发表地域性歧视帖子和观点是违法的。。。

希曼

言论自由不是无条件的，任何公开发表有关对方地域，种族，性别，性取向，宗教，年龄等等歧视性的观点，及任何此类行为至少在NSW是违法的。。。。<br>
<br>
而那些动不动就把民主和言论自由挂在嘴边的人，建议他们还是首先虚心向澳洲懂法律的人士请教一下民主和言论自由的真正含义吧。。。<br>
<br>
建议大家读一读UNSW上对于 Diversity 和 Equity的相关规定吧：<br>
<br>
<a target=_blank href=http://www.equity.unsw.edu.au/policies.html>http://www.equity.unsw.edu.au/policies.html</a><br>
<br>
民主和言论自由都是有附加条件的。。。。

南方森林

LZ举的UNSW的例子是一种狭隘的对FREE SPEECH的理解，因为每个单位有自己的规定，但不能代表其他单位或社会的观点。比如UNSW的规定只局限于其学校辖区之内，对FREEOZ并没有约束力。。。<br>
<br>
真正关于FREE SPEECH的解释可见于：<br>
<a target=_blank href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech</a><br>
<br>
其宗旨是：任何言论自由对于众人存在的基础是“还事实以原貌”。。。

希曼

In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. Industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with order. For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if ever) censorship is necessary; in Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms places the burden upon the government to demonstrate how a limitation would benefit the public (e.g. hate speech is illegal); and the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees freedom outside specific circumstances in which it prescribes censorship (e.g. to protect national security). In most all liberal democracies, it is generally recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.<br>
<br>
yup...i read it...it says here: balance with order...UNSW's regulations are in line with Aussie's legal regulations...<br>
<br>
如果说我的例子是对freedom of speech 的具体限制，那么你的理解就是对freedom of speech 的曲解了。。。freedom of speech当然有具体的环境了，各个国家对freedom of speech的具体实施，你真仔细看了你给我的链接了？？？

无极

没有绝对的自由

kevsl

其实哪个地方都有好人和不是很欢迎的人。某些文章有点以偏盖全之嫌。支持楼主的观点。

micfox

<br>
南方森林 did give out a good link to explain what "freedom of speech" is..I wondered 南方森林 has checked the content of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights... These are all the Articles from International Law... so what is the foundation of "freedom of speech"?<br>
<br>
Another word, when you read something, do not just read the part you like, please read the part you do not like as well (see below, it is quoted from wikipedia, which is the link you give):<br>
<br>
<b>Restrictions on free speech</b><br>
Ever since the first consideration of the idea of 'Free Speech' it has been recognised that the right to free speech is subject to restrictions and exceptions.<br>
<br>
<font color="red"><b><br>The best-known is typified by the statement that free speech does not allow shouting fire in a crowded theatre, a paraphrase of a statement in the case Schenck v. United States in 1919. Other limiting doctrines, including those of libel and obscenity, can also restrict freedom of speech. The case Brandenburg v. Ohio found that the US government could restrict free speech only if it was "likely to incite imminent lawless action".<br>
</b></font><br>
<br>
<font color="blue">I wondered why there are no signficant protest against US government on that? Maybe those fans of "freedom of speech" can give out an explanation?? [</font><br>
<br>
<br>
Various governing, controlling, or otherwise powerful bodies, in many places around the world have attempted to change the opinion of the public or others by taking action that allegedly disadvantages one side of the argument. This attempt to assert some form of control through control of discourse has a long history and has been theorized extensively by philosophers like Michel Foucault. Many consider these attempts at controlling debate to be attacks on free speech, even if no direct government censorship of ideas is involved. Alleged examples include the following:<br>
<br>
<br>
Some consider the deportation of a foreign peace activist Scott Parkin from Australia in September 2005 to have been an attack on free speech, claimed by the federal government to be a risk to national security. <br>
Dr. Elsebeth Baumgartner currently faces up to 109 years in prison in the U.S. state of Ohio for her criticism of, and accusations of corruption against, government officials in Ohio. <br>
In Finland, a new copyright law was enacted in October 2005, which prohibited "services making possible or facilitating the circumvention of effective technical [copy prevention] measures". (See 2005 amendment to the Finnish Copyright Act and Penal Code) <br>
Blasphemy is illegal in several Western countries. Defense of freedom of religion is cited. <br>
Gunns Limited, a Timber and woodchip product company in Australia (Gunns Website) is suing 17 individual activists, including Federal Greens Senator Bob Brown, as well as three non-profit environmental groups, for over 7.8 million dollars. Gunns claims that the defendants have sullied their reputation and caused them to lose profits, the defendants claim that they are simply protecting the environment. The defendants have become collectively known as the Gunns 20 (Friends of the Gunns 20). Although this example involves a private law suit, not government censorship, some claim that it is an abuse of defamation law, since it ties up the environmental activists in court proceedings, during which time Gunns may build a pulp mill in northern Tasmania. According to this view, the plaintiffs are not genuinely seeking to vindicate their reputations and they are seeking to scare off other activists with the prospect of ruinous legal expense. Such cases raise interesting questions about the extent to which powerful corporate interests should have access to defamation law. <br>
<br>
<br>
<font color="red">In the UK Parliament passed the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act in 2005 banning protest without permit within 1km of Parliament. The first conviction under the Act was in December 2005, when Maya Evans was convicted for reading the names of British soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed in the Iraq War, under the Cenotaph in October, without police permission. [1] <br>
<br>
<br>
In Italy, media Tycoon Silvio Berlusconi censored the satirical Raiot series by Sabina Guzzanti after the first broadcast on RAI (the state TV), arguing that it was plain vulgarity and disrespectful to the government. As his company Mediaset threatened a lawsuit for €21,000,000, the RAI board of directors, appointed by Berlusconi's political majority, closed the series effective immediately, claiming that such a lawsuit was an economic liability for the company. Ms. Guzzanti went to court and won the case, but the Italian government and RAI refused to follow the court order and the show never went on air again. Berlusconi had previously had two highly esteemed journalists (Michele Santoro and Enzo Biagi) and a comedy actor (Daniele Luttazzi) removed from RAI by saying explicitly, in a press conference in Bulgaria, that the new board of directors, which his majority had just appointed, should not allow their "criminal usage" of television. [2] <br>
In some European countries, holocaust denial is a criminal offence. A prominent proponent of this view, David Irving, was sentenced for 3 years in Austria for denying the holocaust in February, 2006. <br>
<br>
<br>
In Canada, school teachers have limited freedom of speech, both on and off the job, regarding certain issues (e.g., homosexuality). Chris Kempling was suspended without pay for writing letters, on his own time, to a local newspaper to object to LGBT-related material being introduced into public schools. Kempling pursued the freedom of speech issue all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada without success. </font><br>
<br>
<font color="blue">Time to protest, man!!! What is wrong with those western contries?? Even reading names is prohibited?? Who are being hurted??? Yes, maybe GCD in China has mastered these countries???? Why not blame them??</font><br>
<br>
<br>
The first clause of UK's Terrorism Act 2006 punishes "Encouragement of terrorism" with up to seven years in jail. <br>
Some countries still have censorship laws that are rarely used. British law technically still prohibits blasphemy, displays of erect penises and promotion of suicide. <br>
In Sweden a law called "Hets mot folkgrupp" ("Agitation against an ethnic group") denies promotion of racism and homophobia. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The first clause of UK's Terrorism Act 2006 punishes "Encouragement of terrorism" with up to seven years in jail. <br>
Some countries still have censorship laws that are rarely used. British law technically still prohibits blasphemy, displays of erect penises and promotion of suicide. <br>
In Sweden a law called "Hets mot folkgrupp" ("Agitation against an ethnic group") denies promotion of racism and homophobia. <br>

阿兵

随便说说啊，别当真！<br>
<br>
独裁的中国不会真正强大。最终会走向独裁和落后。

chubbycat

too complicated :)

micfox

Yes, I agreed with 南方森林 on this.. But obviously some people do not understand this point and keep criticizing and asking "这是哪门子道理？"

希曼

呵呵，赞同南方和Micfox的观点，真理越辨越明。。哈哈。。