Defend Free Speech in Perth group hardly anti-censorship

The term "free speech" is being used a lot lately. However, its meaning seems to change quite a bit according to who's doing the, er, speaking.

Take the Defend Free Speech in Perth group. Sounds like they have admirable aims. You know, the kind of people who'd be appalled at the silencing of Andrew Bolt. They'd be staunchly opposed to the Government's creepy exploitation of the British phone hacking scandal to increase restrictions on reporting here, wouldn't they?

Nope. These guys are a bunch of hectoring lefties. They believe that freedom of speech is not the right to shout what you believe, but the right to shout other people down.

They actually interrupted a Perth City Council meeting, which then had to be adjourned:

The Defend Free Speech in Perth group filled the gallery, holding up signs comparing the council to the Nazis and calling out after they were not satisfied with a question answered by chief executive Frank Edwards.

This group was the, er, brainchild of extreme leftists associated with Occupy Perth. No wonder the poor sprog was stillborn.

Geoff Clark on his Bolt case motives

One thing that's always creeped me out about the advocates of political correctness is how easy they find it to say the complete opposite of what is clearly the truth. They say it unblushingly, with a straight face. It's sad, funny and scary all at once.

A perfect example of this is the line that the silencing of Andrew Bolt is "not about free speech". Of course it's about free speech! His enemies were appalled and angered by what he was saying (and how he was saying it) and so they all got together in a concerted effort to muzzle him. And they succeeded.

One of the complainants, Geoff Clark, had the spectacular gall to say not only that his action was not an attempt to curtail free speech in Australia, but this as well: 

"It creates debate, there's nothing wrong with that debate, provided it's not harmful or offensive."

Got that? Intimidating someone into silence (and making an example of him, which Clark admits was part of his motivation in this revealing interview with Neil Mitchell) creates debate. So, less is more, night is day, and two plus two equals five. 

That aside, when Clark is demanding that there be more civility in this debate that he so clearly and sincerely wants to encourage, a reasonable person might find it a little odd that he would characterize his victory in this way:

"The sword of justice has struck, and cut off the head of the serpent. Let's hope it doesn't grow two heads."

Firstly, I think that calling someone a serpent (or more specifically, a serpent's head) might be perceived as "offensive" by most people. 

And forgive me for my lack of cultural sensitivity, but it just doesn't seem to make any sense. Geoff, how can the serpent you so sincerely wish not to silence keep debating you when it has no head?

Really, mate. Just be honest about what you're trying to do. You might actually earn a little genuine respect then, instead of just achieving compliance through fear and intimidation.