Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

Read Post

Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you may be mistaken

394 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 16 Newer→ Last

  • Keir Leslie, in reply to Andrew Geddis,

    I'm not so worried about the principled argument, because I don't really care, but on the utilitarian argument, I think there's a huge overestimation of how important people like Family First are. When you get down to it, us godless sinners win these fights way more than we lose. Too much of the godless sinner faction lives in a world where we're an weak minority that needs to be perpetually cautious. I don't think "let's not annoy Family First" is anything like a good deal for the godless sinner faction, because even when Family First get angry, we generally win.

    Also yeah late captialism unequal power structures the hegemony/patriarchy etc so no sympathy for Willie and JT, but that's surely obvious.

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    I suppose that if you think using elite opinion to threaten a boycott to shut down Wille and JT is fine, then that is great and hunky dory – if that is what you wanted then you’ve got it.

    The whole Roastbusters story may turn out to be to be of much less substance than it has being portrayed or is currently supposed – I note that no one has been able to find JT & Willies now famous Amy, and nor have the police yet laid any charges despite the fact that the bosses upstairs will now be making sure no stone remains unturned. None of this lack of actual concrete evidence however has prevented our liberal elites engaging in an hysterical moral panic and a determined witch hunt against it’s enemies like Wille and JT.

    You know, I’ve been looking at how the NIMBYs of Grey Lynn have been handling criticism of their attempts to stop the Bunnings store in Great North road. Same sort of people as post on here, same sort of comments. Patronising, smug and condescending are words that come up time and time again when people talk about how liberal elites dismiss those that disagree with them.

    Let’s draw a longish bow, and go to a land far, far away (well, Canada) where Toronto Mayor Rob Ford still, it seems, commands considerable support. An article just now in Toronto Life examines this –

    …The anti-Ford camp tends to explain this stubborn refusal to accept mounting evidence as a symptom of the culture war between downtown and the suburbs. On one side are the elitist downtown progressives who favour transit, walkability, cycling, densification, lattes and street festivals; on the other side are the suburbanites, who prefer private space, low-density living, commuting by car, Tim Hortons and backyard barbecues.

    This narrative doesn’t tell a true story about Toronto. There is a deep divide in the city, but it’s a class-based conflict between haves and have-nots—or, more precisely, between neighbourhoods with improving prospects and neighbourhoods on the decline. And Ford Nation hails largely from the latter…

    What the people on this site don’t seem to be able to grasp is that are elitist and (largely) part of the elite; Wealth disparity is huge in NZ and when the liberal elite speak they are speaking with the voice of the rich, and more often than not talking down to the poor. This goes to the heart of this “free speech” argument. Free speech to shut down JT and Willie is easy when you are an articulate part of the educated elite with access to the media.

    But what if you not from the elite? What if you are low paid, struggling and not so good with the grammar and feel bullied by the cruel words of the well-off clever clogs? If your “free speech” is drowned out in a barrage of sneering comments from people smarter than you? What if JT and Willie talk in your accent and in your words? When I look at Rob Ford I see an electoral reflection in the mirror of the patronising liberal elites of Toronto, a symbol of the resentment generated when economic winners lecture economic losers about how they should think. A majority of Toronto’s voters would rather have an obscene, obese, crack smoking drunkard and criminal as mayor than another smug liberal. What should that tell us about the universality of liberal values? What should that tell us about what most people in Toronto think of the opinions of what to them are snobby university lecturers and stuck up journalists telling what is and isn’t acceptable on the radio?

    So what is good for the goose is sauce for the gander, so don’t come whining when the greater voting power of the whatever form the local version of the Ford Nation will take (Slater Town?) sees our very own Rob Ford approving a chicken rendering plant in Hakanoa Street as much because he knows it’ll have his supporters in Papakura chortling into their beers around the BBQ at the comeuppance of those smug pricks in their flash two million villas as anything else.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2213 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to Lilith __,

    But I expect lawyers to use language precisely, and that clearly is not happening here.

    I think I have. I see very little difference between what Russell thinks an advertiser boycott would include, and what I understand happened here.

    I suspect we get pretty close to agreeing what the threat of an advertiser boycott involves. I just think the test is either met, or is so close to being met that the distinction does not matter in the present case. Russell disagrees.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3202 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    Graeme's argument would have more weight if Radio Live was some sort of open agora where all ideas got an airing. It isn't.

    Like all NZ mass media, Radio Live is owned by a foreign multinational with a definite agenda and interests to promote. Their preferred broadcaster is a full-on righty, like Leighton Smith. Recognizing that such views might not work with some sectors of their audience, their fallback position is to find a pseudo-labour figure willing to promote an agenda filled with bigotry and division.

    Hence Willie & JT. Hence also Shane Jones - who was enthusiastically promoted by the right wing media as Labour leader despite having values that entirely diverged from the party norm and negligible support from the membership.

    Any action that undermines mainstream radio is thus fine by me. One of the things that gives me hope is that the financial underpinnings of all ad-financed broadcasters are increasingly shaky, and it might not be that long before they're gone.

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

  • Keir Leslie,

    Tom Semmens comes from a world where the rich vote Labour and the poor National.

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report Reply

  • Tim Hannah, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    Yeah, teenage girls, always with the lying about rape. Now that that's dealt with, shall we talk about important man stuff?

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 228 posts Report Reply

  • A C Young,

    So just to get this straight, if you're attempting to bully an 18 year old girl on air...that's speech that should not be protested (or at least not protested loudly enough that it might concern an advertiser).

    But if you ask an advertiser their opinion of that speech then you're shutting down free speech.

    The fact that the 18 year old's speech (and any other young woman who might have thought about commenting on the issue) was in reality pretty severely curtailed as a result of this interview doesn't factor into this at all.

    Wellington • Since Feb 2011 • 35 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to Keir Leslie,

    I think there’s a huge overestimation of how important people like Family First are

    I don't think I've over-estimating this. I think that in New Zeleand they have a much lower chance of successfully arranging a situation where far fewer people get to see or hear a particular viewpoint than people who are progressive.

    However, I now how recent this phenomenon is, and I don't assume that it will necessarily last forever. I can easily conceive of events in New Zealand that could get liberals shouted down or hounded from the airwaves as 'terrorist sympathisers 'or the like.

    I suspect I could have made many of the same arguments I make here in a post at the time Family First was campaigning against Into the River, and they would have been far less controversial. I chose to make them here precisely because I do oppose what Willie and JT were saying.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3202 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Same discussion on Dimpost recently, even featuring some of the same commenters. Meh.

    Unanswered question there though - what it is about speech that some are so obsessed with, as opposed to other factors that shape and constrain real people's lives?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19697 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __, in reply to Tim Hannah,

    Yeah, teenage girls, always with the lying about rape. Now that that’s dealt with, shall we talk about important man stuff?

    I personally think child rape is much the same as opening a hardware store.
    </sarcasm>

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3890 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Beard, in reply to Keir Leslie,

    And with a view that seems strikingly similar to that of the 23rd-ranked Libertarianz candidate.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1040 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    I think I have. I see very little difference between what Russell thinks an advertiser boycott would include, and what I understand happened here.

    I suspect we get pretty close to agreeing what the threat of an advertiser boycott involves. I just think the test is either met, or is so close to being met that the distinction does not matter in the present case. Russell disagrees.

    But a boycott is about what consumers do! Not about what companies do.

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3890 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    I personally think child rape is much that same as opening a hardware store.
    </sarcasm>

    Thanks for so fulsomely proving my point.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2213 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Bryce Edwards has a roundup with various links.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19697 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens, in reply to Keir Leslie,

    Tom Semmens comes from a world where the rich vote Labour and the poor National.

    You have no idea what world I come from, you patronising prat.

    You now, so far I’ve had about five replies, all of which have sought to belittle me personally, patronise me, or bully me into silence by trying to pretend I somehow think child rape is a trivial matter. What a bunch of smug arseholes, but thanks for proving my point so well.

    Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2213 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    Thanks for so fulsomely proving my point.

    You're the victim here, obvs. Along with Jackson and Tamihere, who have no influence or power of their own.

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3890 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    You now, so far I’ve had about five replies, all of which have sought to belittle me personally, patronise me, or bully me into silence by trying to pretend I somehow think child rape is a trivial matter .

    [emphasis mine]

    To quote you:

    The whole Roastbusters story may turn out to be to be of much less substance than it has being portrayed or is currently supposed – I note that no one has been able to find JT & Willies now famous Amy, and nor have the police yet laid any charges despite the fact that the bosses upstairs will now be making sure no stone remains unturned. None of this lack of actual concrete evidence however has prevented our liberal elites engaging in an hysterical moral panic and a determined witch hunt

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3890 posts Report Reply

  • Tim Hannah, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    Same sort of people as post on here, same sort of comments. Patronising, smug and condescending

    I dunno dude, I think this whole thread is a giant derail, so not too worried about this tangent…

    You start your contribution by insinuating that multiple teenagers might have lied about being raped by multiple teenagers who might have lied about being rapists (which is what you did, even if it wasn’t your intent), go on to call everybody who had already commented and everybody like them “patronising, smug and condescending”.

    Maybe you shouldn’t be surprised that people disagree with you, even strongly.

    And it doesn’t prove your point, it proves that people don’t like massive obnoxious derailments.

    People are strange.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 228 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to Lilith __,

    [emphasis mine]

    To quote you:

    I do not see those quotes as being contradictory.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3202 posts Report Reply

  • sallyr,

    It was quite a process, it began before they even received Giovanni’s email, and people there felt quite strongly about taking a stand.

    Here’s something I think is salient which has been pretty overlooked. Comms teams are often teams of women.

    Women who had been talking about roast busters before the RL interview. Women who were appalled when they listened to the interview, and appalled again when informed by colleagues that their own company was running ads on the show. Who talked sarcastically about calling in to tell W&JT what they thought of them. And then thought, huh, what if consumers actually think we condone this? We should pull our ads. Then Giovanni’s email turns up...

    Since Jun 2007 • 20 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso, in reply to James Butler,

    It's like the Man Ban: if you can convince enough people to call it a duck loudly enough and frequently enough then it is a duck.

    I called it a sponsor boycott a number of times myself. What I meant is that the sponsors boycotted the show.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Lilith __,

    I have to go now, I have an appointment on Planet Earth.

    I hope no one there will call me a arsehole.

    Dunedin • Since Jul 2010 • 3890 posts Report Reply

  • Lucy Stewart, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    I do not see those quotes as being contradictory.

    Oooooooooooooooooooooooookay.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2105 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Lilith __,

    We can’t have a reasonable debate if we get to make up our own meanings for the words we use.

    I don't really think it's going to help make this debate more reasonable to indulge in a fight over language. Even if Russell wins, Graeme backs down, says the word boycott was used wrongly, that makes no impression whatsoever on the substantive case he was making about whether it's an appropriate use of free speech in this instance, or any other. And this could go on for days.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10646 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to giovanni tiso,

    I called it a sponsor boycott a number of times myself. What I meant is that the sponsors boycotted the show.

    That's the meaning I took. Which is wholly different from a threat to boycott advertisers, which didn't happen.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22763 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 16 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

This topic is closed.