Hard News: How much speech does it take?
554 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 23 Newer→ Last
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
Che, agreed, but my experience is that it's done to generate support from the (potentially) disenfranchised. Alan Jones is a perfect proxy for the privileged, but his listeners don't live on the Harbour, they live in South Western Sydney.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
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?
-
this comes ALL the way back to my first PA space re-entering post and point! And that is great!v For the vevery idea itself of being 'disenfranchised/marginalised' is the pre-eminent fruit of a doctrine called multiculturalism! How can you continue to deny the resultant paradoxes fair exploding from the scene of Anders Breivik? (i am tempted at this juncture to anagrammatize his name, but just for Islander's oldskool sake, i'll refrain)
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
That's not what I though Giovanni was saying, the informed citizenry is one step removed from writing the law, but nonetheless frame it.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Click on the camera symbol next to the title.
I doubt that anybody, inside or outside of a court, would have much difficulty differentiating between that use of the svastika and the use of a svastika on a Nazi flag, or on the cover of a book in praise of Nazism. This is not an image that would be censored in Germany, where they have specific laws against the use of the symbol. And it wasn’t censored here, was it?
-
"p" for Pomposity? Pugnaciousness?
He is entitled to say what he likes but why so with affected intellect?
Like, whatever dude, you may mean what you say but you sound like a prat.How can you continue to deny the resultant paradoxes fair exploding from the scene of Anders Breivik?
There is no paradox, the guy is a mass murdering nut job. End of story.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Is that seriously your answer? Leave it up to the courts, because there is nothing for an informed citizenry to discuss?
What Paul said. We make the laws. We discuss the use of symbols of hatred in art. All the time. It's a dynamic process.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
provocative piece. also slightly pretentious.
and... unlikely to be censored or cause anyone to murder someone. IMHO.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
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.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
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.
-
son of little p, in reply to
no, that is not the end of the story, and you f**king well know it, 'MATE" Or, should i perhaps say, 'sport'..
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
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.
That wasn’t an example of state censorship, though, was it? Different institutions will have their own rules, and they are likely to be more fluid than the state’s. For instance it’s okay for the Iwi/Kiwi billboards to appear on the streets, but I would be shocked if one was put up on a space owned by Victoria University. And the Dominion Post refused to run the racist Act ad because of its own guidelines and judgment, while the NZ Herald did. In all of these instances decisions are made by individuals or organisations who then stand by them and frankly that’s okay by me.
-
to ask the stark staring painfully obvious, i'm sorry but i have to - if you call Adolf & co "mass murdering nutjobs" end of story, will they go away? Will the Jewish Question itself go away as well? You know it will not
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Will the Jewish Question itself go away as well
Oi, moderators? Are you guys asleep or something?
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
yeah i'm not sure if anyone has actually explained the birds and bees to you yet rich.
hot tip: let them. sayin'O Swiftfeather, my brother. You hung your drum too....prematurely.
It is a hard way, the way of being a man. Sooner or later we all want a thing that is bad. To walk on all fours. To suck up drink from a stream. To jabber, instead of saying the words. To go snuffling at the earth, and to claw on the bark of trees. To eat flesh, or fish. To make love to more than one, every which way. These are all bad things. These are not the things that men do. But we are men, are we not? We are men because the Father has made us men!
His is the hand that makes! His is the hand that hurts! His is the hand that heals! His is the House of Pain! He who breaks the law shall go back to the House of Pain!
-
Go away son of little p, you've not managed to say anything challenging or worthy of debate, your comments are rambling obscenities. I was right to regret engaging.
-
As far as I recall Mr Hitler didn't personally go out and shoot people, had he done that then he would have been locked up as a "Mass Murdering Nut Job" and that would have been the end of the story.
And, what is this Jewish question of which you speak?. -
Che Tibby, in reply to
i have a horrible feeling this story ends up with us cuddling in a tent.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
And, what is this Jewish question of which you speak?
Can we stop feeding the troll already?
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
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.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Can we stop feeding the troll already?
Just handing him enough rope.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
+1
also, i humbly withdraw the previous comment about the robinson picture. have considered, and actually kind of like it.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
No, it was specifically a free speech issue.
Can you refresh our memory as to how it specifically went, then? It’s hard to judge otherwise.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Just handing him enough rope.
Not really. And you (should) know it.
-
DCBCauchi, in reply to
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?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.