Ironically this pointless conversation itself is displaying the opposite point. There is no point in debating people like Robinson, all it does is platform their views and give them attention. They are actually counting on empty rhetoric about free speech. They espouse ideology that should be banned. There is no other solution
1 Like
OK so that means we deregister Islamic State and after Bondi we should have had representatives of theirs interviewed on Sunrise, explaining their position, keeping us informed about both sides of the debate. Ridiculous
Thatâs a straw man. I never said Islamic State should be deregistered. My point is that youâre advocating for the government to decide which ideas the public is allowed to hear. Thatâs authoritarian. Interviewing someone isnât endorsing them. itâs exposing them to scrutiny. Those are completely different things.
1 Like
Are you seriously saying that Karl âexposed him to scrutinyâ
You know the difference and are pretending not to. Itâs an endorsement.
If you can read this article and come away with the impression this guy isnât a white supremacist you are also playing dumb in bad faith Tommy Robinson - Wikipedia
1 Like
White supremacy is a very specific idology - the belief that white people are inherently superior to other races and shoukd dominate.
Robinson is critical of Islam and Islamist extremism- and his views are controversial. So what we Should do as a society is debate and debunk his arguments. Not ban them
1 Like
I think people are giving Karl to much credit, heâs just another loose cannon in podcast world.
3 Likes
You donât want to defeat bad ideas. You want to ban them.
History shows government are terrible arbiters of truth.
Just a few two cents here:
Despite what Karl has said, the issue with his interview was not freedom of speech - it was that the interview was done with a lack of basic journalistic integrity. While I disagree strongly with giving an extremist a platform, I wouldnât have had much of an issue with the interview as I do if Karl actually tried to challenge his views.
As for âfreedom of speechâ, it has been proven that the constitution has a implied freedom of political communication, however, there is still room to restrict that freedom if it can be proven that any proposed law can be justified, including considering if there are any less restrictive measures that could be introduced. Furthermore, this only applies to communication of a political nature, so technically there is no right to freedom of speech under the constitution.
3 Likes
I keep telling you, yes!
You absolutely have to be joking! So do you support Robinson or whatever his real name is? I really donât care who Stefanovic interviews as Iâd never listen but interviewing and supporting those with far right wing views are different things. He absolutely endorsed this criminal!
As for freedom of speech it really only exists in limited quantity! Maybe ask the person who got my post on this topic banned last week! They complained, post gone and it was really only a tongue in cheek post not one IMO that should have been removed! That wasnât âfree speechâ, the complainant contacted me to complain that Iâd used the initials of a despicable US hate group whilst discussing Stefanovic and Sandilands. I made a play on their first name initials, maybe should have used surname initials. 
So lets us just wait for the next controversial edition of Karl Boganâs podcast. 
1 Like
While I think you are right on the first point , the crutch of it though itâs Karlâs podcast though . He should be able to interview whoever he wants despite how we feel about his particular individual and of course be prepared for backlash. My argument is when we decide to censor something we donât agree with it becomes slippery slope, sure you donât have to listen to it , I certainly did not .
Given itâs not illegal to have individuals on a podcast âŚ. Itâs really tricky to really censor any kind of speech though .
Sounds like they are advocating for a 1984 type society.
1 Like
Again if we start this then we might as we start banning all ideas that doesnât meet you contrite world view then ? Do we really like in that mind of society ?
Like it has been pointed out we can debunk and challenge those have certain views thatâs how democratic society works not shut them down .
I just found this on his Wikipedia page:
In August 2025, Robinson shared a video on Twitter of a black man and his brother playing with his white granddaughters in a park in North Yorkshire, falsely accusing them of paedophilia, which resulted in the family being racially abused with false paedophilia accusations. Labour MP for Redcar Anna Turley had to write a reference letter of good behaviour after the victim was suspended by his management. Turley stated that there was âno place for hate in our townâ and said she was âheartbrokenâ for the family âwhoâve been targeted and abused because of Tommy Robinsonâs poisonous liesâ.[109]
Thereâs nothing to hear out. Thereâs no debate to be had.
2 Likes
Righto I think we have beat this topic to death.
Also I donât read anything thatâs on Wikipedia so you just wasted your time posting all that. Iâll go out and source out research on my accord.
Anyway where do we see Karlâs podcast going from here ?
Read all this and felt like I was in the spectrum subforum
3 Likes
Yeah and people are calling for the Today thread to be closed. 
4 Likes
Itâs like art imitating life imitating art the thread that hates itself but seems to keep going.
1 Like
Itâs literally linked right there: Family in fear after Tommy Robinson shares video of black man with white granddaughters | The far right | The Guardian
You reckon itâs worth sitting down and debating the kind of guy who would share a video of a random black person in a park and accuse them of being a pedo just for being around white children. Thatâs what youâre saying
And Karl hasnât even done that. Heâs endorsed him
What does this mean?