Posts by DCBCauchi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Complaint and culture, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Well, yes – and one really nice thing about Public Address System is that it’s a place where women can feel safe to talk frankly about tough stuff without feeling like they’re going to be told to calm their fevered ladybrains, focus on “real” issues and come back when their periods are over.
Rather, it's a place that has gone to the opposite extreme, where men do not seem to be safe to talk about tough stuff without being told they are patronisingly 'mansplaining' (DC's rule of thumb no. 1094: never treat anyone seriously who treats silly made-up words seriously) and to shut up and listen because any contribution they could possibly make is worthless.
I went back to find Ross Mason's original comment. It seemed to me that he had a valid thing to say that was based on his and his wife's valid and relevant experiences. No-one listened to what he said. He was told he called women cows, and even expressly told to shut up and listen – i.e. that his valid and relevant experiences were considered worthless. I don't see any other way you could take that comment.
And then you all patted yourselves on your backs once more, about what good listeners you are!
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to giovanni tiso,
It might, if you hadn’t been so selective in your quotation. The act says “…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 ”.
And your problem with this is…?
If you’d actually read what I’d written, I obviously wasn’t quoting the Act. I was quoting a specific suggestion (which Sacha quoted) that the definition in the Act be extended to apply to other speech, not just racial speech.
And, to Russell, I never suggested that the bright line I mentioned be based on the societal norms of a particular time. How do you possibly read a specific reference to principles as a reference to societal norms???
Honestly, I do not understand this discussion at all. It seems impossible to say the simplest thing without it being grossly misinterpreted – or in fact read as saying the complete opposite of what it actually says.
I am left thinking I’ve completely wasted my time, once again. More fool me.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Sacha,
David, your beliefs are clear enough from previous discussions here (and I remember you’re not a neoliberal, don’t worry).
Sacha, you stated above that you think it possible I support the 'sustained "othering" of groups of fellow humans ... to disadvantage members of that group' and that I probably 'have deeper issues with the whole notion of collective rights, civil society, or even society at all'.
Neither of these things is even remotely close to being true. I suggest that you do not have a clear understanding of my beliefs from previous discussions at all. In fact, I wonder what the hell you thought I was saying in those previous discussions.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Sacha,
If you want to read the word “issues” as psychological rather than political, there’s little I can do about that.
I am not going to get into tit-for-tat personal observations, but will just note that you’re the one projecting attitudes and beliefs on to me. I don’t know why or even quite what attitudes or beliefs you think I have, and I don’t care.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Would you care to articulate it for us?
I'd prefer a lawyer to. The key phrase, as is mentioned in a quote above, is speech 'with intent to excite hostility or ill-will against, or bring into contempt or ridicule, any group of persons in New Zealand'.
Each of those terms needs to be unpacked (for want of a better term). For example, I have made and will make more works 'with intent to' 'ridicule' 'group[s] of persons [within the art world] in New Zealand'.
(But, and I reiterate strongly, this isn't specifically about art works. I am using them simply as an example of free speech.)
I think the unpacking will show clearly how such works are not hate speech, as well as what would be required for them to be so.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to giovanni tiso,
If you don’t like that, I’d suggest you probably have deeper issues with the whole notion of collective rights, civil society, or even society at all. I find it reassuring that 49 out of 50 New Zealanders do not vote for the Act party.
Whoah there Sacha. Opposition to the regulation of free speech does not an ACT party supporter make.
Um yeah, keep your cod-psychology to yourself thank you very much. I'm just as much a member of this society as you are.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Do you have specific recommendations to make? How would you deal with the issue?
I would like there to be a clear statement of the principles underpinning free speech, one that is clear enough for, for example, the morons making up the National Front to understand.
Free speech is a contentious issue, because all players in the political game manipulate and misrepresent the issues to serve their own ends.
I would like there to be a bright line – a clear, unambiguous line that illuminates itself – that anyone can point to say: see?
I actually think such a bright line exists. It just hasn't been articulated here.
-
I am sitting here in disbelief that I am about to type these words: What this discussion needs is some lawyers.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to DexterX,
The state has the role to play in defining what is objectionable, offensive and hateful – and to dealing with those “publications” and publishers/issuers where that material is criminal
Yes, it does. As I understand it, Giovanni, Kracklite, and others are saying that the basis on which it defines these things is (and should be) on an ad hoc case-by-case basis according to the political climate of the time.
As a publisher/issuer, I'm saying that that is not good enough. Actual principles underpin legal restrictions on our rights, and are the ultimate protection of those rights.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to giovanni tiso,
The lines that DCBCauchi refers to are drawn all the time, but they are notoriously hard to define in universal terms. I happen to think that it’s a good thing, that we don’t have a test that forecloses any kind of argument a priori. If that makes me a question dodger, so be it, but that’s my answer: we have criteria in law; they are tested by the courts; they are continuously updated as society and the media evolve.
That's much clearer. Thanks. My only response is that something being notoriously hard to do is no reason not to attempt it.