From Wikipedia
"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual >or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of >retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Lockdowns are about curbing ones liberty. Slightly different things.
During a covid lockdown one could use the legal methods, social media, >telephone etc to express ones view.
The test of Freedom of speech comes in the response to the orginal view
point expressed. A verbal response is expected but shutting the orginal >author down is not acceptable espiscally in a democary.
On 2 Jun 2025 05:03:42 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:The lockdowns resulted in free speech being limited - no question.
From Wikipedia
"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual >>or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of >>retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Lockdowns are about curbing ones liberty. Slightly different things.
During a covid lockdown one could use the legal methods, social media, >>telephone etc to express ones view.
The test of Freedom of speech comes in the response to the orginal view >>point expressed. A verbal response is expected but shutting the orginal >>author down is not acceptable espiscally in a democary.
Thank you Gordon. Free Speech was discussed quite a bit in recent
days following a comment by Chris Bishop regarding entertainment at
the Aotearoa Music Awards ceremony. Nobody disputed his right to make
the statement, but clearly many people felt that what he said was not >appropriate due to his position in the Government. He clearly accepted
at least some aspects of the relatively polite verbal responses.
Attacking journalists for questioning some publicly expressed opinions
may however risk being seen as attacking free speech.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2 Jun 2025 05:03:42 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:The lockdowns resulted in free speech being limited - no question.
From Wikipedia
"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual >>>or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of >>>retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Lockdowns are about curbing ones liberty. Slightly different things. >>>During a covid lockdown one could use the legal methods, social media, >>>telephone etc to express ones view.
The test of Freedom of speech comes in the response to the orginal view >>>point expressed. A verbal response is expected but shutting the orginal >>>author down is not acceptable espiscally in a democary.
Thank you Gordon. Free Speech was discussed quite a bit in recent
days following a comment by Chris Bishop regarding entertainment at
the Aotearoa Music Awards ceremony. Nobody disputed his right to make
the statement, but clearly many people felt that what he said was not >>appropriate due to his position in the Government. He clearly accepted
at least some aspects of the relatively polite verbal responses.
Attacking journalists for questioning some publicly expressed opinions
may however risk being seen as attacking free speech.
On 2 Jun 2025 05:03:42 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
From Wikipedia
"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual >>or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of >>retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Lockdowns are about curbing ones liberty. Slightly different things.
During a covid lockdown one could use the legal methods, social media, >>telephone etc to express ones view.
The test of Freedom of speech comes in the response to the orginal view >>point expressed. A verbal response is expected but shutting the orginal >>author down is not acceptable espiscally in a democary.
Thank you Gordon. Free Speech was discussed quite a bit in recent
days following a comment by Chris Bishop regarding entertainment at
the Aotearoa Music Awards ceremony.
Nobody disputed his right to make
the statement, but clearly many people felt that what he said was not >appropriate due to his position in the Government. He clearly accepted
at least some aspects of the relatively polite verbal responses.
Attacking journalists for questioning some publicly expressed opinions
may however risk being seen as attacking free speech.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 07:10:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2 Jun 2025 05:03:42 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:The lockdowns resulted in free speech being limited - no question.
From Wikipedia
"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual
or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of >>>>retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Lockdowns are about curbing ones liberty. Slightly different things. >>>>During a covid lockdown one could use the legal methods, social media, >>>>telephone etc to express ones view.
The test of Freedom of speech comes in the response to the orginal view >>>>point expressed. A verbal response is expected but shutting the orginal >>>>author down is not acceptable espiscally in a democary.
Thank you Gordon. Free Speech was discussed quite a bit in recent
days following a comment by Chris Bishop regarding entertainment at
the Aotearoa Music Awards ceremony. Nobody disputed his right to make
the statement, but clearly many people felt that what he said was not >>>appropriate due to his position in the Government. He clearly accepted
at least some aspects of the relatively polite verbal responses. >>>Attacking journalists for questioning some publicly expressed opinions >>>may however risk being seen as attacking free speech.
There is a difference between limiting free association by prohibiting
all public gatherings (ie lockdowns), and prohibiting speakers from
attending gatherings (ie refusing to allow speakers access to venues
based on what they are judged as likely to say). With the former, any
free speech suppression is not deliberate but a byproduct of another
issue. With the latter free speech is deliberately suppressed.
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 17:05:23 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>Yes I did cite that - it was regarded as offensive by some, either by
wrote:
On 2 Jun 2025 05:03:42 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
From Wikipedia
"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual >>>or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of >>>retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Lockdowns are about curbing ones liberty. Slightly different things. >>>During a covid lockdown one could use the legal methods, social media, >>>telephone etc to express ones view.
The test of Freedom of speech comes in the response to the orginal view >>>point expressed. A verbal response is expected but shutting the orginal >>>author down is not acceptable espiscally in a democary.
Thank you Gordon. Free Speech was discussed quite a bit in recent
days following a comment by Chris Bishop regarding entertainment at
the Aotearoa Music Awards ceremony.
Can you cite that? While some have objected to what Bishop said, that
is not the same as limiting free speech.
Nobody disputed his right to make
the statement, but clearly many people felt that what he said was not >>appropriate due to his position in the Government. He clearly accepted
at least some aspects of the relatively polite verbal responses.
So not a free speech issue.
Attacking journalists for questioning some publicly expressed opinions
may however risk being seen as attacking free speech.
You cannot seriously relate opposing a point of view as an attempt to >suppress free speech. Suppressing free speech is removing the right
to speak, not opposing a point of view.
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 07:10:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2 Jun 2025 05:03:42 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:The lockdowns resulted in free speech being limited - no question.
From Wikipedia
"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an >>>>individual
or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of >>>>retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Lockdowns are about curbing ones liberty. Slightly different things. >>>>During a covid lockdown one could use the legal methods, social media, >>>>telephone etc to express ones view.
The test of Freedom of speech comes in the response to the orginal view >>>>point expressed. A verbal response is expected but shutting the orginal >>>>author down is not acceptable espiscally in a democary.
Thank you Gordon. Free Speech was discussed quite a bit in recent
days following a comment by Chris Bishop regarding entertainment at
the Aotearoa Music Awards ceremony. Nobody disputed his right to make
the statement, but clearly many people felt that what he said was not >>>appropriate due to his position in the Government. He clearly accepted
at least some aspects of the relatively polite verbal responses. >>>Attacking journalists for questioning some publicly expressed opinions >>>may however risk being seen as attacking free speech.
There is a difference between limiting free association by prohibiting
all public gatherings (ie lockdowns), and prohibiting speakers from
attending gatherings (ie refusing to allow speakers access to venues
based on what they are judged as likely to say). With the former, any
free speech suppression is not deliberate but a byproduct of another
issue. With the latter free speech is deliberately suppressed.
--Yes Crash. But I did not distinguish between deliberate and otherwise. I simply said that lockdowns affected freedom of exptression. And they did.
Crash McBash
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 19:47:23 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>That is NOT about freedom of speech. it is about appropriate behaviour.
wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 17:05:23 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:Yes I did cite that - it was regarded as offensive by some, either by
On 2 Jun 2025 05:03:42 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
From Wikipedia
"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an >>>>individual
or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of >>>>retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Lockdowns are about curbing ones liberty. Slightly different things. >>>>During a covid lockdown one could use the legal methods, social media, >>>>telephone etc to express ones view.
The test of Freedom of speech comes in the response to the orginal view >>>>point expressed. A verbal response is expected but shutting the orginal >>>>author down is not acceptable espiscally in a democary.
Thank you Gordon. Free Speech was discussed quite a bit in recent
days following a comment by Chris Bishop regarding entertainment at
the Aotearoa Music Awards ceremony.
Can you cite that? While some have objected to what Bishop said, that
is not the same as limiting free speech.
those that support the government because that sort of language is not >expected by a Cabinet Minister, and by some National party supporters
and many others because it was gratuitously offensive, and in context
seen as National picking up the racist attitudes of the ACT party.
There has been a lot of discussion about it in the news media today.
The point was made by many people that he was entitled to express his >opinions, but being gratuitously objectionable is not what we expect
from a senior member of our government. The point that relates to Free
Speech is that nobody was looking for punishment, or rules to prevent
such stupidity in future though - New Zealand generally has a
reasonable level of support for Free Speech.
Nobody disputed his right to make
the statement, but clearly many people felt that what he said was not >>>appropriate due to his position in the Government. He clearly accepted
at least some aspects of the relatively polite verbal responses.
So not a free speech issue.
Attacking journalists for questioning some publicly expressed opinions >>>may however risk being seen as attacking free speech.
You cannot seriously relate opposing a point of view as an attempt to >>suppress free speech. Suppressing free speech is removing the right
to speak, not opposing a point of view.
On 2 Jun 2025 05:03:42 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
From Wikipedia
"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual >>or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of >>retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Lockdowns are about curbing ones liberty. Slightly different things.
During a covid lockdown one could use the legal methods, social media, >>telephone etc to express ones view.
The test of Freedom of speech comes in the response to the orginal view >>point expressed. A verbal response is expected but shutting the orginal >>author down is not acceptable espiscally in a democary.
Thank you Gordon. Free Speech was discussed quite a bit in recent
days following a comment by Chris Bishop regarding entertainment at
the Aotearoa Music Awards ceremony. Nobody disputed his right to make
the statement, but clearly many people felt that what he said was not >appropriate due to his position in the Government. He clearly accepted
at least some aspects of the relatively polite verbal responses.
Attacking journalists for questioning some publicly expressed opinions
may however risk being seen as attacking free speech.
On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 19:56:05 +1200, Crash <[email protected]d>No that is incorrect.
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 07:10:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2 Jun 2025 05:03:42 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:The lockdowns resulted in free speech being limited - no question.
From Wikipedia
"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an >>>>>individual
or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of >>>>>retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Lockdowns are about curbing ones liberty. Slightly different things. >>>>>During a covid lockdown one could use the legal methods, social media, >>>>>telephone etc to express ones view.
The test of Freedom of speech comes in the response to the orginal view >>>>>point expressed. A verbal response is expected but shutting the orginal >>>>>author down is not acceptable espiscally in a democary.
Thank you Gordon. Free Speech was discussed quite a bit in recent
days following a comment by Chris Bishop regarding entertainment at
the Aotearoa Music Awards ceremony. Nobody disputed his right to make >>>>the statement, but clearly many people felt that what he said was not >>>>appropriate due to his position in the Government. He clearly accepted >>>>at least some aspects of the relatively polite verbal responses. >>>>Attacking journalists for questioning some publicly expressed opinions >>>>may however risk being seen as attacking free speech.
There is a difference between limiting free association by prohibiting
all public gatherings (ie lockdowns), and prohibiting speakers from >>attending gatherings (ie refusing to allow speakers access to venues
based on what they are judged as likely to say). With the former, any
free speech suppression is not deliberate but a byproduct of another
issue. With the latter free speech is deliberately suppressed.
I agree. As has been pointed out, there were plenty of ways in which
people were able to express their opinions;
the National PartyThis is not about politics.
frequently disagreed with whatever the government was doing and were
able to have those opinions spread through print, radio and
television; others expressed support for government actions or support
for alternatives / resistance to government decisions, and those views
were well canvassed by news media. There were daily briefings at which >journalists were able to question and ask for reason of or what was
done and reasons why other decisions were not made. There was a high
level of interest and private expression of opinions over all Covid
response decisions.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2 Jun 2025 05:03:42 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
From Wikipedia
"Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual >>>or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of >>>retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Lockdowns are about curbing ones liberty. Slightly different things. >>>During a covid lockdown one could use the legal methods, social media, >>>telephone etc to express ones view.
The test of Freedom of speech comes in the response to the orginal view >>>point expressed. A verbal response is expected but shutting the orginal >>>author down is not acceptable espiscally in a democary.
Thank you Gordon. Free Speech was discussed quite a bit in recent
days following a comment by Chris Bishop regarding entertainment at
the Aotearoa Music Awards ceremony. Nobody disputed his right to make
the statement, but clearly many people felt that what he said was not >>appropriate due to his position in the Government. He clearly accepted
at least some aspects of the relatively polite verbal responses.
Attacking journalists for questioning some publicly expressed opinions
may however risk being seen as attacking free speech.
He was correct in what he said at the New Zealand Music Awards. The
act was crap. Good on him for not apologizing either.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 16:01:59 |
| Calls: | 12,102 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,055 |