How Far should Freedom of Expression go?

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I saw this on the news this morning and it got me thinking. I know the article is short, but it was the only one I could find.

Personally I have to say the South Australian Government probably has it right (who'd have thought that they could do such a thing). Legally the man in question has the right to fly any flag he likes. While it might be in bad taste, it is his choice.

It just marks the man out as another racist Australian, because there aren't enough of those around...

In all seriousness, how far should freedom of expression be allowed? and should this man be allowed to fly such an offensive and symbolic flag?

[Strike For The South]

Yes he should I dont see how you could say no.

[KarlXII]

If you're using the freedom to charge racial hatred or directly try to offend, then that is where it ends. I doubt this man is in his "freedom of expression" rights, seeing as the Nazi ideology was racial supremecy and the killing of "Undesireables".

[Strike For The South]

If you're using the freedom to charge racial hatred or directly try to offend, then that is where it ends. I doubt this man is in his "freedom of expression" rights, seeing as the Nazi ideology was racial supremecy and the killing of "Undesireables".

If he is not physically harming someone who are you to decide what is right?

[Crazed Rabbit]

If a person isn't saying "We need to kill those [specific] X people" they should be allowed to say it. Saying "We need to deal with X people", or "We need to have Y people as supreme above those evil X people" should be allowed. Inciting hatred should be allowed.

CR

[KukriKhan]

His neighbors should all fly bigger Aussie flags on taller flagpoles. A good political leader would hand hand them out for free.

[Koga No Goshi]

If he is not physically harming someone who are you to decide what is right?

Um, in a lot of states, including Texas (I am not fully up to date on Texan law but this was the case until relatively recently) there is a qualification on free speech known as "fighting words." In other words, expressing something so volatile and so understood that it will cause immediate violence that it is not considered just an expression of free speech. It is the same reasoning as yelling fire in a theater or inciting a mob to riot or disturbing the peace. You are not free to express yourself any way you like in any context you like until you're blue in the face and you've started a race riot.

This changes from place to place, but in some parts of the U.S. "fighting words" are still on the books as a restriction on pure free speech. It's like putting up a KKK banner in the middle of a black neighborhood in Philadelphia--- if you didn't realize that was going to immediately provoke a destructive reaction, you were criminally stupid. ;)

[Strike For The South]

Um, in a lot of states, including Texas (I am not fully up to date on Texan law but this was the case until relatively recently) there is a qualification on free speech known as "fighting words." In other words, expressing something so volatile and so understood that it will cause immediate violence that it is not considered just an expression of free speech. It is the same reasoning as yelling fire in a theater or inciting a mob to riot or disturbing the peace. You are not free to express yourself any way you like in any context you like until you're blue in the face and you've started a race riot.

This changes from place to place, but in some parts of the U.S. "fighting words" are still on the books as a restriction on pure free speech. It's like putting up a KKK banner in the middle of a black neighborhood in Philadelphia--- if you didn't realize that was going to immediately provoke a destructive reaction, you were criminally stupid. ;)

ok....but thats not how I feel I merely answered the question that was posed.

[TinCow]

Um, in a lot of states, including Texas (I am not fully up to date on Texan law but this was the case until relatively recently) there is a qualification on free speech known as "fighting words." In other words, expressing something so volatile and so understood that it will cause immediate violence that it is not considered just an expression of free speech. It is the same reasoning as yelling fire in a theater or inciting a mob to riot or disturbing the peace. You are not free to express yourself any way you like in any context you like until you're blue in the face and you've started a race riot.

This changes from place to place, but in some parts of the U.S. "fighting words" are still on the books as a restriction on pure free speech. It's like putting up a KKK banner in the middle of a black neighborhood in Philadelphia--- if you didn't realize that was going to immediately provoke a destructive reaction, you were criminally stupid. ;)

Actually, that's not a restriction on free speech. It's a very liberal allowance for self-defense, which is a very different thing. It follows along with the 'no retreat' rules that I suspect are probably found in the same states you are referring to. The laws don't have any impact in criminalizing or otherwise limiting the offending speech, they simply allow more leniency in dealing with the people who respond to that speech in a physical manner.

[KarlXII]

If he is not physically harming someone who are you to decide what is right?

Should I be able to burn a cross on my neighbours front lawn?

[Strike For The South]

Should I be able to burn a cross on my neighbours front lawn?

Destruction of property and your friend can put slugs in you so I wouldn't recommend it.

[CrossLOPER]

Should I be able to burn a cross on my neighbours front lawn?

You have to do it on your yard. However, you will have to check your county's local regulations concerning burning of "yard waste". There you go.