"I Love free speech"

[lsemmens]

Regardless of whether you agree with Southern, I think it is also rather ludicrous that the government want to charge her for the cost of "protection" from these protesters, Why don't they bill the ratbags protesting and causing the problem in the first place.

[trash]

Yes, somebody thinks freedom of speech is only something they can profess.

Charging Lauren for proactively protecting her from lawbreakers.
I might prefer to choose not to defend myself to highlight which side is the violent extremists.
And the government might care to cover my hospitalisation, compensation, the court costs and then the jail time for a violent premeditated unprovoked assault or if I were to scream, "Oh my god she's trying to kill me!" and take a dive we might get it up to attempted murder.

On the up side, these leftards make the far right wing look very moderate.

[bob_m_54]

I don't think they should have tried billing her for the police presence, but then again, I don't think they should have had a presence either. Crowd control and security should have been part of her entourages pre-event game plan. Anyway fvck the stupid bitch, throw her to the wolves, I say...

[madtech]

One side of the argument was making a legal speech, the other side were being violent & disruptive & and abusing police etc. Who should the police be charging for their time, the person going legally about their business, or those who were performing illegal actions?

[alpha0ne]

I don't think they should have tried billing her for the police presence, but then again, I don't think they should have had a presence either. Crowd control and security should have been part of her entourages pre-event game plan. Anyway fvck the stupid bitch, throw her to the wolves, I say...

Leftard speech, the only speech that is protected these days

She should have hired a bikie gang for security, I can reallllllllllly see the leftards misbehaving................not

[bob_m_54]

Leftard speech, the only speech that is protected these days

She should have hired a bikie gang for security, I can reallllllllllly see the leftards misbehaving................not

See, that's the same old argument that the far right always trot out. They want free speech, and exercise their version of it, but get all huffy when others do the same. And she's still a fvcktard, like the rest of her ilk.

And the bikie gangs are far too busy making money hand over fist, selling drugs anyway...

[VroomVroom]

its quite easy to stop these leftard fvuckwits from attending Lauren's speaking venues - just park a mobile shower block out the front and make them use it prior to entry.

[enf]

See, that's the same old argument that the far right always trot out. They want free speech, and exercise their version of it, but get all huffy when others do the same. And she's still a fvcktard, like the rest of her ilk.

And the bikie gangs are far too busy making money hand over fist, selling drugs anyway...

When was the last time a speaker from the left was billed by the police for protection? I could count the number of times on the fingers of one knee.

I love the way you throw "their version of it" in there....clever, but transparent. It masks the fact that large violent crowds aren't the rights usual and automatic response to anything they don't like.

The violent left are just fvcktards, like the rest of their ilk.

[alpha0ne]

See, that's the same old argument that the far right always trot out. They want free speech, and exercise their version of it

I'm speechless.............this is full leftard insanity right here @ austech, now we know that insanity can strike anywhere

So bob.......................its all OK for violent leftist ####wit fascists to try and stop a FREE SPEECH PRIVATE TICKETED EVENT when they dont agree with the person and content of said event ??

So rioting in the streets is OK now if you dont agree with the leftist retard narrative ??

[DB44]

Bob's political leanings are well known here, and he has a right to express his point of view without being physically attacked. It is a shame that he doesn't believe in extending this courtesy to others. As for his "#### the stupid bitch"? Typical leftist hatred and the last refuge of the leftist when logic fails them and the ridiculous position they take is exposed. Bob, you are standing in a glass house throwing bricks. Really? The woman is a stupid bitch because she has different views to you? And because some spoiled brats want to shout her down she is supposed to pay for the simple privilege of presenting her point of view?

[bob_m_54]

I'm speechless.............this is full leftard insanity right here @ austech, now we know that insanity can strike anywhere

So bob.......................its all OK for violent leftist ####wit fascists to try and stop a FREE SPEECH PRIVATE TICKETED EVENT when they dont agree with the person and content of said event ??

So rioting in the streets is OK now if you dont agree with the leftist retard narrative ??

Actually reading back, I may have misread you previous comment, where you quoted me. I took that to mean you considered my post a "leftard speech". That may not have been the case.

Anyway, my comment still stands re: The Hard Right's version of free speech etc..

However, I consider hardliners of any faction tards, and consider them with equal contempt. I'm not a Leftard, not a Righttard, more ya basic moderate.

As for the leftists retards rioting, I agree that they have no right to behave in that manner either, even if she is a stupid bitch. But wasting police resources for her event is not justified. It's not like she didn't know what was likely to happen, from her previous experiences in other places.

The actual direction of my post was exactly what I said... The extreme right tards have their version of free speech, as do the extreme left tard. Neither is acceptable. It's just that the extreme right think it's their right to use racist, bigotted and homophobic terms, under the banner of "Free Speech". And if someone calls them on it, it all "Fvcken Leftards" whine whine whine...

[bob_m_54]

Bob's political leanings are well known here, and he has a right to express his point of view without being physically attacked. It is a shame that he doesn't believe in extending this courtesy to others. As for his "#### the stupid bitch"? Typical leftist hatred and the last refuge of the leftist when logic fails them and the ridiculous position they take is exposed. Bob, you are standing in a glass house throwing bricks. Really? The woman is a stupid bitch because she has different views to you? And because some spoiled brats want to shout her down she is supposed to pay for the simple privilege of presenting her point of view?

No, it was only verbally..

You don't have a clue about my political leanings:

But anyway, she is a stupid bitch, because she tours around spruiking he bigotted bullshit views, knowing the "leftards" will turn up, and wants to rely on Australian Taxpayer dollars to fund her security. Fark her, other public event holders have to pay security staff, so should she. I sure as shit wouldn't was my money on her.

[bob_m_54]

When was the last time a speaker from the left was billed by the police for protection? I could count the number of times on the fingers of one knee.

I love the way you throw "their version of it" in there....clever, but transparent. It masks the fact that large violent crowds aren't the rights usual and automatic response to anything they don't like.

The violent left are just fvcktards, just like the violent right.

Sorry, I didn't understand the first bit, but fixed the other bit for you..

[porkop]

The violent left are just fvcktards, like the rest of their ilk.

Let me rewrite that how it should have been written.............

The left are just fvcktards.

Note the over sized period?

[bob_m_54]

oversized periods require oversized tampons...

[bob_m_54]

Let me rewrite that how it should have been written.............

The left are just fvcktards.

Note the over sized period?

So what is your opinion as to whether she should have to pay for a large police presence or not? Or do you think that it's part of police normal duties, providing security for shit stirrers?

[DB44]

What a great way to silence those you don't agree with. You simply make sure you stage a violent protest as often as possible. You threaten everyone they deal with with boycotts and protests. All of a sudden companies and sponsors run for cover. Venues cancel or won't rent to them. Their events are marred by your violence. Police decide that those who disagree with you should be billed for the security for your ridiculous behaviour. Security they continue to provide to your side for free, and which is rarely needed anyway. But of course they refuse to release any details, particularly in the Socialist Republic of Victoria. Reasoned debate is replaced by shouting down, chanting slogans and name calling. Like stupid bitch, for instance. Universities won't let them speak. Invitations are withdrawn. In the US and in the future here if we're not careful anyone you don't agree with loses any private life as they are refused service in some businesses because of their political views, and abused by bigoted morons in the street. Your side loses an election and your moronic colleagues throw the world's biggest hissy fit and spew venom and hatred.

This is not happening on both sides of the political spectrum. Just one, and we all know which one.

When you advocate one and only one side being charged for the violence and intimidation of the other then you condone this nonsense and condemn free speech. Why hide behind this pitiful pretixt. If you don't believe in free speech just say so. You still can on Austech.

[bob_m_54]

What a great way to silence those you don't agree with. You simply make sure you stage a violent protest as often as possible. You threaten everyone they deal with with boycotts and protests. All of a sudden companies and sponsors run for cover. Venues cancel or won't rent to them. Their events are marred by your violence. Police decide that those who disagree with you should be billed for the security for your ridiculous behaviour. Security they continue to provide to your side for free, and which is rarely needed anyway. But of course they refuse to release any details, particularly in the Socialist Republic of Victoria. Reasoned debate is replaced by shouting down, chanting slogans and name calling. Like stupid bitch, for instance. Universities won't let them speak. Invitations are withdrawn. In the US and in the future here if we're not careful anyone you don't agree with loses any private life as they are refused service in some businesses because of their political views, and abused by bigoted morons in the street. Your side loses an election and your moronic colleagues throw the world's biggest hissy fit and spew venom and hatred.

This is not happening on both sides of the political spectrum. Just one, and we all know which one.

When you advocate one and only one side being charged for the violence and intimidation of the other then you condone this nonsense and condemn free speech. Why hide behind this pitiful pretixt. If you don't believe in free speech just say so. You still can on Austech.

OK, that was probably a bit harsh, how about scum then? that always seems to be a more forum friendly term..

But I don't subscribe to the rest of your suggested behaviour, it all sounds a bit violent to me. Best off leaving all that sort of thing to the right tards, and left tards, and let them battle it out between themselves. Then lock up the survivors from both camps and charge them with rioting and affray.

[lsemmens]

If the protesters were genuine, there would be NO NEED for security as they would protest peacefully as is their right. Regardless of if you agree with the target of the protest, she, too has a right to espouse her views without need of violence. The police (as representatives of the people) should be charging those who have necessitated their presence in the first place.

[DB44]

OK, that was probably a bit harsh, how about scum then? that always seems to be a more forum friendly term..

But I don't subscribe to the rest of your suggested behaviour, it all sounds a bit violent to me. Best off leaving all that sort of thing to the right tards, and left tards, and let them battle it out between themselves. Then lock up the survivors from both camps and charge them with rioting and affray.

Very simple, Bob. We can't allow these techniques to shut down debate. They have been used successfully by both left and right many times in modern history. At the moment it is the extreme left that are applying them and are being allowed to get away with it. In the future it may be the extreme right. Regardless of your side of politics you should be supporting free speech, even from those you don't agree with. When you support someone who wishes to express their point of view being required to pay a large fee because of expected violent organised demonstrations from their opponents, you spit in the face of free speech. It is not like security for a football game or a party where you may pay for a small amount of security for crowd control and dealing with a few who can't hold their drink. Here you are talking mainly about antifa thugs planning deliberate violence, and asking the victim to pay for the privilege of expressing their views. In the future you might be talking about right wing thugs trying to silence those their opponents. My answer is the same in both cases.

isemmens put it perfectly. Let those responsible for the violence pay.