[derleth2]

> And need I remind you again about IP laws?

Not relevant. This doesn't ban content, just the reproduction of specific works.

> So, Australia has the principle of being able to ban entire works and yet doesn't ban anything.

You literally just contradicted yourself, when you mentioned a work that Australia did ban.

> partial censorship is okay

It is when you can evade it entirely by releasing an 'unrated' version of your movie, as is common practice in this country and has been for years.

> On the other hand, states in the US have laws stating that you can't take office if you are an atheist.

Outdated laws nobody would dare enforce, given the hugely expensive legal case which would result.

And, no, I never said it was fine and dandy. Stop putting words in my mouth. Every country has a sordid history which it needs to move past. Or do I need to remind you of the Stolen Generation?

> I didn't say anything about principles. I was talking about idealism being tested. These are not the same thing.

You are trying to draw a distinction based on absolutely nothing. The words mean the same damn thing.

> You have a pretty tortured definition of racism, if it requires the banning of face veils before it's a problem.

I never said this. I said that institutional racism is pretty damned bad when people can't even dress the way they want without being punished for it.

Every country has racism problems. At least in the US, we admit it without trying to claim our racism isn't racist.

> in the US, despite your puritanical ideal of free speech, you have a whole selection of two political parties to vote for

Or not vote for. You know, we have the freedom to not vote in this country, which seems to be foreign to the Australian mindset.

And, if having umpty-dozen parties is so great, how come the only ones who get elected are the ones that censor the damned Internet?