OnPoint: On Freedom of Speech
326 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
you need to stretch the definition of "idea" quite a bit to include both what Henry said and your gynaecological rejoinder.
Which is not far from (one of the things) I was saying: calling Paul Henry names is not the marketplace of ideas in action.
The marketplace for ideas doesn't discriminate between rational, constructive ideas and batshit insane ad hominem attacks.
I happen to think it does. Or at least, distinguishes between those things that are ideas, and those things that are not. And perhaps neither o what you have posited, nor Henry, qualifies, but I think his was closer.
-
I've suspected for a while that 'cunt' as an insult was making a move into the acceptable NZ cusswords list. In my experience it's been off the menu for respectable liberals like myself, a notoriously prudish group. At uni, it was always tricky using it around the OUSA.
When one of the Phoenix Foundation recently used it in a Twitter post, I know we where making headway on it. I attribute this to UK pop culture, as the US seem to use it mainly anatomically.
-
People were calling for a complete boycott of TVNZ for what Paul Henry said. If something like that ever works, or even looks like it might work, TVNZ will become much more conservative.
Not very many people, and I don't think the idea makes sense at all. But people have a right to say it, naturally.
The idea of lobbying sponsors as a response to offensive broadcast speech is always going to be tricky -- do we want Family First targeting our favourite edgy hipster TV shows in the same way?
And, of course, there was a sweaty little clutch of Kiwiblog mouth-breathers yesterday discussing a revenge fantasy involving taking down a left-wing host -- me, personally, by name -- as a means of revenge. As it happens, I don't feel comfortable publicly demanding the sacking of someone in a somewhat similar position to myself -- let alone telling people to boycott the network my damn show's on.
But it is a flat-out commercial reality that sponsors may decide their brand is no longer served by a particular association. That's a consequence. And I do sometimes think that people arguing in favour of free speech are really arguing for speech without consequences.
-
The Dikshit thing and the Satyanand thing both actually seemed well summed up, by Phil Wallington I think, as the behavior of a bully.
He had a forum/platform that others did not, and did not use it wisely.
I myself was evidently one of the minority to communicate "Good riddance" to TVNZ about this.
-
But it is a flat-out commercial reality that sponsors may decide their brand is no longer served by a particular association. That's a consequence. And I do sometimes think that people arguing in favour of free speech are really arguing for speech without consequences.
And it may also be some commercial reality that lead facebook(?) to delete photos of women breast-feeding their babies, but just because you can still breast-feed, and send photos of yourself feeding to your friends by email, doesn't mean free speech isn't implicated (particularly if, for example, the photo was intended to be used to push for policy change around breastfeeding).
-
Picking up what Gio said about the unsatisfactory notion of a marketplace of ideas, the offerings we currently enjoy are already arbitrarily limited and homogeneous.
You might enjoy the internet, it is somewhat less limited.
-
Angus: fer sure. I was more thinking about broadcast media and print.
-
And it may also be some commercial reality that lead facebook(?) to delete photos of women breast-feeding their babies, but just because you can still breast-feed ...
They were accountable for that twitchy decision -- and were flayed for it -- and sponsors are accountable for any decision they make in pulling out of an agreement. There would have been a provision in the sponsorship contract allowing them to do so.
I'm intrigued though Graeme, that you raise objections to anyone calling Henry a rude name, when the controversy in part is about Henry leeringly pronouncing the name of an Indian government minister as "Dick-in-shit". Why is Henry's rude name a good in the market of ideas and someone calling him a cunt in response not?
-
Why is Henry's rude name a good in the market of ideas and someone calling him a cunt in response not?
It's not. I was thinking more of the comments about the Governor-General. Probably not an idea either, but closer than what Keith said.
On the pronunciation of Sheila Dikshit's surname: I wonder what people disappointed with the Government for not acknowledging the winner of Nobel Peace Prize (presumably for fear of offending the Chinese Government) think of the Government's official apology to India.
-
Why is Henry's rude name a good in the market of ideas and someone calling him a cunt in response not?
I suspect it's because the Henryites/Teabaggers think they have a monopoly on 'political incorrectness'. When they find their monopoly under threat, they'll often resort to Reductio ad (insert scapegoat here).
-
I wonder what people disappointed with the Government for not acknowledging the winner of Nobel Peace Prize (presumably for fear of offending the Chinese Government) think of the Government's official apology to India.
Not seeing the relationship. I thought it was more sad nobody felt it necessary to acknowledge the new Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, medicine and literature. Guess we should change out global brand to "100% philistine", or was the real point a shit-load of meaningless political posturing?
-
It seems there are some people disappointed that the Government has not congratulated the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize - basically kowtowing to China. I don't see how our kowtowing to India by officially apologising for something over which the Government has (and should have) no control is all that different.
p.s. I note that John Key has now congratulated the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
-
It's not. I was thinking more of the comments about the Governor-General. Probably not an idea either, but closer than what Keith said.
Actually I agree with Graeme in that "the GG [and by inference, people who look like him] isn't a New Zealander" is part of the marketplace of ideas and "Paul Henry is a cunt" isn't.
There clearly is no guarantee of quality in the marketplace of ideas - it's factually and morally wrong. But certainly an idea.
-
It seems there are some people disappointed that the Government has not congratulated the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize - basically kowtowing to China. I don't see how our kowtowing to India by officially apologising for something over which the Government has (and should have) no control is all that different.
I don't see an equivalence. Just because both involved 'kowtowing' doesn't make them equivalent.
-
Graeme Edgeler
...punishing Heritage Hotels for something Paul Henry said over which they had no control (and shouldn't have control) isn't fundamentally different from arranging a boycott on Canwest/TV3/C4 for airing an episode of South Park about the abuse by Catholic clergy, or someone else for airing pro-homosexual something propaganda something like Queer Nation or The L Word.
Damn. I thought I knew what I thought on advertiser boycott tactics, but I see your point.
I'd like boycotts to force dialogue and mediation until understanding and fairness are achieved, in public and open fora - such as town halls and public television.
But what I'd like isn't what actually happens *in real life*, is it? I'm dreaming.
Damn. It's been a bugger of a week for waking up to the real world.
-
It is not a guarantee of employment - especially when the substance of the employment *is* speech. Paul Henry is not a drycleaner. He gets paid to say things. To suggest that what he says should not affect his employment is nonsensical.
Now THAT I DO like!!
Can we use the Consumer (or Employer) Act to nail the bastard? Just like my electric jug crapping out after 3 boils???
-
On the pronunciation of Sheila Dikshit's surname ...
Let's be clear: He repeatedly mispronounced it, then rendered it as "Dick-in-shit" and then declared it was an appropriate name for an Indian. It was pretty bad.
-
So yes if Paul Henry is deeply offensive then it is appropriate to communicate that to both his employers TVNZ and to the advertisers who provide the money to employ him.
No, this disturbs me. I think it is treading on very dangerous ground.
It would create a tyranny of either the "sqeakiest wheels" or the deepest purse. Or worse, both.
-
...sponsors already set the boundaries of speech in a sponsored broadcast.
Then that needs to be made very clear - not just in some small print, or rapidly read "afterthought" in a small voice at the end of the broadcast.
And we need a public register of lobbyists in the political realm, too.
-
Well, I believe that freedom of speech is a good thing that should be protected at a constitutional level by the state.
hmmm... still not convinced. i believe you mean "i think that freedom...".
or "i reason that freedom...".Oh, I dunno. I think we can be a bit sensitive about people using the word "believe".
It is quite possible for an atheist to declare that they "believe" that human rights are not relative; they are absolute, for example. They use the word "believe" quite appropriately, imo, because for them it is an inalienable "truth" and is an integral part of the speaker's core values.
"I think" and "I reason" however, is likely to be more mutable.
At least, that what's what I believe anyway. :-p
-
...sponsors already set the boundaries of speech in a sponsored broadcast.
Then that needs to be made very clear - not just in some small print, or rapidly read "afterthought" in a small voice at the end of the broadcast.
And we need a public register of lobbyists in the political realm, too.
Commercial sponsors aren't generally looking to lobby a cause, though. They just want to reach an audience in a place that makes them look good. And that doesn't only apply on television.
I'll pitch for sponsorship for things I want to do related to the site by highlighting the quality of the conversation, the quality of the audience and the degree of engagement. Whaleoil, on the other hand, gets little or no advertising because he runs a cesspit and no one wants to stand near that.
And if I stood up in front of a Great Blend crowd and was an offensive twatcock -- or even just pissed people off by being rubbish and boring -- I wouldn't see Orcon coming back with its sponsor's chequebook next time.
It's worth noting that when Toyota bailed out on Holmes after the "cheeky darkie" moment, Charlie's filed the gap because it felt its cheekier brand wouldn't be hurt. And very probably because it got a bargain and the deal.
And it's worth thinking about why we would applaud Ben Gracewood or Paul Yandall quitting on principle after the hosts they worked with said offensive things -- but not be comfortable when the sponsor that helps pay the most does the same thing.
This isn't particularly aimed at you, Petra -- I'm just interested in the line between chilling speech and foreseeable consequences.
-
So it seems in the Tabloid Age, libel cases or diplomatic incidents fill the legislative vacuum. By then, the damage has been done.
-
It seems there are some people disappointed that the Government has not congratulated the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize - basically kowtowing to China. I don't see how our kowtowing to India by officially apologising for something over which the Government has (and should have) no control is all that different.
I would like to think that the apology to India, and in particular those directly targeted for his bullying mockery, was because it was the right thing to do - though should have been done by Paul Henry himself.
John Key was weak here.
John Key was also weak wrt China.
John Key is weak.
p.s. I note that John Key has now congratulated the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Takes a while for clearance to come through, and the bureaucracy involved in "Leadership" is a nightmare! First you have to submit forms and documents declaring intent to speak, and what you might say or might not say, to assorted CEOs in both NZ and China. Then you have wait for the reports to come back with public mood findings, based on various internet "comments" sections and talk back radio shows...
-
To be fair, John Key didn't want to congratulate the Nobel Peace Prize winner as he hadn't been briefed. Which is fair enough- you never know what kind of scoundrel this person might be.
-
This isn't particularly aimed at you, Petra
I didn't take it personally, so don't worry about that at all. :)
I'm really enjoying the way y'all are making me think. It's making my head hurt a little, I cannot deny, but I'm loving every minute of it!
So thanks!
And I shall respond shortly - teenager bashing me over the head with car keys right now. I'm sensing she needs a chauffeur. So I'll step away till after dinner, and chew the cud.
This is awesome. I think I'm growing. :)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.