“The greatest threat to freedom of speech in Australia is abuse of freedom of speech…”

This is getting fuggly:

What’s the right term for a government that wants to control free speech?

Andrew Bolt

IF you were in any doubt that the government’s media inquiry is a McCarthyist witch-hunt against the Murdoch press, inspired by Greens leader Bob Brown, just look at the speakers lined up for the first day’s hearing in Melbourne on Tuesday.

There was self-proclaimed Trotskyist journalism academic Martin Hirst, leftist historian Robert Manne – who has just written a 40,000-word hatchet job on the Murdoch media – and disaffected former News Ltd journalists Eric Beecher and Stephen Mayne, both of the left-wing website Crikey.

We’re just waiting for Noam Chomsky and John Pilger to show up.

No wonder Bob Brown is grinning like a Cheshire cat. All his ducks are lined up, thanks to a compliant government which is implementing his wildest dreams, one by one, from muzzling conservatives to a carbon tax.

Bobby Brown can’t believe his luck.

After a moment of sunshine, the whole thing went south:

The Salem trial of conservative journalists

Look out, here comes the speech police!

The greatest threat to freedom of speech in Australia is abuse of freedom of speech,” said Disney, and “a cacophony is not freedom of speech.”

So they are for free speech, as long as it’s free speech they like. Lots of people talking – “a cacophony” – is not free speech, but a conversation in which Someone determines who may speak and how is.

And the ‘stolen generation’ still can’t be found:

A victim of his own lies complains:

My 581 thought crimes

I had no idea my ideas were so dangerous, but Professor Robert Manne has sounded the warning at the media inquiry:

Robert Manne yesterday:

RECENTLY an email correspondent, David Barrow, had provided me with an electronic version of some blogs and comments published on the Bolt blog since 2006. In my case there had been 188 Bolt incitements … in the case of Tim Flannery there were 393 Bolt incitements.

Incitements? Peter Hartcher in The Sydney Morning Herald, April 16:

IT only takes one unhinged citizen with access to arms to blow apart the peaceful progress of democracy. Windsor worries about the state of affairs: “There’s been an elevation of incitement in the political messages out there. It’s pretty fragile. It only takes one unhinged person and it will change everything.” Is Australia heading there for its own Gabrielle Giffords moment?

Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary, ninth edition, 2001:

INCITEMENT: Encouragement or persuasion to commit a crime even though the crime be not committed.

Oliver Wendell Holmes defends free speech in Gitlow v People of New York, June 8, 1925:

EVERY idea is an incitement … The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker’s enthusiasm for the result.

One thought on ““The greatest threat to freedom of speech in Australia is abuse of freedom of speech…””

  1. Sometimes I actually have a glimmering of understanding of the frustration which lead to feelings of impotence which lead to the violence committed by Anders B. I would love to get hold of these lefty, pc, multicultural, useful idiots like Sarah Hanson-Young and her mate Lee Rhiannon and bang there heads together for their willful attempt to undermine our Democracy and sell Australia off to the islamic caliphate

Comments are closed.