Posts by A C Young
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to bmk,
However, this is exactly what worries me. When people see how effective it is asking advertisers whether they wish to be associated with x (and I’m sure other people/groups have noticed the effectiveness of this). Advertisers are naturally safe and if they all choose to only advertise in concordance with something they like – everything will end up very bland and boring.
So I think I’ve finally been swayed – ironically by someone arguing for the other side.
You're talking about this as if it is some kind of new phenomenon, when in actual fact it's been going on since advertisers started sponsoring speech.
If it hasn't resulted in bland and boring speech by now then it is very unlikely that it is going to.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Danielle,
It's a bit bewildering spotting one here...
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
And some of the people who oppose your view think your speech is pro-rape. They think that the things you say mean that there will be more victims of rape. So are they justified in trying to stop you from speaking?
You're acting as if those people aren't already attempting to control the conversation by bullying rape victims and their supporters.
You seem to be ignoring everyone who points out that your comfortable theoretically correct argument has a massive and painful practical impact on a number of people.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Swan,
I assume everyone disagreeing with Edgeler thinks editorial indepedence is a dumb idea?
I don't see how protesting the actions of talk-back hosts implies any lack of belief in editorial independence.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Except that they had stopped, before they were taken off the air.
By stopped, do you mean stopped talking about this case?
Or do you mean that they had given some sort of indication that they would not attempt to silence rape victims by bullying their supporters or implying that they invited it.
Because they gave no such indication, in fact they implied that they believed that their handling of the issue was appropriate(they even did the classic “I'm sorry if you were offended” non-apology). I don’t think you can say someone has permanently stopped a behaviour unless they have given some indication that they in tend to do so.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Mark Hubbard,
The practical application of your "healthy society" results in silencing young women and rape victims in favour of radio hosts.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Speak using what platform?
Because websites like the Hand Mirror (and public address) have been protesting this stuff for years.
How are the relatively powerless supposed to get their voices heard in a commercial setting without any economic power to back them up?
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to john Drinnan,
People are doing both (and are donating to organisations designed to support rape victims).
There were some large protests over the weekend talking about rape....
It's not a binary prospect.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Tom Beard,
But of course, that doesn't fit into an abstract academic discourse about "all forms of speech" that treats all speech acts as equal.
Except apparently making derogatory references to female politicians, that has to stop (I'm actually in agreement with this but don't see why this is any different than silencing rape victims by bullying them).
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
No obligation on anyone. I'm just asking.
What you appear to be asking is that people who don't have a huge public platform stay quiet unless they can respond via the forms of communication that currently grant them far less power.