I was merely pointing out the picture of freedom of speech in a different manner.
"GUN lobbyist Ron Owen has been told he is entitled to express his homophobic views, but that he went too far with the bumper sticker: "Gay Rights? Under God's law the only rights gays have is the right to die."
Queensland's Anti-Discrimination Tribunal found Mr Owen guilty of inciting hatred against homosexuals with the bumper sticker when he parked his car outside the Cooloola Shire Council officers in Gympie, north of Brisbane.
The publisher of the ultra-right-wing pro-militia magazine Lock Stock & Barrel and former local councillor was also chastised on Monday for comments he made in the ensuing public outcry that engulfed the rural community.
The former president of the National Firearm Owners of Australia was taken to the tribunal by several local lesbians, who claimed they had been offended despite only one having seen the bumper sticker.
Two of the women were awarded $5000, with a third awarded $2500 in damages".
Should our courts compensate damages to the Gay community if we 'offended' them in a way? While we should have the right to speak about the wrong doings of the government and corruption in the upper echelon of societal food chain and the big blunders of financial institutions affecting tax payers money, there are issues that I don't think are open to discussion such as gay rights and child pornography. Therefore, if a legislation should be passed, a thorough study should be carried out to determine what constitutes the borderline for freedom of speech. Should we openly talk the merits of Islam versus why the other religion is wrong and vice versa (note that I said openly)? While the West is a big advocate of this, this is not the West and we have a different set of cultures and values. We are not the West. Advocates of freedom of speech cringe at this notion of not talking openly about religion and such. Then they would be the same people who can't say much if we talk about gay rights and child pornography, which should be a form of freedom of speech, don't you think?
Posts
1 comment:
haha..yes, i read this.
here's the beauty of it. he's got a mouth, he uses that mouth for gay bashing, a gay person hears it, they take him to court, court finds him guilty, HE pays the damages. sounds like a good deal to me.
his freedom of speech is still there, whether his poket can tahan or not different story la. small amount of taxpayers money is spent in running of the session (fraction of judge's gaji, admins costs, etc) but hey, you want freedom of speech, be prepared do defend your ass in court if the day comes. that's why we got them courts there to begin with. make sure all the citizens of the land feel protected. this should apply all over la, not just the west.
that's how i think it should be done la. our pollies always say let the courts decide, law take it's course, etc... why not actually practice it la?
Post a Comment