The constant claim that the ABC has a leftwing bias is nonsense. Gives us some stats, some surveys, some meaningful information rather than this astroturf.

Let's have a competition.

Perhaps you might want to list ABC staff journalists that you know to be conservative.

I'll list the ones that have worked for Labor MPs, said "we won" when Labor is elected or pulled silly faces after interviews with conservative members when they thought the camera wasn't on them.

I'm betting I'll have a much longer list ...

I am interested in these 'trust' surveys and why they come out the way they do. The attached survey showing the trust in the ABC mirrors one in Finkelstein yet that report also shows (from the same pollster, incidentally) that only 8% of the population get their main news form ABC TV and 5% from ABC radio (31% from commercial TV for example). I am also a bit interested in 'trust' about newspapers on the same basis, althiough I suppose people can buy tabloids for their sport or whatever. Certainly it could be argued that people like newspapers and will buy them no matter how much they trust them or that those who trust thde ABC watch/listen to it a small percentgage of their time getting news. Or...

I laugh at the Murdoch/the right rules the ABC and that is just down to the "Menzies was a communist" class i suppose. .

No, let's not have a competition. Let's instead call for objective commentary from respected sources declaring, on the basis of evidence, that the ABC is left biased.

In otherwords you know you'd lose any objective tallying of leftist journalists at the ABC and so you prefer to scamper away and leave it to "an expert" t decide for you.
And you get to choose your expert.

Yup 774 is "quite high" with the whole 13% of the rather small radio market.

Kerry O'Brien ex-press secretary to Gough Whitlam, exclaimed "we won" after a Labor election victory.
Maxine McKew ex-Labor member for Benelong
Fran Kelly, tags herself as a "activist" not a journalist.
Barry Cassidy personal press secretary to Bob Hawke.
David Marr, tags himself as " progressive political and social commentator"
Virginia Trioli caught on camera making fun of a conservative politician, ex president of the journalists union.

And your list of conservative ABC journalists ....

I'm sorry to lower the tone of The Conversation but sometimes some people need to be addressed in terms they understand. So, Richard Dobson, let me explain that it has been my experience that those most in support of free speech without the strictures of responsible speech tend to exercise their right to free speech from a position of anonymity or protected institutional authority rather than in person.

I'll give you an example: if Andrew Bolt has ever expressed his opinions about Aboriginal identity around me and my mates, rather than in a newspaper column, he'd have needed a good dentist. Short: he's a coward who abuses categories of people on the assumption that he's safe to do so. It's been my experience hat, for example, racists tend to curb their freedom speech when in the company of people who might vigorously object.

I don't know whether Larry Flynt, the execrable and sexist campaigner for violence towards women, was personable to women but I suspect that his conduct towards women was down the barnyard end of the spectrum. He's a free speech hero, presumably someone whose right to express any views whatever you would support regardless of how objectionable, violent or nasty they might be. This is an old argument and one you had better be informed about when swimming these waters. Therefore, take a look at this (http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2008/02/29/the-infamous-june-1978-hustler-cover/) and get back to us when you've absorbed the implications.

So what you are saying is that someone talking about whether monies allocated by the Australian tax payer to help people in genuine disadvantage and who face discrimination every day should instead be paid to well educated, upper middle class urban Australians who are physically indistinguishable from the majority and who face no discrimination, your reaction is violence.

What a mature response.

Luckily we will all get to live in your straight jacket under the new Australia, where freedom of speech is lost and where the government appointed regulator gets to decide what is allowed to be said. Now we also get the added threat of violence, what a win.

Gee Sarah, is anyone advocating the removal of defamation or copyright laws? Why the silly strawman response? You are advocating additional constraints on speech, it now has to be what you and your mates consider "fair". Perhaps we should just rename all the newspapers to Pravda, so that the buyer is aware of what is really going on.

As for advocating hatred and violence, if that were a crime, wouldn't the Federal Police have laid charges on the Aboriginal tent embassy rampage this year, oh I forgot, some people in our community are a protected species.
Luckily they are on the side you and your mates would consider fair ...

I thought you proved your own point about simplistic arguments.
State control of thought is a violation of my human rights, but you'd need to be someone that cared about human rights to recognise that.

Yeah, I'm sure you are a free speech hero who never, ever moderates what he says even when it is to the boss at work. Just let 'em have it. The truth is always beneficial ... except when you're sucking up for the promotion, eh?

I’m sorry, but for a Professor I find this a lightweight, shallow, and, shall we say, ‘simplistic’ analysis, and for a human rights professional it shows a limited understanding of the subject matter.

I sincerely hope that, as a professor, you demand better than this from your students.

“But human rights are not only about freedom. They are also about fairness and equal opportunity.”

No they aren’t.

Fairness is not a human right and cannot be. Fairness, if anything, is an emergent property of a free society, not something to be defined in a bill of rights. In fact, having read your article, I suspect that any definition of ‘fairness’ you proposed I would see as an unacceptable infringement of my rights and freedoms.

We can agree what free speech means, whether you support it or not, but we will never agree what fairness means. So ‘fairness’ can never be guaranteed in law, and If it cannot be guaranteed in law, then it cannot be a right.

So also ‘equal opportunity’. Same argument.

‘And while human rights are most obviously about constraining government power, an increasingly recognised aspect of human rights is its role in constraining private power.’

Nonsense.

Political and human rights are exclusively about restraining government, nothing else. Non government actors can break the law, kidnap, theft, fraud etc, but to label these as ‘human rights violations’ is to trivialise the dangers behind government doing the same things under an institutional veneer of legality.

‘“Free speech” is relevant not only to media freedom from overly intrusive government regulation but also to protection of journalistic freedom against overly intrusive private owners and editorial diktats.’

Drivel.

‘Free speech’ is about the state dictating what may or may not be said, not about free individuals freely interacting. If I am employed, paid a wage, it is my obligation to carry out the lawful instructions of my employer. If I am a writer, and I don’t agree with what I am being paid to write, it is my right to resign and go elsewhere. However, so long as I am being paid to pipe he who pays calls the tune.

More to the point, If I hire someone to write on my behalf I damn well expect them to either write what I wish or to refund the fee paid.

This statement on your part really was nonsense.

‘If the latter is omitted from the equation, media outlets can become mere mouthpieces for the very loud exercise of “free speech” by powerful people drowning out alternative interests and views. Especially those of the poor and powerless, who tend not to own many media sites.’

And the ‘poor and powerless’ still have no means of expressing their views. You have solved nothing, merely shifted the power from the owner of the enterprise to whichever clique of bullies dominates the newsroom, turning the organ into their mouthpiece instead. Is this more ‘fair’? Given that the owner is still risking their funds, but the clique risks nothing at all?

Free speech is about holding and expressing opinions. Laws against defamation, or to put it simply, lying about people, are no infringement on free speech. Copyright violations are arguably theft, and reasonable people can reasonably disagree on laws about them.

Feeling hatred is not illegal. Regardless of how unpleasant it may be, inciting people to feel a legal emotion should not be illegal.

Violence? if you incite violence against me and that violence is committed you are culpable.

You are right, free speech is based on the very simplistic notion, and that is the reality that neither you, nor anyone else, is fit to tell me what I may think. Do you disagree? Do you regard yourself as more intelligent than and morally superior to me? Truly? On what basis? Until you are able to demonstrate you, or any other censor you care to nominate, are a superior human being don't you dare fantasize that your opinions are in any way so superior to those of anyone else on the planet that you are justified in shutting them down.

As to your claims about the failure of the market to respond, have you even looked at the explosion of voices in the new media? Your claims on this are so counterfactual that I am left wondering if we even inhabit the same universe.

@Prof. S. Joseph - Re: "A journalist can write anything, even if it is for example defamatory? Or a breach of copyright? Or is in contempt of court? Even if it incites hatred and violence against a group of people?"

As you are no doubt aware defamation is a highly problematic area of law subject to considerable abuse. The problem with legislation such as that pertaining to defamation and racial vilification is what constitutes comments 'made in good faith' and whom should have the authority to declare a specific ideology illegal. The problem with making ideas, even heinous ones, illegal is the subjective nature of any assessment as to the validity of those ideas. Once you travel down the path of sanctioning commentary instead of merely rebutting it, you begin to assert that your position is in priori 'right', and that regardless of any result to the contrary that may arise from debating the idea on its merits it will remain 'right'. If it was not for individuals rebutting the assertions of the dominant majority the world would still be flat, aboriginal intelligence would still be measured by measuring the circumference of their skull and everyone would 'know' the sun orbited around the earth.

I find the notion of 'inciting racial hatred or violence' highly problematic; are people not responsible for their own actions? Someone could stand in front of me and swear that we needed to exterminate a specific race of people for their perceived wrongs, yet such an action would never 'make' me commit an act in concert with these views. The decision to act or not act in accordance with such an expressed view is the responsibility of the individual and to outlaw such speech on the premise that it is directly responsible for successive criminal acts is to defer the responsibility of individuals to be in control of their actions ...

(see my comment below for a further examination of these concepts; https://theconversation.edu.au/media-regulation-debate-clouded-by-appeals-to-simplistic-notions-of-free-speech-7930#comment_48065)

This reply is incomprehensible.

If it helps to salve your jealousy and rage, though, I'm a well educated survivor of the working classes who now resides in the bush on the strength of my wits and labor. As to the violence - I see racist abuse as violence and respond in kind. Maybe you should leave your own inner-city-latte ghetto and get out in the real world where loyalty and mateship mean enough that a smack inna mouf for rudeness is a reasonable response.

An excellent response, though I doubt the professor will respond to either it or my post to the same effect ...

I moderate things based on my own sensibilities, perhaps you missed the bit about someone else getting to decide what is "fair and balanced" and moderating my words for me.

That's exactly what the government appointed media inquisition will be doing. Journalists will need to abide by the decisions of the new government censors. And when a government abuses this new power what checks and balances are in place? A free media can't question them, it won't exist. We will be fed whatever they want, what a disaster of a world you are advocating.

Ah, Thanks for the explanation. I should have realised that it was just a simple matter of you being a thug. Explains it all.

No, you moderate what you say on the basis of your own self interest. I've met your type before mate.

No, not a thug, just a bloke who's prepared to stand by hit mates.

Sarah - may I remind you of Christopher Hitchens' excellent defence of free speech here:

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=hitchens%20on%20free%20speech&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFUQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjyoOfRog1EM&ei=OOjqT6ivCuWeiAeEn6W-BQ&usg=AFQjCNFGYJKXwWfObzmu-NU_we6LBRyaLA

Or google "YouTube Hitchens free speech" to be inspired.

Your question misses the point. I would rather be offended than let you be the judge of what I am allowed to hear or see.

Indeed speech did play a role, especially the state controls upon the freedom of it by Hitler & the Nazis. Do you suggest that if a 'Hitler' was to arise in a modern media context, in a state which had legislated protections for freedom of speech that such a man would of been effective. Under his regime the state media was the only media; the anti-Semitic position the only position. Had free speech been permitted there is every likelihood that history would not of panned out the way it did. The two examples you proffer are in-fact demonstrations of why the State should not regulate speech, indeed in both examples they were the perpetrators of crimes, the propagators of heinous ideas and the destroyers of the only mechanism that protects against such acts; free speech. In any case the influence of speech upon hatred is not disputed, what is disputed is that the state should therefore legislate against an idea or ideology, not only does such an action have unintended consequences but they are clearly not the mechanism in which to vest the responsibility of determining 'rightness', given their propensity to perpetrate violence.

How very interesting Anthony.

So your response to those who disagree with you is to resort to violence?

I thought the point of free speech was to permit you the right to reply and out-argue your accuser. At least that's what we do in civilised society. Don't you agree?

Professor with all due respect such a statement does not address his criticisms of your article it merely asserts that your position is validated by its mere existence as a concept of jurisprudence.

No-one can respond meaningfully to a contribution that is incomprehensible.

Simplified; Hitler and the Nazi's demonstrate why states should not regulate speech. It was there regulation of speech that resulted in anti-Semitism taking hold in Nazi Germany. Further, states should not be vested with the power to control speech as they incapable of legislating fairness due to its subjective nature and are in-fact the greatest threat to free speech given their propensity (tendency) to perpetrate (commit) violence (an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws). Comprende @Anthony Nolan?

Apparently you can get an education and repair your comprehension skills.
You seem to find a lot incomprehensible, yet others seem to respond quite easily to the points raised.

Did you beat them up?

You seem to be a strong advocate of violence, would the Professor consider this hate speech?
I particularly like that you have decided what my thoughts are for me, apparently what I write isn't enough for you to go by, so you get to invent things about me so you can get angry and justify your need for violence.

"hit", rather Freudian don't you think?

States should most definitely not discriminate in their delivery of services to specific portions of society. In-fact as a libertarian that is why I argue that the scope of their intervention should be considerably smaller than it presently is, given governments inability to intervene without (intentionally or unintentionally) discriminating against individuals or blocs there-of.

I am of the position that there should be no legislation mitigating the ability of private entities to discriminate against whom they employ. This does not mean I agree with some variables they may chose to discriminate upon, but I do not think it is the job of the state to enforce those factors. For example should a company decide it doesn't want to employ Aboriginals merely on this variable alone, they should be subject to public outcry, ridicule and mockery but not government sanctions. The public is more than capable of responding the the actions of such a private enterprise by not buying their products or forging their own 'anti-madeupcompany' enterprise on the basis of their dislike for said companies employment policies. Investing governments with the power to declare such behaviour illegal is in my view erroneous, given their propensity to abuse power and their inability to comprehend, plan for and predict the consequences of their actions.

In relation to the jurisprudence issue my point was that his suggestion that human rights is exclusively about restraining government was an argument that even in the event that it isn't presently limited to restraining government, it should be. The mere evidence that presently human rights extends laterally to cover the actions of private entities does not respond to the crux of this argument which goes to the underlying validity of the lateral propagation of human rights.

"You seem to find a lot incomprehensible, yet others seem to respond quite easily to the points raised."

That's because I've been trained in how to wright reasoned prose.

"racist pommies" what an wonderfully illustrative juxtaposition.
I particularly like the way you seem to enjoy intercommunity violence based on ethnic differences. You are a real credit to the leftist cause.

Actually, I think you'll find that most law is dedicated to providing a legislative guarantee for fairness, but through a series of specific rules.

For example, the doctrine of equity - out of which emerges concepts such as estoppel (roughly preventing someone from departing from a promise made where another person has relied on it to their detriment) and unconscionable dealing (voiding a contract or other arrangement procured through reliance on unfair means) - is entirely devoted to the concept of fairness.

As to your point about the Nazi regime (which boils down to 'media regulator = konzentrationslager'), I presume you mean that a regulator is only as good as the government it serves. Control the regulator and you promote the speech you want. This sounds like an argument for turning the entirely of government into an organization for the maintenance of roads and little else - the second you create any government organization, there is the potential for abuse. This is why we have the French Enlightenment concept of separation of powers, so that each of the three branches of government can hold each to account. Only where there is a breakdown in all three branches will there be an issue.

In this light, it is possible to create a media regulator freed from the influence of the government of the day. Indeed, such bureaus already exist and are functioning - we have a corporate regulatior (ASIC), a competition regulatior (the ACCC) and while we're at it, the entire judicial branch of government. All of these are happily regulating society an a relatively fair and even-handed manner. Why should the media escape such scrutiny?

I rather think that Sarah's point is that the regulator exists precisely to ensure the media REMAINS free. Corporations have not responsibility to stakeholders - only to shareholders. They have the capacity to be extremely self-interested, as demonstrated by the activities, inter alia, of tobacco companies with respect to attempting to cover up the carcenogenic effects of cigarettes for several decades.

What ownership of a newspaper does is permit a corporation to clothe its self interested with a veneer of objectivity. Properly implemented, a regulator will prevent the more egregious examples of abuse from occurring. Now, this isn't necessarily a limitation on free speech - editorial is still editorial. But it will hopefully prevent the subjective omission and slanting of facts on both sides of the political spectrum that we see in what is ostensibly objective reporting.

And the defense against a government appointed regulator that becomes an instrument in defense of government policy and an attack on valid criticism is???

Hope is not a strategy.

As I mentioned below, we already have regulators in society. The ACCC and ASIC are two examples. Both are considered even-handed. The same might be said for the judicial branch as a whole.

The second you create ANY government department, you create the potential for abuse. Arguing that this is a reason not to create a regulator is to advocate a vision of government whereby the sole ambit of federal/state power is road maintenance.

Put simply - why should the media escape such scrutiny?

No, not at all. I don't try to "out argue" bigots. The only thing they understand is that bigotry has consequences.

Also - my browser keeps screwing up. I don't know why it thinks everything needs to be posted three times...

I do agree that the rule of law has positive benefits for society and that fairness can be arbitrated in certain circumstances, including those you alluded to in relation to the protection of private property under contract law. However, I do not agree that law has the capacity to fairly and 'neutrally' arbitrate the 'rightness' or 'fairness of speech, nor should it ever have the mandate to do so. For “... we can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still ... Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.” John Stuart Mill, 'On Liberty' (1859) p. 31 of http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34901.kindle.noimages

A regulatory body is never completely free from the influence of government, the degree of it's influence is merely mitigated to a palatable degree. For arguments sake however, let us assume you could create a regulator 'independent of government', even with a democratically elected board of censors, it would still be incapable of ever 'justly' or 'fairly' arbitrating on the validity of any speech or idea's, given the inherent fallibility of human nature, and the subjective assessment as to the quality of 'ideas'.

You are correct in your assessment on my view of government; it should be small ... very small. In my view its mandate should be constrained to enabling the liberty of individuals to exist free of harm or coercion from others and to restrain them from causing harm to or coercing others, this includes the provision of neutral arbitration, in some cases the provision/protection of public goods (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good for the quick definition of). Which if you need a label for my views puts me somewhere between the Chicago & Austrian schools of classic liberalism.

Do ASIC and the ACCC 'happily regulate' society? They definitely regulate ... but your assertion as to the efficacy of such regulation is open to contention. As are philosophical assumptions that underpin your view that such organisations should in-fact exist.

Was government not responsible for the legislated discrimination it inflicted upon the African-American population in the south, or the indigenous population of Australia? If governments were restricted to the mandate I am expounding such unjust and heinous laws would not of existed. I would suggest that in large part there wasn't an outcry in the 50s et al. because the government was the enforcer and arguably the origin of the discrimination. It was the 'people' of America who responding to the abuse they saw demanded that the government repeal the unjust laws it had enacted to legitimise the discriminatory treatment of its people. In Australia a referendum was passed removing our discriminatory laws, by the people; the validity of the law, its force, came not from the legislation itself but from the people. You don't need to legislate 'non-discrimination' you just need not to legislate discrimination.

Non discrimination in the delivery of government services is absolutely correct, but discrimination laws governing the interaction between private individuals/organisations are an assault on freedom of association.

A free individual may be discriminatory in who (s)he chooses to deal with, in any matter, but while you are certainly entitled to an opinion on the matter (free speech), I am damned if you, or anyone else, are entitled to a say.

You can have laws dealing with discrimination - allowing the state to mandate who I associate or deal with, or you can support the principle of free association, but not both. They are mutually exclusive.

What you refer to here as "the horizontal application of human rights" is just another example of the manner in which the language and practice of human rights law has been debased by those who would pervert the concept of 'rights' or limiting government control, into a system of imposing control over others.

Your arguments here are demonstrations of how Human Rights law and arguments, designed for the purpose of protecting people from over mighty state control, is being used instead to maximize that control. In other words, the structures designed to protect us from the control freaks are being taken over by the control freaks - especially in the international theater.

I would also point out, as did Nathan Harris, that the worst examples of discriminatory practice in history were perpetrated by governments. Giving the state the power to contravene the principle of freedom of association results in horrors the like of which free individuals, acting freely, could never duplicate.

I have to say Sarah, if you are an influential voice in Australian human rights law, and on the basis of your title I assume you are, then I am very very worried about the extent to which my freedoms and rights will be perverted by those primarily tasked with protecting them.

I think you'll find that the current defense of this type of abuse by the ACCC/judiciary is a free press. That's the last line of defense for a free people, the ability to speak out against injustice as perpetrated by government organs, and to build popular support against this type of behavior by government.

That's why these government instruments are broadly acting in the interests of the community, they are still open to scrutiny, and so is the government that appoints them.

The proposal provides an opportunity for the government to use its powers to make this type of scrutiny illegal and expensive, changing the attitudes of journalists and their media owners who know they will be punished for what they write. It's not as if this hasn't happened in every tin pot regime around the world that has a weak press.

For a modern, successful example, Singapore's constraints on criticisms of government policy allow the government to routinely bankrupt and gaol opposition members. That's the sort of country we will be turning ourselves into.

And how do you prevent the media from pushing the interests of its owners? News Ltd has no duty of care to the public - at law it has a duty to its shareholders alone.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Yep, slavery and the slave trade were abolished through legislation maximizing personal freedom. Good stuff too. However, I am at a loss to see what this has to do with your case. You are straight forward in your desire to see legislation which reduces that freedom. Legislation which would increase state control of what people may say, and how they may act.

As to Rwanda and Yugoslavia, what have they got to do with the matter? I am unfamiliar with the events leading to the Rwanda massacre, but I am fully aware of the role that the Serbian State leadership played in the instigating of war there.

What we are discussing here presupposes the continuing rule of law, the two issues you mention are examples of the collapse of the rule of law. Although I am unfamiliar with the details of the Rwandan legal code I suspect it already contained laws against whacking babies with a machete, If an individual isn't going to be constrained by that law then I doubt very much that the addition of a law forbidding him to discriminate when selling a pound of tomatoes will cause him to even slow the speed of his swing.

Once the rule of law collapses this entire conversation becomes moot.

No, that doesn't make Australia a totalitarian state, but just because some regulation exists - too much in my opinion - is no argument for more to be implemented. Any further regulation must be justified on its own merits. For you to imply, as you do here, that because we have some more will be ok is a spurious argument of no value.

I am sorry Sarah, but when it comes to rudeness you were the one who referred to the IPA stand on principle as simplistic. Since then you have used straw men and red herring to justify your desire to breach the principle behind the single most important human right that a free people can have open to them.

You seem to hold to the view that the press in Australia is unaccountable. Unaccountable to who? News Corp owns 38% of titles in Australia, but accounts for 70% of newspapers sold. Every day News Corp is held to account by its readers. People who don't like what is printed are free to purchase one of the 62% of titles which are not Murdoch owned, so if he wants to keep their patronage Rupert has to keep his patrons satisfied on a daily basis. The same is true, to their current distress, of Fairfax. To claim that these papers are unaccountable is absurd.

The only people these papers are not accountable to is politicians, or their representatives. And that, whether they like it or not (and some outspoken politicians of a verdant hue clearly HATE it, with a passion), is exactly how things should be.

In fact, the only media enterprise in Australia which is unaccountable to anyone, other than themselves, is the ABC. That body is unaccountable to politicians, its financiers - the taxpayer - or its viewers.

I am sorry, but you seem to misunderstand the context of that ruling. The Jim Crow laws in the south were the result of state government action. The discrimination in this example was certainly legislated.

I would point out that the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, a clause which forces the states to treat all people equally, exactly as I advocate.

In the Australian Constitution I would certainly be in favour of excising Section 51(xxvi) in its entirety.

Sarah,

Thank you.

I am impressed that you sought to reply to most comments, those of others as well as mine, and with courtesy.

Most unusual, and appreciated.

I would wish you well, but sadly, I suspect that when the barricades go up we will be on opposing sides.

Sarah

I believe you are correct about the lack of State funding for Getup. It would be concerning if government was funding a private activist movement don't you think?

I am interested however, to know why Trade Unions contributed over $1m (more than 25% of Getup's total funding) to Getup as part of the 2010 federal election campaign?

In the same way you have expressed concern at Gina Rinehart tainting the independence of Fairfax, don't you agree that Getup being funded by Trade Unions taints their activist voice?

And the government gives money to the trade union movements ... how convenient.

Sarah,
I forgot to mention I am a graduate from Monash. Some of the best years of my life -1968 to 1972. It was a time when students actually expressed their rights to free speech. This led to some titanic struggles. Human rights is something that can never be enshrined in law as this simply leads to the sort of manipulation of the law that was so evident in the Bolt case. Human rights is an outcome of an educated and tolerant society, somewhat towards the top of Maslows hierarchy of needs. It is really a moral (meaning mores) issue, not a legal issue.

Sarah,

Thanks for the reference - 54 pages of argument is a bit hard to tackle before breakfast but thanks to Apple I can save it to read with a cup of coffee.

I have to admit the vehemence behind some of the commentary on your blog is somewhat disturbing. Free speech speech without politeness is a somewhat empty vessel.

I admire your efforts to respond to all of them.

At what point did I even suggest that I was "ok with the totalitarian impulses of some leftists?" Ridiculous comment.

Wow, what a demonstration of twisted logic.

"Reflects the totalitarian impulse too many leftists have."

Any normal person would interpret this to mean that not every leftist has totalitarian impulses, just a large enough percentage to make it a rather worrying trait. Perhaps the ones with much lower comprehension skills skip the totalitarian impulses and just settle for hitting people.

I think that censorship is necessary in any society, but that the prevailing bias should be to allow something rather than censor it. So material would need to be particularly heinous to meet that bar. I think anything involving nonconsensual activity is definitely censorable, since it is necessarily being produced through illegal acts.
For the purpose of this discussion it can be assumed that children are unable to give informed legal consent.

After that I'd err on the side of the public being able to make up its own mind.

Things get a little more murky with the depiction of things like bomb making etc, which of themselves may not be illegal, but could lead to illegal actions. Again I'd likely err on the side of this not being illegal in and of itself, but would be admissible evidence for cases where people are being tried on conspiracy to commit (or having committed) acts of terrorism.

That's it? So, you call for the rule of common law in war zones and would reject any evidence of breaches of the common law in war zones on the grounds that evidence has been illegally obtained? Good grief. You're no champion of free speech at all. The very idea that evidence gathering in a war zone is in any way analogous to the police phone tapping is ridiculous.