Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Media3: We have much to discuss

44 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

  • Chris Waugh,

    Judith Collins seems to have learned really well on her trip to China last year. Frame it as going after something nobody disagrees with, but phrase it to cover a wide variety of stuff you might want prefer wasn't out there, classic CCP move. Yes, we do need to keep a close eye on her.

    And:

    But do the lefties who wanted Al Nisbet’s unpleasant, unfunny newspaper cartoons put down with the full force of law have any moral high ground of their own here?

    No, they don't.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    Orsman should be interesting. The man has been leading Granny's fact-free, ratings-driven charge against the DUP, willingly assisted by Roughan. They make an interesting (and depressing) contrast with Fran O'S's much more sensible take on things.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    do the lefties who wanted Al Nisbet's unpleasant, unfunny newspaper cartoons put down with the full force of law

    Who?

    What I object to is that a foreign multinational is able to operate monopoly newspapers that, as a matter of policy, encourage the proletards and toryscum in their worst prejudices (to the great benefit of the newspaper owners and their friends). We need a media ownership law that removes that. If they want to put offensive cartoons on a website or handbills, fine.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    I agree with this informed take from Local Board member Julie Fairey about Council's communication failures (cross-posted on the old thread).

    My sense is that the large level of interest, and the misleading approach taken by some, just was not anticipated by the team working on the draft, who are mostly planners and thus indulge in a fair bit of planner talk and thinking in the way they operate every day.

    I suspect they thought that the main audience for this first round would be planners and developers, and so much of the early comms was focused on that market, and assumed a certain knowledge of planner talk.

    That inadvertently created a vacuum, and nature abhors a vacuum. What filled it wasn’t always the best quality or even vaguely accurate.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19697 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    From I/S:

    As the RIS points out, the proposal to increase penalties creates a perverse situation whereby making or distributing indecent material carries a higher penalty than the physical crime it depicts. For example, performing an indecent act with a child under 12 currently carries a penalty of 10 years imprisonment. Under the bill, filming it (or importing or distributing a depiction of it) will carry a penalty of 14 years. Sexual connection with a child under 16 carries a penalty of 7 years. Mere posession (a strict liability offence) of a depiction of it will send you to jail for 10.

    It should also be noted that the 'child' only has to look like they're under 16. This also applies to cartoon fantasy characters - fairies, centaurs, dragons, etc, who look like they might be minors.

    And I'd be madder about the 'penalty for distribution worse than penalty for commission' if it wasn't already illegal to distribute images of things it's perfectly legal to do.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4650 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Emma Hart,

    This also applies to cartoon fantasy characters – fairies, centaurs, dragons, etc, who look like they might be minors.

    Presumably one can spot an underage dragon by its small breasts?

    ETA: But for boy dragons? Presumably if the penis is less than 10 feet long it's underage?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10641 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Emma Hart,

    And I’d be madder about the ‘penalty for distribution worse than penalty for commission’ if it wasn’t already illegal to distribute images of things it’s perfectly legal to do.

    Also, bizarrely, there's a great many things we're not allowed to do, heinous crimes, for which depiction is so normalized as to not even have age restriction. Murder, extortion, kidnapping, torture, mass murder, serial murder, assault, GBH, robbery, mugging, armed robbery, wreckless driving resulting in death, threatening violence, genocide, planetary destruction, the list goes on.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10641 posts Report Reply

  • Ewan Morris,

    But do the lefties who wanted Al Nisbet’s unpleasant, unfunny newspaper cartoons put down with the full force of law have any moral high ground of their own here?

    Um, which lefties exactly? What I've been hearing is people saying the cartoons were unpleasant and unfunny - not that they should be censored, and particularly not that they should be "put down with the full force of law".

    Since Nov 2006 • 46 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh, in reply to BenWilson,

    Presumably one can spot an underage dragon by its small breasts?

    Didn't Australia recently have that problem, trying to ban explicit images of females under a certain bra size in case they were minors? Plenty of adult women have small breasts.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    Didn't Australia recently have that problem, trying to ban explicit images of females under a certain bra size in case they were minors?

    A while back, but yes. And the law is the same here.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4650 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Ewan Morris,

    Um, which lefties exactly? What I’ve been hearing is people saying the cartoons were unpleasant and unfunny – not that they should be censored, and particularly not that they should be “put down with the full force of law”.

    I was thinking of Te Ururoa Favell and the Maori Council, both of whom seem to be saying that the bar be lowered for prosecutions under this part of the Human Rights Act 1993:

    Part 6
    Inciting racial disharmony
    131Inciting racial disharmony
    (1)Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $7,000 who, with intent to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons,—
    (a)publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, or broadcasts by means of radio or television words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting; or
    (b)uses in any public place (as defined in section 2(1) of the Summary Offences Act 1981), or within the hearing of persons in any such public place, or at any meeting to which the public are invited or have access, words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting,—
    being matter or words likely to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any such group of persons in New Zealand on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons.
    (2)For the purposes of this section, publishes or distributes and written matter have the meaning given to them in section 61.

    Metiria Turei has also demanded a prosecution be brought under the act.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22761 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd,

    Alex Coleman (@shakingstick) had a rather good series of tweets a few days ago, provoked by a recent Listener editorial, suggesting that the current "gotcha" mode of political journalism exemplified by Gower and co was actually a consequence of the slick media management now practised by modern parties -- that far from being the victims of shallow coverage, they positively encouraged it. Interested to hear Bryce's view on that argument.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh, in reply to Emma Hart,

    Ah, yes, thanks Emma. Couldn't remember where I'd read about it, turns out one place was right here.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • TracyMac,

    One of the more disgusting examples I've seen of child porn was a drawing. A very representational, albeit 19th Century, drawing. Hiding behind "it's just a cartoon!" isn't quite good enough. (It's very much a hot-button for me.)

    It's a tough one, but my feeling is that if the figure is missing secondary sexual characteristics - breasts, adult-shaped penis, etc - then it's pretty damn questionable about what "age" the character is supposed to be. In manga, there are characters that look like kids in terms of their faces, but they have (often enormous) breasts, penises, whatever. Fine. Non-human creatures (Smurfs, whatever), fine. Pics of Homer screwing Lisa, not so fine.

    That said, I am not one of the people demanding that the newspaper censor the cartoon. I think it was vile and inappropriate for a mainstream newspaper, and more suited to the kind of rags our supposed "neo-nazis" read, but it's up to the readership to express their distaste.

    In fact, bringing this kind of thing into the light of day is good. It's very much exposing the synergy of racism and classism in the way that the anti-benefit types tend to think. No hiding behind any pretence that it's entirely about "fiscal responsibility". Sure, I'm sure some people genuinely are not engaged in any race issue when they bitch about beneficiaries, but I can just about guarantee they are the minority.

    Canberra, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 701 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    What I object to is that a foreign multinational is able to operate monopoly newspapers that, as a matter of policy, encourage the proletards and toryscum in their worst prejudices

    *sigh* Yeah, Rich, because New Zealand media was so thoroughly enlightened when it was being run by local media oligarchs with names like Wilson, Horton, Vogel, Blundell and Fitzgerald.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia, in reply to Emma Hart,

    It should also be noted that the 'child' only has to look like they're under 16. This also applies to cartoon fantasy characters - fairies, centaurs, dragons, etc, who look like they might be minors.

    So, would now be a good time to hide the season one

    Game of Thrones

    BRs with the rest of the pornography? Seriously. EmiliaClarke may have been 23 when she was cast as Daenerys Targaryen; but while her age is carefully (and I suspect deliberately) not explicitly stated, she's playing a character who, in the books, is thirteen when she's pimped out by her brother for an army. Oh, and her husband doesn't take no for an answer.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Stephen Judd,

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 3122 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to BenWilson,

    heinous crimes ... planetary destruction

    Who's got jurisdiction on that one? A successful attempt would render most prosecutors unavailable.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Karen Adams,

    Well hopefully it also includes those horrendously distasteful images shown on "reality" tv, with people who have just been in accidents showing their boobs half out when they are clearly in a dazed state and unable to hold an objecting arm in the face of the camera.

    Under your bed • Since Oct 2012 • 16 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Emma Hart,

    under 16

    Under 18, surely? Legal to have sex at 16, but cannot legally be depicted sexually until 18.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    Who’s got jurisdiction on that one? A successful attempt would render most prosecutors unavailable.

    Probably depends on the planet. For some uncharted tiny nowhere planet it might just be a small claims court thing. But to take out something like Earth it's really important to go through the proper channels. I'd probably outsource that to Vogons, they know how to do the paperwork.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10641 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz, in reply to Craig Ranapia,

    I know that, but given that all our mass-media owners *are* foreign, it's easier to attack foreign right-wing monopolists than just right-wing monopolists.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • The Ruminator,

    We just put up a piece on the Al Nisbet thing. It's tricky, because yes free speech is a thing, but then also so is not being a dick. And I think the "not being a dick" line was crossed - the cartoonist was free to draw whatever cartoon he wanted, but the newspaper made the call to publish it.

    Not publishing it wouldn't have been suppressing free speech, it would have just been decent.

    Edit: sorry for link whoring.

    Since Apr 2013 • 54 posts Report Reply

  • Stewart,

    That link about Metiria Turei seems to be mis-represented. She's only asking that the Race Relations Conciliator do some investigating which is not the same as 'demanding prosecution'.
    (Apologies if I have missed something in my quick once-through of the linked post.)

    Te Ika A Maui - Whakatane… • Since Oct 2008 • 577 posts Report Reply

  • Euan Mason,

    "But do the lefties who wanted Al Nisbet’s unpleasant, unfunny newspaper cartoons put down with the full force of law have any moral high ground of their own here?"

    I must have missed that. Who called for an actual prosecution of Al Nisbet? Sure the cartoons were unhelpful, borderline racist and not funny, but I didn't see anyone calling in the cops.

    Canterbury • Since Jul 2008 • 259 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.