Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Sacha,
I'd note that the Human Rights Act is not the be-all and end-all in this matter either.
In the example I made earlier about the Italian constitution, it must be noted that the that articles that protect against discrimination on racial and religious grounds do weigh implicitly on the one that ensures freedom of expression. But the framers said nothing about discrimination based on gender identity, and broadening the constitutional protections to those groups has been successfully stymied thus far. Which means amongst other things that nobody can bring to court Pope Benedict.
(When the same issues came up with regard to the European Constitution, Italian philosopher and European parliamentarian Rocco Buttiglione argued that discriminating against gay people is a fundamental right.)
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to DCBCauchi,
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.
You were responding to me, not to Sacha, and my question concerned the provisions that we have. But I see this is going nowhere.
-
.
-
(To give a concrete example, based on that article the NZ law that bans satirical use of Parliament footage would have been sent back to Parliament by the constitutional court.)
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Russell Brown,
If we had forever codified norms about speech in the 1950s they’d look very different to the ones we have argued our way to now.
The way the Italian constitution (est. 1948) dealt with this, like many other foundational documents of its time, was to enshrine freedom of expression (article 21), and leave the exceptions to the legislators. So the principle – that the state aspires to allow as little censorship as possible – remains fixed in time, while the particulars of what is deemed objectionable change over time. (Except for one thing: the banning of Fascist symbols, along with the prohibition to reform the party, was itself part of the constitution.)
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to DCBCauchi,
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).
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…?
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to DCBCauchi,
I actually think such a bright line exists. It just hasn't been articulated here.
Would you care to articulate it for us?
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Sacha,
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.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to DCBCauchi,
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.
It's not what I'm saying at all. I would like there to be robust principles and good definitions in law, but since they're bound not to be sufficient to deal with actual expression - which is the most complex thing there is - I would expect them to be tested in courts and through the guidelines of publishers and institutions, and for the outcomes of these mediations to feed back into the legislation so that it can be refined.
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.
Do you have specific recommendations to make? How would you deal with the issue?
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Sacha,
Beans are bad for boundaries.
What's this about beans now?