more than a quarter of New Zealanders look at "sites with sexual content" at least occasionally
Or perhaps more accurately, "admit to looking at".
why aren;t people talking about the rape rather than how important it was to get rid of two people who were crap at handling a discussion about it
A) Yes, people bloody well are talking about the rape. But here, this is a discussion about "free speech" and "boycotts", so the discussion on this post will concentrate on that.
B) "crap at handling a discussion" is so much of an understatement that it sounds like a deliberate missing of the actual point. This wasn't just a botched interview, it was bullying. And their relentless attempts to discredit, belittle and humiliate a friend of victims, and the victims themselves, can only be seen as an attempt to justify and/or deny the rapes.
Well, wouldn't it suck if the majority decided that your speech was dangerous, and shouldn't be allowed?
Do you recognise any difference between "allowed" and "given a prominent and privileged platform"?
Ok I think this might have gotten to me a little.
Shh, calm down, Bart. Then we can get back to the important topics, like what Rob Ford thinks of Bunnings.
I'm expressing my concern about all forms of speech designed to silence others.
I wasn't aware that JT and Willie had had their vocal cords removed, or denied the same access to social media or blog comments that we all enjoy. I thought that this was about a radio station dropping some people who had abused the privilege that comes from a position of media power while bullying a young woman, because a public campaign made it clear to their advertisers that such behaviour was not what they wanted to hear.
But of course, that doesn't fit into an abstract academic discourse about "all forms of speech" that treats all speech acts as equal.
I believe the term is "rape apologists".
If your first response to a young woman talking about her friends being raped is not empathy but "Wow, what a load of sluts you are", then yeah. Both terms would apply.
I’m told Jana Rangooni has never taken the simple step of gathering all the hosts together and talking to them about what’s acceptable and what isn’t. You can’t operate in that kind of editorial vacuum without things going seriously wrong at some point.
That's actually astonishing, even for a shock jock station. I'm sure they've been told "Here's the dump button, for when a caller gets too boring." Would they not even have any training in how to safely deal with, say, a suicidal caller?
Willie & JT really do think that:
* they handled the call sensibly
As it happened, even I felt, as a regular contributor, that I was being bullied, so – as someone said in an earlier comment – how was a young rape victim meant to feel comfortable calling into their show.
Which raises the point: do talkback radio stations have any training or standards for how they handle their guests and callers? Many would think that basic human decency would cover an issue like this, and even though not every lacks it to the extent that Willie & JT seemed to in this case, some sort of processes should have helped. I'd've thought that a media organisation would have principles and guidelines for interacting with the public, especially potentially vulnerable ones. Is this not the case?
And with a view that seems strikingly similar to that of the 23rd-ranked Libertarianz candidate.
this linguistic puritanism currently sweeping New Zealand, where every word is to be sifted for privilege and thought crimes, and stuffed into the mouths of those ‘we’ disagree with, to gag and silence them.
If you want a vision of the present, imagine a face slamming into a human palm - forever.