OnPoint: On Freedom of Speech
326 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
Not saying you shouldn't be able to say it ... but: attacking someone for what they said isn't really what the marketplace of ideas is about.
The marketplace of ideas is the place where we decide that Paul Henry's suggestion that Anand Satyanand isn't a real New Zealander is false, but we do that by attacking the idea, not by attacking Paul Henry.
-
Paul Henry and the marketplace of ideas; what a juxtaposition.
We need to be responsible for our ideas. If I advocate an idea that some people find wrong or reprehensible, I need to accept that people may come to see me as wrong or reprehensible, especially if I hold many other such views.
-
I may not agree with what Paul Henry said, but I will defend to the death my right to say that he's a cunt for saying it.
Thanks for the laugh - I needed that!
-
but we do that by attacking the idea, not by attacking Paul Henry.
I sort of thought the idea was that it was so self-evidently obvious the GG is a 'real New Zealander', whatever one means by that, that saying it at all (and, moreover, defending it) spoke to Henry's character in a way that made attacking him - or at least his place on our nation's TV screens every morning - quite permissible.
I know, I know, play the ball not the man, but, seriously: if people continually engage in really despicable behaviours, there comes a point where you have to say that it's not the behaviour that's the problem - it's them. And, yes, for a TV host it just might be a persona, not their personality; but I'm not sure that's an excuse.
-
Free speech is not the issue when it comes to Henry and TVNZ -- there's a big difference between spouting one's ill-informed opinion and consciously manipulating and enhancing people's prejudice all for the sake of viewership numbers and ad revenue.
Henry incited racism and bigotry. He's a heavily influential character and has effectively told middle New Zealand it's okay to look down on people different to them. Our country's multicultural and multi-sexual composition is fragile enough without him (and TVNZ) pressing people's buttons in order to gain popularity.
It'd be like me running for office in outback Australia and gaining votes by blaming all the town's problems on the Aboriginals and offering to round them up and throw them in jail if everyone votes for me. Taking a swing at minorities has always been a cheap way to gain and maintain popularity.
I'd like to think there's a way to prevent or punish this abuse of free speech without compromising it. But, as yet, I haven't seen any solutions.
-
Hear! Hear!
* applauds Sean's comment enthusiastically *
-
But hey, even the marketplace of ideas has a $2 Shop.
Right on! Thanks for this. A Malcolm Tuckeresque fusion of righteous argument and Olympian swearing.
But ... you didn't get the memo about Public Address Newspeak, where hereafter "cunt" => "twatcock"? (Also, FYI, we have always been at war with Oceania).
-
It'd be like me running for office in outback Australia and gaining votes by blaming all the town's problems on the Aboriginals and offering to round them up and throw them in jail if everyone votes for me. Taking a swing at minorities has always been a cheap way to gain and maintain popularity.
Repeated for emphasis.
I think New Zealanders don't quite get this, because they have no (recent) folk memory of race and immigration riots or large-scale ethnic conflict. Inciting the attitudes that lead in that direction -- and for what? Breakfast TV ratings? -- is just incredibly asinine and irresponsible.
The fostering of a racist environment is a progressive thing. How long before Henry's fan-base feels entitled to pull stunts like this? I'm not joking. 7 years on from Orewa and thousands of hours of race-baiting talkback and "anti-PC" media stunts later, NZ feels ... different. And not in a good way.
-
I think New Zealanders don't quite get this, because they have no (recent) folk memory of race and immigration riots or large-scale ethnic conflict. Inciting the attitudes that lead in that direction...
Caleb: I'm going to call "theatre" on that, even though I know you're coming from a good place. "Incitement" is a term that needs to be used with as much care, and clarity, as "free speech".
I make precisely no apologies for being harshly critical of the Catholic Church's shameful enabling and protection of clerical abusers. Anyone who even suggests that is "inciting" anti-Catholic bigotry (and people who should know better have tried) will be told where to go, and what to do when they get there.
If, however, I start mouthing off about getting a posse together on Sunday morning to burn down churches or assassinate priests, then I'd expect to be having a wee chat with the local constabulary.
Get the difference?
-
The marketplace of ideas is the place where we decide that Paul Henry's suggestion that Anand Satyanand isn't a real New Zealander is false, but we do that by attacking the idea, not by attacking Paul Henry.
That might make sense if Henry's attack on Satyanand had been a 'suggestion', made in good faith. It plainly wasn't. If he'd been someone's learned friend uttering weasel words in the cause of his brief then it might be appropriate to accord him the euphemisms associated with strutting one's fine mind. He isn't, of course.
As it is, all that's apparent is that you seem rather squeamish about Henry being called out for the cynical racist that he's shown himself to be.
-
As it is, all that's apparent is that you seem rather squeamish about Henry being called out for the cynical racist that he's shown himself to be.
Excuse me? I'm sure Graeme can defend his own honour, but did I hear you just call him a racist enabler?
-
Jokes aside, I do believe in the right to free speech
(emphasis mine) no you don't.
free speech is a right with which you either agree, or disagree.
you believe in the tooth fairy. or santa. this whole "i believe" thing kind of gives me the shits.
-
The marketplace of ideas is the place where we decide that Paul Henry's suggestion that Anand Satyanand isn't a real New Zealander is false, but we do that by attacking the idea, not by attacking Paul Henry.
Paul Henry's suggestion and behaviour introduce, into the marketplace of ideas, the idea that behaviour like this is inappropriate, and would be just as inappropriate coming from someone else.
This particular example has also raised the issue to what extent, in a commercial environment, should those who behave inappropriately be shielded from the consequences of their behaviour. Many of the pro-Henry have a position that reduces down to either that advertisers should be forced to stick with Breakfast regardless of content, or that people who lose advertisers for a T.V. station should not be able to be influenced by station management. -
As it is, all that's apparent is that you seem rather squeamish about Henry being called out for the cynical racist that he's shown himself to be.
Call him what you like. Keith too. I'm not going to try to stop either you. Just don't defend those personal attacks as being the marketplace of ideas in action. There are a number of good reasons for attacking people directly, and for attacking Paul Henry in particular, but such attacks are the antithesis of the marketplace of ideas.
It'd be like me running for office in outback Australia and gaining votes by blaming all the town's problems on the Aboriginals and offering to round them up and throw them in jail if everyone votes for me.
Maybe. But I consider that would be a free speech issue.
-
you believe in the tooth fairy. or santa.
Now, about that...
-
Thank you for this Keith. It is full of WIN, along with all the swears. I also really like David Hood's point that the freedom of speech argument some make, taken to it's logical conclusion becomes (even more) absurd. I've been wondering how that security guard TVNZ fired for challenging Christine Rankin had been feeling, prior to Henry going. It seemed that Henry, employed for his speech, was entitled to say whatever, yet someone employed for other purposes was not.
-
Can there be such a thing as pure freedom? Pure freedom of speech? We have censorship; swear words are bleeped out in prime-time. We can’t commit slander.
We expect political neutrality and a respect for people from a state broadcaster. I don’t think Paul Henry had the perfect right of free speech on Breakfast. None of the other presenters made racist comments as far as I know. In defiance of some sort of expected standard or control, he was given a certain freedom which others would not even ask for. There have been many complaints over the years but a concerted sniggering campaign against India culminating in the Dikshit and Sir Anand comments was the last straw.
I don’t think you can blame people, Graeme, for disliking the man as well as his words. I feel kind of bad about the witchhunty nature of the clamour against him but he brought it on himself. We can blame TVNZ too but he has to be responsible for his words.
Funny, isn’t it, that John Key was more critical of Michael Laws. -
There are a number of good reasons for attacking people directly, and for attacking Paul Henry in particular, but such attacks are the antithesis of the marketplace of ideas.
When Henry's called out, it's an attack. Yet when Henry takes a swipe at Satyanand, it's a "suggestion". Have to 'fess up, that distinction's lost on me.
-
We expect political neutrality and a respect for people from a state broadcaster.
ORLY, Cecelia? I didn't notice Paul Henry come lurching out of the Republican closet, and to be frank I don't come away from One News feeling as if my intelligence has gotten any respect whatsoever. Political neutrality is not about political speech you happen to like or agree with.
None of the other presenters made racist comments as far as I know.
I think Keith might have beg to differ, as far as the reporting of quote unquote "Asian crime" is concerned. I've certainly felt increasingly uncomfortable with the tone and (lack of) substance of the pre-Games Delhi belly hysterics -- it might be convenient for TVNZ to make Paul Henry into a Judas goat, but it doesn't wash with me. Perhaps it's unfair dealing the racist card on that, but I can't help but wonder if the tone would have been different if we were talking about construction delays in *cough* less exotic climes.
-
The marketplace of ideas is the place where we decide that Paul Henry's suggestion that Anand Satyanand isn't a real New Zealander is false, but we do that by attacking the idea, not by attacking Paul Henry.
Hmmm. I suppose reasonable people could disagree as to whether Henry was actually expressing ideas, or pursuing sensation, or merely attacking Satyanand's credentials as a citizen.
I actually wonder about the wisdom of giving Henry's comments too much weight as political speech. In reality, it seems to have been more the culmination of a series of adolescent risk-taking actions than a genuine attempt to express ideas: ie, it should be seen as of a piece with the preceding banality of laughing about Sheila Dikshit's name than as an attempt at a commentary on race and identity.
It's so much easier in Michael Laws' case. He trades incessantly on the abusive ad hominen attack, so it's appropriate to call him a twatcock in response.
-
I don’t think you can blame people, Graeme, for disliking the man as well as his words. I feel kind of bad about the witchhunty nature of the clamour against him but he brought it on himself.
I'm not blaming people. I'm saying that manifesting that dislike by calling up sponsors telling them you'll boycott their hotel/whatever is bad for free speech, and that Keith's use of the marketplace of ideas to defend that manifestation is misplaced.
-
I actually wonder about the wisdom of giving Henry's comments too much weight as political speech. In reality, it seems to have been more the culmination of a series of adolescent risk-taking actions than a genuine attempt to express ideas: ie, it should be seen as of a piece with the preceding banality of laughing about Sheila Dikshit's name than as an attempt at a commentary on race and identity.
That's an argument -- but without kicking over that particular hornets nest, wasn't that exactly what so folks were saying about Boobquake? That's not serious "political speech" - it's adolescent exhibitionism to give the blokes a thrizzle.
In this context, I just don't know if I want to start laying out a cannon of intrinsic good and bad speech, as opposed to focusing on the content. You know what should really offend people about Henry's snide bitch about Satyanand not being a "real New Zealander"? By any sane measure, it was a flat out lie.
-
Political neutrality is not about political speech you happen to like or agree with.
True but I was trying to say that Henry didn't really have freedom of speech. Such freedom is always tempered.
And Henry is a National party supporter isn't he? I don't think he quite succeeded in remaining neutral on TVNZ.
As for racist comments, what I meant was that Pippa and Ali and Peter didn't come out with blatant remarks about other people's race. He was given the freedom to do so so and their role was to act mildly shocked. What was that all about?
-
Personally I think freedom of speech is a privilege, one that is protected by some laws but nonetheless a privilege and not a right. The point of the distinction is that it is a privilege we only retain if we protect it from abuse.
Paul Henry does have the legal privilege of making racist and mostly stupidly childish comments on TV. What he doesn't have is any legal protection or any social privilege to remain uncensured by society, or his employers, or those advertisers that ultimately pay his salary.
His actions were stupid as evidenced by the fact he became unemployable. I also feel his were the actions of a bully, targeting people who had no ability to respond. The character he portrays on TV may not be his real persona but I personally feel his character on TV is a twatcock. I can't say I have any reason to believe that his character in real life is any different.
But there is another much less pleasant layer to Paul Henry's attacks and that is they legitimised racism. If you use free speech to do harm to others then you have abused that privilege. At some point you have start questioning the harm that people are doing with their "free speech".
-
And Henry is a National party supporter isn't he? I don't think he quite succeeded in remaining neutral on TVNZ.
Celia: Let's put this baby to bed right now. Paul Henry was the National candidate in Wairarapa eleven years ago. I don't know who TVNZ employees "support" politically, and frankly it's none of my fraking business as long as they don't bring it to work.
And honestly, I don't see much evidence that Henry was more or less of a douche-dildo towards Key than he was when Helen Clark was in the same seat.
As for racist comments, what I meant was that Pippa and Ali and Peter didn't come out with blatant remarks about other people's race.
No they just sat there and nervously tittered away while Henry had a good dick-shit snigger. And vented his misogyny at Stephanie Mills (with a nice side dish of coded homophobia, BTW) and "retarded" Susan Boyle. Thugs and bullies don't exist without enablers -- and Paul Henry had a hell of a lot of them both in front of and behind the cameras.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.