Courier mail editorial – typical comments from mainstream newspaper editorials
Taboo: defamation of religious prophets
The Courier Mail editor believes that we must continue to treat as taboo those social conventions that “give vicious or gratuitous offence”, such as defaming religious prophets. (Also compare comments with other editors who did not publish any examples of the cartoons that Muslims deemed offensive.)
They state, “We also need to safeguard those social conventions that ensure the most vicious or gratuitous offence is always called out.
“Most Australians innately believe in this balance between the fundamental right to freedom of expression and the need to protect people and groups beyond the point at which name-calling and ridicule becomes vile hatred and defamation.”
“As Australians, the fact we are not Charlie Hebdo is a truth we should be proud of. To not engage in the deliberately offensive humour the French satirical magazine specialises in is a good thing.
“Most Australians at least try to show respect for the beliefs and cultures of people who are different to us. This is nothing to do with political correctness, it’s basic manners.
This is not to say there should ever be limits placed on our basic theoretical right to offend, humiliate or ridicule others. This right to free speech is one of the core promises of a functioning democratic nation.
We also need to safeguard those social conventions that ensure the most vicious or gratuitous offence is always called out.
And we should ensure this “fair go” culture is backed by strong laws that protect people and groups from racial hatred and vilification.
Most Australians innately believe in this balance between the fundamental right to freedom of expression and the need to protect people and groups beyond the point at which name-calling and ridicule becomes vile hatred and defamation.
… Thousands railed against the proposed change (to 18C), concerned at any government attempt that might make it easier in Australia for the type of deliberate offence Charlie Hebdo prides itself on.”
“But for the way their satirical magazine chose to fight for that right, nous ne sommes pas Charlie Hebdo
Return to Index of Examples 2015