Gee I see the PC brigade is out in force today

Hopefully mature community standards dictate what is and isn't accepted.

I don't want to turn this political but amendments to "18c" were shelved because the community spoke.

George Brandis was wrong - " people don't have the right to be bigots"

edit- I wish we lived in a country where we don't have to legislate on these types of things - sadly this is not the case

It is a very slippery slope when you have legislation to support the right not be offended. What is offence anyway? I'm offended by some of the comments on this thread but some others may not be. Who determines that? Some nebulus concept called community standards? Which community? What standard?

Just sayin...

appropriateness of religious vilification depends on whether it is directed at the individual or the organisation and of course whether there is any degree of merit in it and in the context

vilification is vilification (definition - abusively disparaging speech or writing.). As suggested before - mature, reasoned and respectful debate surrounding religion/race whether it be a person or an organisation is not the same as vilification.

Footy is one of the most egalitarian sports going round and must continue to be so.

When are posters going to realise that Demonland is not The Anonymous Internet© - If there is such a thing - and that people own this site and are liable for what is on this site.

You are simple if you think that Nasher is impinging your free speech - it's not just your speech on here.

Footy is one of the most egalitarian sports going round and must continue to be so.

It's only that way because of people like Nicky Winmar, Scott Chisholm and the 'Army of PC Thugs' that drove away the acceptability of vilifying someone.

It is a very slippery slope when you have legislation to support the right not be offended. What is offence anyway? I'm offended by some of the comments on this thread but some others may not be. Who determines that? Some nebulus concept called community standards? Which community? What standard?

Just sayin...

You may not agree with the outcome - but the wider community spoke in force on exactly this issue when the current Government shelved its plans to amend legislation around this very subject.

It is not a slippery slope - its something you agree with or you don't.

While I think religion is mostly stupid, it is absolutely 100% not OK to be vilified for your religion, and it is no different to being racially vilified.

You can't help your religion anymore than you can help the colour of your skin, or your heritage.

As someone who has lost family in the Holocust, it is pathetic to think that anyone would condone religious vilification.

The morons who called Houli a terrorist should be banned from footy.

I dislike the words " political correctness" - too many use these words to mask attitudes and values which I hope most decent people find abhorrent

Free speech does't give you carte blanche to say whatever you want - It only extends to political communications.

Have a read of our constitution before speaking such carp.

Racial or religious vilification should always be singled out and condemned.

I don't like the comments at all but...I have this nagging thing at the back of my mind with freedom of speech and peoples attitudes in the community. You may stop them from speaking but the attitudes/thinking (or lack of thought) is still there.

Are we really covering up a far bigger problem? my answer would be yes. How do we deal with it? I have no idea. There are a lot of disaffected people in the community (in the world), it makes for a very unstable environment. Do we cover it up and act surprised when everything goes to s....

vilification is vilification (definition - abusively disparaging speech or writing.). As suggested before - mature, reasoned and respectful debate surrounding religion/race whether it be a person or an organisation is not the same as vilification.

are you saying that vilification is never merited?

you surprise me nut, i thought you were more liberal (minded)

we are getting a little ot

as i understand it houli was not religiously vilified

i understand he was referenced in some wayb as a terrorist, which i take as racial vilification (ie middle eastern looking = terrorist)

and of course it was totally unjustified

are you saying that vilification is never merited?

you surprise me nut, i thought you were more liberal (minded)

I was until I got vilified on here....

( nutbean cracks the sads and sulks off into a corner)

If you wish to defend bigotry, some straight talk would be appreciated.

Don't hide behind phrases like 'political correctness' that are just a way to divert the conversation.

If you don't think you're a bigot, show that.

If you think the majority are just oversensitive to your bigotry, you are still a bigot.

Edited September 10, 201410 yr by pitchfork

I don't like the comments at all but...I have this nagging thing at the back of my mind with freedom of speech and peoples attitudes in the community. You may stop them from speaking but the attitudes/thinking (or lack of thought) is still there.

Are we really covering up a far bigger problem? my answer would be yes. How do we deal with it? I have no idea. There are a lot of disaffected people in the community (in the world), it makes for a very unstable environment. Do we cover it up and act surprised when everything goes to s....

I reckon the difficulty is intent and reaction

If an innocent throw away line not meant with any serious intent causes offence then recognise that and apologise. Both parties can then learn from each other and the boundaries of relations can be improved.

Id love to know what the comments were

Race is off limits, but religion is fair game

I have a feeling he may have been called a Muslim something or other and its being called 'racist'

you are a dead set [censored]

try thinking of someone other than yourself before you post in future

It is a very slippery slope when you have legislation to support the right not be offended. What is offence anyway? I'm offended by some of the comments on this thread but some others may not be. Who determines that? Some nebulus concept called community standards? Which community? What standard?

Just sayin...

vilification is vilification (definition - abusively disparaging speech or writing.). As suggested before - mature, reasoned and respectful debate surrounding religion/race whether it be a person or an organisation is not the same as vilification.

My personal view is that much of the what the "mainstream" religions profess is nothing more than superstitious nonsense - that will offend some but do I have the right to say it? Should I?

There are very fine lines drawn when these matters are legislated, and unintended consequences will follow.

Great care is needed.

Id love to know what the comments were

Race is off limits, but religion is fair game

I have a feeling he may have been called a Muslim something or other and its being called 'racist'

Not religious at all..... But, what the actual hell is this post?

Disgraceful.

Apologies if it has been pointed out, but seriously couldn't read beyond here.

Edited September 10, 201410 yr by Demons 32

It is a very slippery slope when you have legislation to support the right not be offended. What is offence anyway? I'm offended by some of the comments on this thread but some others may not be. Who determines that? Some nebulus concept called community standards? Which community? What standard?

Just sayin...

I'm guessing you are an anarchist then

Id love to know what the comments were

Race is off limits, but religion is fair game

I have a feeling he may have been called a Muslim something or other and its being called 'racist'

Absolute idiot or master troll? I still can't work it out.

When are posters going to realise that Demonland is not The Anonymous Internet© - If there is such a thing - and that people own this site and are liable for what is on this site.

You are simple if you think that Nasher is impinging your free speech - it's not just your speech on here.

Good post RPFC, I agree 100%.

Even 4chan has started to have to take responsibility for posters following the naked celebrity leaks. And they were as close as you'll ever get to anonymous internet as you'll get without going dark.

I'm guessing you are an anarchist then

Not at all why would you say that?

Because you disagree with me?

Id love to know what the comments were

Race is off limits, but religion is fair game

I have a feeling he may have been called a Muslim something or other and its being called 'racist'

OMG you have got to be kidding me right!? Sometime H H you really need to stop and think about what you type. Before you type an opinion or post just think to yourself "What would Jesus do?"

Interestingly unlike in VIC Religious Vilification is not legislated in SA.

Thankfully for posters on D land there is no idiot/moron/dopey vilification laws or we might lose some of you all

Me included

Edited September 10, 201410 yr by PugtheMagician

I don't agree Moon IMO there is too much PC around.

I don't like the comment but we do have free speech in this country.

Come on, that's a nothing comment old. You think it's acceptable to get stuck into someone because of their faith? Free speech does not give anyone immunity against being called out as a bigot. There is nothing political about it. The year is 2014, it may have been socially accepted in the past, but not now.

Edited September 10, 201410 yr by Moonshadow

Deplorable comment. Have two weeks off.

Religious vilification is no more "fair game" than racial vilification. Anyone else who wants to suggest it is can join h_h on the ban list.

Can you do it permanently.

Still waiting for the muppet to nick off after that comment from the Essendon game.

Edited September 10, 201410 yr by dazzledavey36

Come on, that's a nothing comment old. You think it's acceptable to get stuck into someone because of their faith? Free speech does not give anyone immunity against being called out as a bigot. There is nothing political about it. The year is 2014, it may have been socially accepted in the past, but not now.

Moon I dont like the comment but IMO you have to be very careful when imposing censorship.

The first act of a dictator is censorship.

What seems right and proper on one subject can easily be not right on another.

It very much depends on the censors view.