HMS Conqueror wrote:1. That you disagree with my position doesn't make it intellectually bankrupt.
You haven't presented any rebuttal, just restated my position and implied it's self-evidently wrong.
No moron, its intellectually bankrupt because it places the disemination of lies which cause harm over the wellbeing of the person. The fact you are too god damn stupid to tell that lies can cause harm to someone is not my problem.
You seem to think I'm biting some bullet here, as if anyone would care about (or even read) some internet random's baseless accusations against someone other guy almost no one has ever heard of. If you disagree, feel free to try - I promise I won't sue you.
Here is your problem, you are projecting and using an unfair comparison to boot.
Firstly, when a "journalist" writes something its not just some internat random guy, it actually reaches a not so small number of readership. The fact you compare that to like some guy over the internet is quite dishonest. In fact alkaloid suggested a full page paid advertising spot in the newspaper. While newspapers aren't as dominant as they used to be, to compare it with some random guy over the internet shows how you try and dodge the point.
Since you are quite keen to prove yourself, please state your name, address, DOB, other significant details (minus financial ones) so anyone who wants to can set up a facebook page accusing you of <insert perjorative here>. I am betting you will chicken out and this "I won't sue you" is just a hur hur internet tough guy attitude. I could be wrong of course.
Secondly, lets assume you don't care what some journalist says. Fine. Too bad lots of people do believe shit and that in itself causes harm. Are you incapable of thinking up examples from your own tabloid press? Hint there is a reason I like using the false accusations of paedophilia to illustrate the point of free speech without restrictions, and thats because people have been false accused of such by the tabloid press and believed by people.
2. I disagree with arguments for government control of speech, which is different to ignoring them (I could hardly disagree with an argument of which I'm not aware!).
Except you ignored the point mentioned earlier by Stark about things called trade off. There was hardly a need for me to reiterate the same argument when you are just going to hand wave it aside.
3. As before, I think that generally everything should be allowed provided it doesn't involve a physical assault on someone else or their property, or break a consensual agreement. Free speech is a subset of that. What is your definition of free speech, that is consistent with banning articles?
Lets start with limitations to statements which are false and could conceivably cause harm - like someone accusing a child care worker of being a paedophile, (which will fit under defamation / libel laws) and various hate speech acts (for example is saying religion is bullshit is ok, but advocating attacks against a religious group is not, even if the person advocating did not physically assault anyone).
4. Most (all?) countries have libel laws, yes, and so despite protestations to the contrary none really have free speech. However, it lies on a continuum, and some countries are worse than others. North Korea is probably the worst. Australia is one of the worst out of the functioning democracies - so by no means terrible on a world basis, but definitely a lot worse than USA where, despite libel laws, this "Anti-Discrimination" Law would probably be unconstitutional.
Ah it finally clicks with you. Here is another thing to note. All western democracies as a general rule, have their populations (you are an exception obviously) believing they have free speech, all the while knowing libel laws exist (some like Australia and Canada even have hate speech laws). Thus I can conclude that their definition of free speech is different from yours.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with you having a different definition from whats used in the norm, but you have failed to make that distinction before and expect everyone to agree with your definition, and have the gall to accuse me of being logically inconsistent for using the term as it is used normally.
5. Scientific method weeds out incorrect or mistaken hypotheses by subjecting them to competition in the marketplace of ideas, not by banning them.
They also work by rejecting factually incorrect statements, even though the is clearly contradictory to your definition of free speech. You want the sharing of ideas part without the rejecting of incorrect statements, and I am afraid sharing of ideas by itself won't lead to the benefits of science which you hold dear. How do I know you believe this? Why you said so yourself. To wit.
Freedom of speech doesn't require assertions to be true, let alone to not be in "inflammatory and provactive language" (wouldn't the world be a poorer place where "or shut the fuck up." can't be used as a debate opener?) in order to be permissible.
So please stop this wanking to the scientific method when you are only interested in one part of it.
Bans can be wielded just as often - in human history more often - against true ideas as against false ones. At any rate, it's impossible to know what is true and what isn't if you aren't allowed to subject different ideas to this sort of competition.
Using your terms, Bolt's ideas were subjected to competition in a court and found to be false. Now its you who are logically inconsistent. You on one hand want a sharing of ideas so they can compete, yet shy away when the competition starts. But we know you are less interested in the "competition between ideas part" and more interested in the "can say whatever you want part."
The absolute principle is far more valuable than anyone's feelings in any individual case, if you want to go down that route.
Why do you believe its absolute principle vs someones feelings. Did you actually read the court summary?
6. I don't represent the UK or necessarily agree with anything it does. This isn't a nationalist dick-waving contest, at least from my end.
Ok, so back up your claim that Australia is "easily one of the most authoritarian of the functioning democracies", and I would like to know do you believe the UK also falls into this category given what they have done recently which seems worse than anything we have thought up lately.
7. I'm glad you think my responses are so good they must have been pre-prepared, but honestly I don't have that kind of time.
Actually if you read it properly, I think they are crap because they don't actually address what is being said, hence the pre prepared jibe.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
