Hard News: How much speech does it take?
554 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 23 Newer→ Last
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Judge what? Are you deliberately trying to avoid the question I’m repeatedly asking? If you’ve no intention to answer it, why not just say so?
It’s hard to judge on the merit of a case I’m ignorant of. Specifically: did the people who wanted the artwork removed appeal to the university, or to the police or the courts? Was the complaint formally addressed? Was it upheld? Since you’re insisting to make a real world example, which I find laudable, I’d like to have the details before I comment on it.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
Oh, some of the confusion might stem from my loose use of 'it'. By 'raise it as an example' I meant raise the picture itself as an example, not the historical controversy.
I haven't been very clear at all. Sorry.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
Snap.
-
If the example is the picture itself, I thought I had already given you my opinion.
-
oh god. i feared as much. Such pitiful, pitiful ignorance. I honestly feared as much! "On The Jewish Question" is the title, with some variation, of defining 19th/20th century works from Marx to Sartre and pretty much every other major writer inbetween them.. how can you possibly not KNOW this? I am thinking along the lines of .. kiwaievity already, and it is not good
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
No, no, it's not about the picture at all. Bad example!
Let's reframe the question:
Hypothetically, what specific criteria should we use to determine whether something is legitimate free speech?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
oh god. i feared as much. Such pitiful, pitiful ignorance.
Oh well. You did have your chance. Go away.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I thought I had already given you my opinion.
Except to say this, and then leave the presents for a couple of hours: if your beef is with the fact that issues of free speach can be raised at all, I think it would serve artists poorly. You want people to be shocked at Pakeha Have Rights Too, you want some of them to demand that it be removed from public view, or destroyed. And not because courting controversy pays off, but because provocative statements are provocative only if there is that tension in society, a willingness to be confronted and even outraged. The role of our civic institutions in such instances is (or should be) to protect art and artists, and to draw the line between freedom of expression and the statements that actually incite hatred. Drawing the line is important, as you say. Free speech absolutism doesn’t allow you to do that.
-
Islander, in reply to
Thank you for your earlier comment…serious whimsy is so often misunderstood. 8>)
And seriously, I’ll think on your lasted posted comment -
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
what specific criteria should we use to determine whether something is legitimate free speech?
Gio's opinion, apparently.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Gio’s opinion, apparently.
Don't be disingenuous.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Oh well. You did have your chance. Go away.
Thank you Russell, "Mission Accomplished"
-
Not bad commentary for a Muslim and an ex-Howardite Liberal. That is, the Aussie Liberal Party with a big L.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Hypothetically, what specific criteria should we use to determine whether something is legitimate free speech?
Why be hypotehtical? Have you got any specific problem with the statutes that we do have?
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Don’t be disingenuous.
Would not dream of it Sir.
Your assumptions are not always spot on. -
Russell Brown, in reply to
Oi, moderators? Are you guys asleep or something?
At the supermarket, assisting capitalism. 'pologies.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
At the supermarket, assisting capitalism. 'pologies.
No smart phone? Kidding.
Actually, I thought the regulars made plain the degree of tolerance that applied here, after which il Dottore stepped into the doorman's role nicely.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
You want people to be shocked at Pakeha Have Rights Too, you want some of them to demand that it be removed from public view, or destroyed.
Where on earth did I say that? I want none of those things and honestly have no idea why you think I would. I want a free, open, and tolerant society in which artists – and everyone else – can make the best work they can through the free, open, and tolerant exchange of information.
And still no-one has addressed my question, whichever way I put it.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Not bad commentary for a Muslim and an ex-Howardite Liberal.
But still missing a point that I thought was obvious from the start. This maniac's actions are a direct result of the Neo-cons. "War on Terror" that labels all Muslims as a problem and any who ain't with us are agin us. How deliberate this divisive ploy was/is is beyond question in my mind, it is a classic divide and conquer tactic that is the M.O. of the "New World Order".
It sucks, it's sick and I have always said so. -
DCBCauchi, in reply to
Why be hypotehtical? Have you got any specific problem with the statutes that we do have?
Yet again: I want to determine the basis on which those statutes are made, because it directly affects me, as it does everyone.
Really, how hard is it?
-
Danielle, in reply to
Where on earth did I say that?
I think he meant the general 'you' rather than the specific 'you'.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
I think he meant the general ‘you’ rather than the specific ‘you’.
No, I think he meant the specific 'you'.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Really, how hard is it?
Don't know. Have you read them, for a start? Because that ought to give you a pretty good idea of their purposes and framework. I also think your question has been answered half a dozen times but if that's now how it feels to you I'm not sure where to go from here.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Hypothetically, what specific criteria should we use to determine whether something is legitimate free speech?
Wrong question. The right one is “what are our criteria, if any, for restricting speech?”
I did cite some earlier. The scarcity or otherwise of access to a platform for speech is one, the actual potential for harm to a group is another. Broadcast is treated differently to print in most developed countries, on the assumption that it has a particular power – and because the spectrum is perceived as a sovereign public resource.
Even the most hateful speech on the internet goes unregulated because the internet is seen as a Commons, and a (relatively) level playing field. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see a voluntary bloggers’ code of conduct introduced in the coming year, one which looks a bit like the Press Council code.
A few people declared that the Press Council’s stinging finding against North & South’s ‘Should We Send Some Back?’ story was an abrogation of free speech – Stephen Franks among them. But N&S had voluntarily made itself subject to Press Council rulings – it was a good look to do so. And when it ran a story that bad, it was inevitably going to be rapped.
The Living Word DVD I mentioned earlier contained what amounted to a disgusting libel against any and all homosexuals. The censor banned it. The Court of Appeal overturned that.
And yet, an individual defamed in such a way would stand a very good chance of winning a civil action. We don’t tend to talk much about defamation actions as a curb on speech, but they’re arguably a bigger threat than anything governments do in their own right.
So that’s the way things happen. You’ve been seeking a one-size-fits-all answer, and there just ain’t one. But it is a good discussion to have.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
No, I think he meant the specific ‘you’.
About halfway. I thought it would be in the interest of artists that their freedom of expression not be subject to there not being any form of censorship whatsoever. And I stand by that.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.