Smut

Post Reply New Topic

Why? Child pornography involves the exploitation of children who cannot give consent, but who is harmed by porn that includes coprophilia? If you personally find it disgusting or disturbing, find other porn that doesn't disgust you.

Incitement is not easy to prove. I suppose the easiset example is the contemporary attitude towards fighting in schools. When I was kid it was the one that 'threw the first punch' that got the cane, this often meant that I was the one punished even though i was generally the one who was beaten up. Today schools look at provocation as more important and therefore more needing of punishment when determining who started the fight.

So if the Phelps nutjobs come here with placards saying they wished more Aussies had been burnt by god, outside a national event such as the bushfire memorial service they could be accused of deliberately trying to provoke a violent reaction ( as I said Aussies are known for their pragmatism and I am fearful that this will happen) I could be wrong after all I am not a lawyer, more likely they will be arrested for their anti 'fag' placards because it is illegal to vilify on the basis of sex or religion

I believe in restricted freedom of speech, by this I mean that it should be illegal to publicly express views that can reasonably be expected to cause harm to others, to this end I am very opposed to political colleagues of mine who speak of violent repression of capitalists, and I would support their arrest, it is one thing to advocate the overthrow if capitalism, but something else to advocate the wholesale violence that many of them promote.

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 20 Feb 2009, 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Then Australia's laws are stupid.


There is no such thing as "restricted freedom of speech." If it is not absolute then it is moot. You end up with a fuzzy line that is worthless in terms of making viable and meaningful legal distinctions.


Not to get too far off topic, but doesn't Marxist theory require a violent revolution at some point? And I would argue that overthrowing capitalism is going to result in a lot of people dying, though in that case mostly from starvation and lack of other necessities when Communism fails.

I voted to censor Orwell, just to be silly.

Regarding the arrest of WB church in Australia, if I understand how things work, having a criminal record will bar them from re-entry. It solves the problem of dealing with them PDQ and permanently. They would have a damn hard time forming a law suit if they could not enter. What happens if you sue someone and then dont show up?

As was said, the Aussies are pragmatic..

It occurred to me as I made the poll that I should probably specify that the last option was intended to be silly, and not actually a specific choice to censor a certain author. But I think most people understood what I meant.


Well... I don't hold to a pragmatist view of ethics.

I was wondering how long this was going to take you, considering the anti war and pro pacifist posts that I have made

I get into all kinds of trouble for my anti violence stance, I recently had the ultimate Marxist insult thrown at me "you're nothing but a leftist pragmatist"

Ouch

Well, Marxism really does have some strange, stupid ideas in it. Honestly, I don't think you could legitimately be called a Marxist, since your views are so far removed from his on a number of points. How do you feel about the Hegelian dialectic? Marxism requires that capitalism be taken to its extremes before socialism can develop. You could perhaps be an evolutionary socialist, but you are not a Marxist.

But then, Lenin and Trotsky weren't solid Marxists either- they bent the rules quite a bit to try to start socialism in an agricultural economy.

Obviously you dont feel they should be forced to shut up. But do you wish they would?

With regard to Aussie pragmatism I was more refering to the general public deciding that the law would take to long and dealing with Westboro in lynching manner.

I doubt the church will be given Visa's. We have prevented hateful people from coming here for years now.

Orwell we have gone several rounds on freedom of speech in the past. We will never agree, in fact I suspect that like me you have less respect for my views on this subject than you do for my political and religious views. I have a great deal of respect for your adherence to christianity to the best of your abilities and from this I can understand why you would believe in a benevolent dictator, after all that is exactly the position you believe that christ will hold over the earth. I cannot and I doubt ever will understand the belief that all speech no matter how hateful and damaging should be allowed. To me the old saying "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" is a complete and utter nonsense.

BTW what do you think of the idea of schools regarding provocation as being at least as bad to the act of throwing the first punch

Sure I do. I also wish the Communists would shut up, and the social conservatives, and the military interventionists, and the evangelists among Muslims, atheists, and fundamentalist Christians. I think you get the picture: just because I disapprove of something doesn't mean it should be banned. Free speech is for everyone and all speech, not just the kind I agree with. If the only speech that is protected is the kind of which people approve, then you have negated the entire concept.

I know you are speaking to Orwell, but I like this question. I prefer the trend being taken in schools with a zero tolerance for violence. No one cares who provoked what. Violent acts are simply not tolerated. The same stance is starting to be taken with bullying. Of course, no tolerance for bullying is censorship, but we are talking about harassment which is just as illegal as violent acts.

Then tell WBC "enter at your own risk; we won't protect you."


But how will you define hateful? Many of your fellow Marxists openly advocate violent revolt. Are homophobes much worse?


The belief comes from the fact that this right must be absolute or it is moot. If anything that is offensive can be banned on those grounds (and those grounds are subjective) then what protection is there for politically unpopular speech? Basically, I want to see an objective, impartial grounds for censorship that can't be abused before I'm willing to accept it. Better to have a little more liberty and a little more offensiveness than to live in polite slavery. Racists and homophobes are free to spout their garbage to anyone who will listen. You in turn are free to mock them at every turn and expose them as fools. As to your last comment, well, I know from experience how hurtful words can be, but we're not talking about schoolyard bullying here so much as political speech.


In terms of school discipline, the obvious choice is to punish the bully and not the bullied. But what point is there in arguing over that issue? Do you think there is actually a way of preventing such behavior, or of getting teachers to actually enforce any such anti-bullying rules? If so, that is a stance even more naive than your Marxism.

To a degree you are correct, however I agree with more of his ideas than not. Marx believed that revolution will be violent because the capitalists will defend their status to the death, I am not aware of him actually baying for blood. In a situation where social upheaval becomes violent due to the excesses of capitalism and the response of the ruling class then I will defend the rights of workers, I see this as different to actively spreading hate and viciousness.

Lenin and Trotsky took the opportunity of revolution in an agrarian country as opposed to waiting for it to happen first in an industrialised country, this probably was a fundamental mistake that led to the rapid decline in the ability to create socialism elsewhere.

Yeah... that's not how it actually works. Even if the official policies are such.

Honestly, I would have much preferred if the middle-school bullies just beat me up. Would have made life a lot simpler at least, and given me a clear direction on how I should respond. Would probably have been less painful as well.

Lenin and Trotsky hoped the victory of Bolshevism would inspire revolt in Germany and the rest of Europe. When the Soviets started to get embarrassed by this not happening and faced a theoretical/ideological crisis of trying to deal with a society that was only supposed to be a stopgap until the real socialism could come in from Germany, Stalin saved the day with his "socialism in one country" that lent ideological justification to the USSR's existence.

So you think there is less chance of schools taking an effective stance against bullying than the possibility that the whole world can govern itself in peace and harmony without the need for centralised government.

BTW more proof that I am not a fully fledged Marxist, I do not believe in Communism. I believe that we can achieve a worldwide Socialist Government, but the idea that this can evolve into Communism seems to utopian.