Posts by DCBCauchi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Snap.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to DCBCauchi,
Oh, some of the confusion might stem from my loose use of 'it'. By 'raise it as an example' I meant raise the picture itself as an example, not the historical controversy.
I haven't been very clear at all. Sorry.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Can you refresh our memory then as to how it specifically went, then? It’s hard to judge otherwise.
Judge what? Are you deliberately trying to avoid the question I'm repeatedly asking? If you've no intention to answer it, why not just say so?
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to giovanni tiso,
That wasn’t an example of state censorship, though, was it?
No, it was specifically a free speech issue.
But I didn't raise it to relitigate that particular case. Rather, I raised it as an example towards a more general (or abstract) discussion specifying the basis on which it is legitimate to limit free speech.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to giovanni tiso,
And it wasn’t censored here, was it?
There was an attempt to have Jenny Harper remove it from her office at Victoria University, which is why I raised it as a real world example of these kind of issues.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Paul Williams,
That’s not what I though Giovanni was saying, the informed citizenry is one step removed from writing the law, but nonetheless frame it.
The courts interpret the laws on a case-by-case basis, and damn straight the informed citizenry frame the context in which those laws and decisions are made.
So, once again, on what basis do we – and hence (supposedly) the courts and lawmakers – specifically determine the limits of free speech?
It seems to me that the answer directly affects every one of us.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to giovanni tiso,
So how do we go about determining it?
We have laws that define such things and courts that interpret such laws.
Is that seriously your answer? Leave it up to the courts, because there is nothing for an informed citizenry to discuss?
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Che Tibby,
http://www.aasd.com.au/subscribers/list_all_works.cfm?concat=RobinsonPeter
Click on the camera symbol next to the title.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to giovanni tiso,
We draw the line on the basis of whether a statement incites hatred, or not. Which is not always an easy determination to make, but it often is.
So how do we go about determining it?
A better comparison than Guernica might be Robinson's picture vs shouting 'kill all Jews'.
Or maybe patently silly stand-ins instead of real world examples.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to giovanni tiso,
The freedom to paint Guernica and the freedom to shout “kill all Jews” are two fundamentally different freedoms, it seems to me. I still don’t get the connection.
I am not equating the two. I am merely asking, once again, where and on what basis do we, as a society, draw the line?
(It's always all about drawing the lines.)