?

If speech is free, does this mean they don’t charge you for it?

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Or post in an online forum with about 23 members.

That’s why all 22 of us come here ¡

Where does the other one go?

Maybe SCIENCE was counting themselves as a single entity on this occasion.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

That’s why all 22 of us come here ¡

Where does the other one go?

Maybe SCIENCE was counting themselves as a single entity on this occasion.

This may well be.

roughbarked said:

If speech is free, does this mean they don’t charge you for it?

Neither charged nor charged, presumably.

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

i hate the wookieposts as much as anyone, but on this occasion it does seem that what is going on in Canada is worthy of reasonable debate:

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/03/19/father-arrested-after-continuing-to-call-his-child-she-after-court-ordered-gender-transition-treatments/

There is an extraordinary case out of British Columbia where a father referenced as CD was arrested after he continued to refer to his biological 14-year-old daughter (known as AB) as “she” and his “daughter” after he transitioned to a male gender. The Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada ordered that the child receive testosterone injections without obtaining parental consent. CD opposed the transition as the parent but he was overruled after physicians at BC Children’s Hospital who decided the girl should receive testosterone injections. The father continued to defy gag orders, including a bar on his trying to persuade with his own child to wait before making such a change.

can’t see how this has anything to do with free speech.

Can you explain how restrictions on what a man says to, and in reference to, his child has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

maybe it is covered by a different law. same way you can’t call a black person by the N word. Nothing to do with freedom of speech. The article even states the relevant law.

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Or post in an online forum with about 23 members.

That’s why all 22 of us come here ¡

Where does the other one go?

Are we so few. I will be more respectful of our precious band from now on.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

If speech is free, does this mean they don’t charge you for it?

Neither charged nor charged, presumably.

That was the said presumption indeed.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

That’s why all 22 of us come here ¡

Where does the other one go?

Are we so few. I will be more respectful of our precious band from now on.

You mean you don’t respect us?

Well is it about time you started?

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Where does the other one go?

Are we so few. I will be more respectful of our precious band from now on.

You mean you don’t respect us?

Well is it about time you started?

Notice the use of the word more.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Are we so few. I will be more respectful of our precious band from now on.

You mean you don’t respect us?

Well is it about time you started?

Notice the use of the word more.

:) I did yes.

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

can’t see how this has anything to do with free speech.

Can you explain how restrictions on what a man says to, and in reference to, his child has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

maybe it is covered by a different law. same way you can’t call a black person by the N word. Nothing to do with freedom of speech. The article even states the relevant law.

Eh?

Laws against calling people with dark skin niggers is a restriction of freedom of speech.

Just one example of the many ways in which what you can say is restricted in all countries, including the USA.

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Can you explain how restrictions on what a man says to, and in reference to, his child has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

maybe it is covered by a different law. same way you can’t call a black person by the N word. Nothing to do with freedom of speech. The article even states the relevant law.

Eh?

Laws against calling people with dark skin niggers is a restriction of freedom of speech.

Just one example of the many ways in which what you can say is restricted in all countries, including the USA.

whatever.

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

i hate the wookieposts as much as anyone, but on this occasion it does seem that what is going on in Canada is worthy of reasonable debate:

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/03/19/father-arrested-after-continuing-to-call-his-child-she-after-court-ordered-gender-transition-treatments/

There is an extraordinary case out of British Columbia where a father referenced as CD was arrested after he continued to refer to his biological 14-year-old daughter (known as AB) as “she” and his “daughter” after he transitioned to a male gender. The Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada ordered that the child receive testosterone injections without obtaining parental consent. CD opposed the transition as the parent but he was overruled after physicians at BC Children’s Hospital who decided the girl should receive testosterone injections. The father continued to defy gag orders, including a bar on his trying to persuade with his own child to wait before making such a change.

can’t see how this has anything to do with free speech.

Can you explain how restrictions on what a man says to, and in reference to, his child has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

Here you go, Rev. This is the actual court order the man breached.
Citation: A.B. v. C.D. and E.F., 2019 BCSC 604 Date: 20190415 Docket: E190334 Registry: Vancouver

Note particularly the statement (in that order) “In conclusion, I find that AB is an at-risk family member who is highly vulnerable. I find that his father’s expressions of rejection of AB’s gender identity, both publicly and privately, constitutes family violence against AB. Finally, I find that CD’s conduct in this regard is persistent and unlikely to cease in the absence of a clear order to restrain it.”

Also, under Scope of the restraining order for protection
“I begin with conduct that has already been declared by this Court after summary trial to be family violence. This includes attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria, addressing AB by his birth name, and referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns, whether to AB directly or to third parties and publicly.
[…]
The protection order is required to be prepared by the Registry. However, I will summarize the substance of the order here:

a) CD shall be restrained from:

• i. attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria;

• ii. addressing AB by his birth name; and

• iii. referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB directly or to third parties”

btm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

can’t see how this has anything to do with free speech.

Can you explain how restrictions on what a man says to, and in reference to, his child has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

Here you go, Rev. This is the actual court order the man breached.
Citation: A.B. v. C.D. and E.F., 2019 BCSC 604 Date: 20190415 Docket: E190334 Registry: Vancouver

Note particularly the statement (in that order) “In conclusion, I find that AB is an at-risk family member who is highly vulnerable. I find that his father’s expressions of rejection of AB’s gender identity, both publicly and privately, constitutes family violence against AB. Finally, I find that CD’s conduct in this regard is persistent and unlikely to cease in the absence of a clear order to restrain it.”

Also, under Scope of the restraining order for protection
“I begin with conduct that has already been declared by this Court after summary trial to be family violence. This includes attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria, addressing AB by his birth name, and referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns, whether to AB directly or to third parties and publicly.
[…]
The protection order is required to be prepared by the Registry. However, I will summarize the substance of the order here:

a) CD shall be restrained from:

• i. attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria;

• ii. addressing AB by his birth name; and

• iii. referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB directly or to third parties”

Thanks btm.

So what the man says has been judged to constitute family violence, so has been restricted.

That does constitute an example of restriction of freedom of speech, doesn’t it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

btm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Can you explain how restrictions on what a man says to, and in reference to, his child has nothing to do with freedom of speech?

Here you go, Rev. This is the actual court order the man breached.
Citation: A.B. v. C.D. and E.F., 2019 BCSC 604 Date: 20190415 Docket: E190334 Registry: Vancouver

Note particularly the statement (in that order) “In conclusion, I find that AB is an at-risk family member who is highly vulnerable. I find that his father’s expressions of rejection of AB’s gender identity, both publicly and privately, constitutes family violence against AB. Finally, I find that CD’s conduct in this regard is persistent and unlikely to cease in the absence of a clear order to restrain it.”

Also, under Scope of the restraining order for protection
“I begin with conduct that has already been declared by this Court after summary trial to be family violence. This includes attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria, addressing AB by his birth name, and referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns, whether to AB directly or to third parties and publicly.
[…]
The protection order is required to be prepared by the Registry. However, I will summarize the substance of the order here:

a) CD shall be restrained from:

• i. attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria;

• ii. addressing AB by his birth name; and

• iii. referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB directly or to third parties”

Thanks btm.

So what the man says has been judged to constitute family violence, so has been restricted.

That does constitute an example of restriction of freedom of speech, doesn’t it?

you got to wonder of these things being projected into the wild, into a broader social field unlimited, what good might come from that

but I guess the act, repetitious act of calling or referring to an offspring using an inappropriate gender denotation, contrary to and in defiance of what the offspring wanted, and professionals assisting considered it to not be in the best interests of the offspring, that doing so might complicate things unnecessary, such a situation might go to a formal setting and be tested, subject to the deeming powers of a court

trying to think of something similarly offensive, perhaps if I called you vagina, and referred to you as vagina all the time, repetitiously, it could be much worse than that, much much worse

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

btm said:

Here you go, Rev. This is the actual court order the man breached.
Citation: A.B. v. C.D. and E.F., 2019 BCSC 604 Date: 20190415 Docket: E190334 Registry: Vancouver

Note particularly the statement (in that order) “In conclusion, I find that AB is an at-risk family member who is highly vulnerable. I find that his father’s expressions of rejection of AB’s gender identity, both publicly and privately, constitutes family violence against AB. Finally, I find that CD’s conduct in this regard is persistent and unlikely to cease in the absence of a clear order to restrain it.”

Also, under Scope of the restraining order for protection
“I begin with conduct that has already been declared by this Court after summary trial to be family violence. This includes attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria, addressing AB by his birth name, and referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns, whether to AB directly or to third parties and publicly.
[…]
The protection order is required to be prepared by the Registry. However, I will summarize the substance of the order here:

a) CD shall be restrained from:

• i. attempting to persuade AB to abandon treatment for gender dysphoria;

• ii. addressing AB by his birth name; and

• iii. referring to AB as a girl or with female pronouns whether to AB directly or to third parties”

Thanks btm.

So what the man says has been judged to constitute family violence, so has been restricted.

That does constitute an example of restriction of freedom of speech, doesn’t it?

you got to wonder of these things being projected into the wild, into a broader social field unlimited, what good might come from that

but I guess the act, repetitious act of calling or referring to an offspring using an inappropriate gender denotation, contrary to and in defiance of what the offspring wanted, and professionals assisting considered it to not be in the best interests of the offspring, that doing so might complicate things unnecessary, such a situation might go to a formal setting and be tested, subject to the deeming powers of a court

trying to think of something similarly offensive, perhaps if I called you vagina, and referred to you as vagina all the time, repetitiously, it could be much worse than that, much much worse

Vagina is preferable to the other word.

Tamb said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Thanks btm.

So what the man says has been judged to constitute family violence, so has been restricted.

That does constitute an example of restriction of freedom of speech, doesn’t it?

you got to wonder of these things being projected into the wild, into a broader social field unlimited, what good might come from that

but I guess the act, repetitious act of calling or referring to an offspring using an inappropriate gender denotation, contrary to and in defiance of what the offspring wanted, and professionals assisting considered it to not be in the best interests of the offspring, that doing so might complicate things unnecessary, such a situation might go to a formal setting and be tested, subject to the deeming powers of a court

trying to think of something similarly offensive, perhaps if I called you vagina, and referred to you as vagina all the time, repetitiously, it could be much worse than that, much much worse

Vagina is preferable to the other word.

birthcanal¿

transition said:

trying to think of something similarly offensive, perhaps if I called you vagina, and referred to you as vagina all the time, repetitiously, it could be much worse than that, much much worse

The Queen of England is also know as Elizabeth Vagina.

Woodie said:

transition said:

trying to think of something similarly offensive, perhaps if I called you vagina, and referred to you as vagina all the time, repetitiously, it could be much worse than that, much much worse

The Queen of England is also know as Elizabeth Vagina.

Prolly what Philip calls her.

Time to kill all the bigots, right?

wookiemeister said:

Time to kill all the bigots, right?

Worse than that… it is time to irrelevant them. (If I made be excused for verbing a noun).

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Time to kill all the bigots, right?

Worse than that… it is time to irrelevant them. (If I made be excused for verbing a noun).

A bigot in common parlance is now someone who disagrees with you

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Time to kill all the bigots, right?

Worse than that… it is time to irrelevant them. (If I made be excused for verbing a noun).

A bigot in common parlance is now someone who disagrees with you

No. That’s an idiot.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Time to kill all the bigots, right?

Worse than that… it is time to irrelevant them. (If I made be excused for verbing a noun).

possibly might yield something interesting if I asked you master wookie if you consider yourself to be working class, identify with, or self-identify as, I mean if you did you may not be upwardly mobile enough to abandon the stratum you inhabit, and there are so many categories (groups, loosely even) you might associate with, elevate that working class beast, liberate yourself

you could be so many things to the diversity that is not working class, nobody should be comfortable there, you must be a bigot

of course i’m being silly, with a grain of truth maybe, and sometimes that’s all there is, a grain

the answer to that puts me clearly in the

transition said:

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

Time to kill all the bigots, right?

Worse than that… it is time to irrelevant them. (If I made be excused for verbing a noun).

possibly might yield something interesting if I asked you master wookie if you consider yourself to be working class, identify with, or self-identify as, I mean if you did you may not be upwardly mobile enough to abandon the stratum you inhabit, and there are so many categories (groups, loosely even) you might associate with, elevate that working class beast, liberate yourself

you could be so many things to the diversity that is not working class, nobody should be comfortable there, you must be a bigot

of course i’m being silly, with a grain of truth maybe, and sometimes that’s all there is, a grain

the answer to that puts me clearly in the

some undeleted edits there^

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

party_pants said:

Worse than that… it is time to irrelevant them. (If I made be excused for verbing a noun).

A bigot in common parlance is now someone who disagrees with you

No. That’s an idiot.

so a bidigot