Letter to The Editor - Legislation against violence should clearly define what is meant, otherwise some might argue that 'violence' can be understood metaphorically rather than logically

To THE AUSTRALIAN          Janet Albrechtsen is completely right ('Neo-Nazis test our conviction', 3-4/3) that the community must clearly and effectively ban incitement to violence, but that such acts need also to be clearly differentiated from 'freedom of expression' behaviour such as 'hate speech', blasphemy, harassment and intimidation. That sort of behaviour should not be made illegal but should be debated in public forums. Few Australians would support it.

     Legislation against violence should clearly define what is meant, otherwise some might argue that 'violence' can be understood metaphorically rather than logically, which would open the door again to political censorship and the erosion of intellectual freedom. As for the 'neo-Nazi' acts Albrechtsen describes, they make it harder for responsible right-wing conservatism to defend free speech, which makes you wonder whether the ratbags concerned are engaging in a 'false flags' operation precisely to discredit such defence.
NJ, Belgrave, Vic

 

Comments

No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Friday, 29 March 2024

Captcha Image