Free speech should not imply that people arent responsible for what they say.
All rights should come with responsibilities, what you describe is harassment, its destructive because of the persons intent to cause harm, and i expect there are laws against behaving like that. It should be more about intent than the words they use IMO.
But there are two sides to it, if we isolate the haters, they dont converse with those who have moderate views, they find each other, they reinforce each others narrow minded views, thats probably where people become radicalised.
Its better for people to talk about their hate than for them to bottle it up and then practice it in person.
No, that’s a criminal offence in Australia. Section 474.17 of the Criminal Code (Cth) Act (Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence).
This is also a criminal offence in Australia. Same section as above.
This is also a criminal offence in Australia. Same section as above.
Inciting violence is a criminal offence in the US and one of the very express limitations of the First Amendment in the US. Bathroom bombings are also a crime.
Criminal harassment is not free speech.
Then your community needs to stop perpetuating the lies that give the assholes the power in this broken world. Hate speech is hate speech, both legally and conceptually, and separate from the legal doctrine of free speech.
Free speech is referred to in the preamble of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which refers to its by its proper name of “freedom of expression”. It also makes it clear in paragraph 3 that limitations on freedom of expression are expressly permitted to protect the rights of others.
Free speech is the ability to speak on issues that the government would prefer that you didn’t without fear of legal penalties. Active incitement to crime has never been considered a valid form of “free speech” anywhere in the Commonwealth.
Perhaps the issue is that law enforcement agencies do not enforce the law. This is a different issue entirely, but one that constantly gets conflated with any discussions around freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
@piecritic You don’t get it, Mr Lets Change Our Name to Left Libertarian or whatever. Words have meaning. Words have emotional impact. Words can hurt. When nazis, biggots, and white terrorists use a word as a rallying cry, and that word gets associated more to their movement than anything else, using that word without tact or context breeds miscommunication at best, and alienation or even violence at worst.
I don’t want to be associated with something that uses the same language as white terrorists. I don’t want to occupy the same space as people who are attracted to those words. I don’t want them to feel any familliarity in any space I exist.
I don’t care about your dictionary definition. Language is fluid and evolving. When people say “free speech” it puts to mind abusers, for me. When people say “libertarian” it puts to my mind right wing extremeists who would rather I be dead and sometimes try to bring that about. Don’t be that guy who goes around saying how the nazi emblem is a symbol for peace. It’s fucking not. Things change.
The proposed name is “Libertarian Left”.
I said:[quote=“davidb, post:14, topic:825”]
… the proposal to put Libertarianism at the forefront …
[/quote]
Libertarian in front. At the forefront. Who’s misleading who?
I know words have meaning and can be used as weapons. This is why using them as such is a criminal offense. I also recognise that the meaning of words change. These strawman arguments have no place in this discussion.
So you are claiming that the legally recognised phrase of “free speech” now has no value because ignorant masses are misusing it. The same argument could therefore be put that file sharing = theft because the copyright industry has repeatedly stated this to be true. This is quite a weak argument.
By saying that you reject the core concepts of free expression simply because of terminology use, you’re basically giving up the fight. You are welcome to do so of course, but emotional bleating doesn’t solve the underlying problems of harassment on the Internet. They will exist under any rallying cry, and abandoning hard-fought freedoms because some assholes are misusing an otherwise well understood legal term I think is extremely ill-advised.
Don’t be that guy who goes around saying how the nazi emblem is a symbol for peace.
Don’t say things like that to me. It is an extreme misrepresentation and entirely inappropriate. Advocating for a world where free expression thrives and harassers and inciters go to prison has always been my position.
I see you struggle with the premise that hyphenated words can often by styled in several ways. My apologies for attempting to have reasoned political discourse in a political party.
You keep saying we’re not diverse and that we appear to not be helping the cause you want us to represent, we’ve given you evidence of instances to support the argument that we are, yet I can’t see that you’ve acknowledged it. The only thing I’ve seen you acknowledge is Brendan pointing out the true leanings of the Arts Party.
Would you be able to give us a better idea of what community you are apart of, that sees Free Speech as such a volatile concept? No delivery of context doesn’t help to enrich the quality of the discussion, it just means more words will be thrown around with no one being given the ability to understand…
Intransigence like yours is one of the reasons people like me are considering leaving the Party. Try to let go of your favourite word. It isn’t worth what it’s about to cost.
That’s a real shame. I’m sorry to see you go, just as the discussion began getting interesting. Perspectives such as yours which might be different from that of the majority are an asset. I hope you change your mind.
These two statements seem to directly contradict each other!
Plenty of projects rely on volunteers who are not “reliable” in the traditional sense. It doesn’t stop the projects from being successful. As a Free Software developer, you must be familiar with the concept and benefits of the “long tail”. Any contribution you are able to make today can be valuable, regardless of whether or not you can do the same again tomorrow.
You’ve been a victim. We get it.
But do you really believe you are the only person in the party with an experience like this? Not every PPAU member is one of your “unmemorable white males” (me, for example).
You shouldn’t take the lack of diversity personally. It’s just a reflection of IT (where the Pirate philosophy gets the most traction) more generally. And it’s also just another reason why we need more people like yourself to add your perspective to policy discussions.
As I said before, I hope you change your mind about resigning.
Although @bluebie has resigned, I’ve decided to reply regardless.
I have been a member of the Pirate Party for nearly five years. During that time I have contributed in various ways. I’ve written the bulk of the press releases since I joined, which in the past meant many late nights and early mornings. I’ve written or co-written almost every submission the party has made to public inquiries, including the 26-page response to the Copyright and the Digital Economy discussion paper. I was Deputy Secretary when the Pirate Party got registered. I’ve worked in the Policy Development Committee, being the principal author for soon-to-be-proposed replacement copyright policy.
There have been times when I haven’t been able to contribute as much as I’d’ve liked. This usually coincided with exams, or increased study loads, and periods where I was simply burnt out as a result of using all my spare time on the Pirate Party. I believe in this party, and that we will be successful if we are realistic and persevere. We can’t win the war over night, but so long as we win the battles that matter it’s only a matter of time.
I’ve not written all this to feather my cap — I don’t need to, my track record speaks for itself. But what I think I have demonstrated personally is that one person can have enormous influence on the party if they’re willing to get involved. Not everyone (and indeed, probably no one) can treat the Pirate Party like a full-time job. We are a party of volunteers, and that means effectively balancing the workload among members according to how much time they can and will devote.
Small contributions are always welcome. Even just letting people know that there is a public inquiry coming up or that there is a breaking news story the Pirate Party should comment on is incredibly useful. Of course, if you can bash out 300 words on a current story, it can be edited into a press release and issued to the media. Attend policy working groups if you can. Propose amendments to policies. Refer matters to the Policy Development Committee.
You don’t have to run for the National Council, you don’t have to be a candidate. But members can’t allow other members to run the party without making any kind of contribution and then turn around and complain when they don’t like the direction it’s taking. There are plenty of ways to contribute in a meaningful way. Your voice will always be heard if you get involved.
Thanks for writing that reply Mozart. I feel compelled to respond as one of the unmemorable white guys. Since discovering the pirate movement last election, I have had little time to devote due to full-time work and caring for sick and ageing parents, content to be drawn along in the slipstream that others created. With both my parents now gone, I thought I might redirect that energy by putting myself way out of my comfort zone, stepping forward as a candidate to support ideas that mean something to me. It’s true that diversity of views and engagement need effort, and this is true in most volunteer run organisations. I agree 100% with the assertion that your voice will always be heard if you get involved, at whatever level you feel as appropriate.
"All our candidates are a male whitewash, yes, HOWEVER that is purely
coincidential, because they are the only people who put their hand up. "
Hello! I’m a new member of the PPAU and this is my first forum post.
I feel compelled to point out that, while women may not have put themselves forward to vote, that does not mean that it is “purely coincidental” that no women are running. Surely it is an indicator that a range of other systemic factors have aligned to result in an end outcome where no woman has put themselves forward. As a new member, I can’t say with certainty what these factors would be. I’m sure it was not a deliberate strategy. But, at the very least, it should be taken as a loud and alarming sign that the party’s relationship to women and questions of gender needs to be addressed. (I believe @datakid23 brought this up recently in his thread about diversity.)
Half of the population being absent from the list of candidates cannot possibly be explained as “coincidence”!
We’re all ears on this. I am sticking with how I see things because I haven’t been shown anything else otherwise, but if there’s something more to it that you suggest does not make it “purely coincidental” as I’ve put it, then evidently the issue(s) have perhaps not come to light very well if at all.
We WANT women to stand, but it doesn’t help us when people challenge us on a subject without giving the feedback we need. It just becomes a war of words of differing opinion. There’s too much “what” answers going around. We need to be given the “why” answers too. Without knowing the “why”, we won’t know “what” to fix.
Sorry if this comes across as brash, as it’s not intended.
