Reason.com
New at Reason
Matt Welch tracks assaults on "dangerous" speech from our British chums and Aussie mates.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Lessons From the United Fruit Company (5.28)
- Are We Headed for a Fight with China? (5.28)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- 17 Percent of Wisconsinites Favor Disbursing Retirement Benefits to Gov’t Workers Before Age 65 (5.29)
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|1.23.06 @ 9:47AM|#
What comprises such "assistance," and how on earth do you know when an organization is at "war with the Commonwealth" in the absence of a declaration to that effect?
Two words: military tribunals.
Alternatively, perhaps Howard could appoint a panel comprised of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter. Sentencing decisions by Michelle Malkin.
Paging women's shoe libertarians. I can't wait for Stephen Green to explain how Howard's proposal is an idea whose time has finally come. No doubt it will enhance liberty, because CIVIL LIBERTIES ARE WORTHLESS WHEN YOU'RE DEAD!! ARGHRHRHGHRHGHRHG!!!
|1.23.06 @ 10:34AM|#
Paging women's shoe libertarians.
What the hell is a women's shoe libertarian? Do tell, so I can decide whether or not to be offended.
|1.23.06 @ 10:38AM|#
Women's Shoe Libertarianism: A Primer
Captain Holly|1.23.06 @ 11:26AM|#
Matt Welch tracks assaults on "dangerous" speech from our British chums and Aussie mates.
I thought he was going to discuss their "hate crimes" laws.
|1.23.06 @ 11:56AM|#
I will do everyone a favor. I skimmed through the whole, very long, original "women's shoe libertarian" post and didn't see the reference util I did a page search. To save everyone else the search, here it is:
And by showing a bizarre abundance of faith in government power-grabs in the name of fighting terrorism, self-described libertarians like Shackleford and his warblogging fans treat limited government like a particularly attractive women's shoe -- fun to wear on a sunny day, but useless in a storm.
|1.23.06 @ 11:57AM|#
I thought he was going to discuss their "hate crimes" laws.
Don't you understand? Sedition laws, BAD! BAD! BAD! "Hate Crime Laws", GOOD! GOOD! GOOD!
Really though, we have come a long way since jewish and black lawyers from the ACLU would defend the KKK's right to march... or when "Hanoi Jane" could do what she did and not face even the slightest of legal pressure against her. The whole idea of liberal democracy is pretty much dead. Every mainstream political ideology nowadays is firmly against freedom of speech... it is just what form they will take.
Unfortunatly, I think we will have a comprimise. The people on the left will accept sedition laws, if the people on the right accept "hate crime" laws.
|1.23.06 @ 4:48PM|#
So the surprise is not that Prime Ministers Howard and Blair (from the right-wing Liberal Party and left-wing Labour Party, respectively) have sought to limit speech in the name of fighting terrorism. It's that their respective legislatures, newspapers, and populations have fought their proposals with such vigor.
Bloody hell, Matt, just because Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights doesn't mean we naturally roll over whenever the Government wants to restrict our rights. On average, Australians are probably the most politically-cynical people in the world, which is far better protection from the depredations of a Government and its supporters than any Bill of Rights could offer.