Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you may be mistaken
394 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
Fentex, in reply to
If it is adequate, in your mind, for their poor behavior to be countered by speech (such as by callers to radio shows) why is their opportunity to speak any the less now they have exactly the same opportunities as others?
If there's something special about their loss of opportunity to speak then there was something special about their speech.
And if there was something special about their speech then there wasn't an opportunity to counter it by the public by simply speaking up, was there?
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
My main question would be why rights to ‘free speech’ seem to be invoked only to defend dickheads?
Well, I did it because it's harder, and because it's easier to accept my claims are genuine if I am defending the speech of those with whom I disagree.
I suppose I could have started my attempt to persuade people not to engage in speech designed to decrease the speech of others with an article about Into the River, or about about misogyny in politics, but that's low-hanging fruit around here.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
The price of freedom of speech for Jackson and Tamihere on this issue would have been to remind sexual abuse victims of the futility of exercising their own freedom to speak up.
Except that they had stopped, before they were taken off the air.
-
I am ashamed of you all. By refusing to read Mark Hubbard's blog you are violating his rights.
-
A C Young, in reply to
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.
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
How so?
Where did they stop making it clear that speaking up wasn't futile?
I don't think that actually happened. Could be wrong but my recollection of events goes something like:
1) Make it clear to Amy and listeners that speaking up is futile
2) Apologise for any offence caused by reasonable position that speaking up is futile
3) Hang up on callers / throw Hooten out
4) Stop discussing it at all
5) Get stood downIn the middle there they did stop saying speaking up was futile, but the words were still on the table, not retracted. Impact can be seen in places like this, where not many women are speaking up, and those that do are frequently ignored.
-
Had they permanently stopped, or just taken a break? Because "yer honour, I'd stopped robbing houses an hour before the police caught me" isn't a great defence.
-
it perpetuates existing power systems that suppress particular demographics at social and material levels.
I would really love it if this thread - and Graeme - could grapple with what Anne's saying, because I think it's important. If rape apologism is oppressive - and I think it's pretty clear that to a lot of us it really, really is - we seem, as a society, to be approaching the issue ass-backwards.
-
Swan,
I assume everyone disagreeing with Edgeler thinks editorial indepedence is a dumb idea?
(I realise the Marxists like Tiso do, but assume some of y'all are generally in favour of liberal democracy)
-
OK, it took me a while, but I think I get what you're saying Graeme.
I don't think you're saying that JT and Willie getting taken off air was a breach of their freedom of speech (since as all good lawyers know, the right to freedom of speech is a right against State persecution, not against private consequences). I think you're saying only that if I push for them to experience private consequences because I don't like what they've said/done, then I should be prepared for the possibility that some other programming I enjoy but others don't could get taken off air because those others threaten to boycott advertisers.
Fine. I accept that possibility. And in fact, how I wish I had a whole lot more of that power. How I wish that a small group of people phoning Bunnings or, I don't know, Vodafone and threatening to boycott them would have the effect of ensuring that The Block and NZ's Got X-Voice never blighted our screens again. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be enough to just irritate me to get something off-air.
A programme apparently has to offend an enormous number of people at a very fundamental level before there are actually consequences.
If the balance one day starts to tip too far towards "one person rang in and said this programme made them mildly uncomfortable, so we're taking it off air", then fine, time to start pushing back, but it's not even close.
You can argue that it's a slippery slope, but I don't think it is. Maybe it's the top step of a sets of stairs, and at the bottom is the world where I don't get to watch 7 Days or South Park. But I don't see any sign we're rushing madly down the staircase. In fact, from where I'm looking, a lot of the stairs in between seem to be... missing.
-
Danielle, in reply to
Oh god, really? We’re going to have THIS argument now? ”If we stop on-air talkback bullies your right to have Joanne Black natter on inanely in the Listener WILL BE NEXT!” I mean, fucksake.
-
Alex Coleman, in reply to
I’ve not waded in on this because why be yet another bloke saying what’s already been said, but jesus.
and I think it’s pretty clear that to a lot of us it really, really is
This.
The effect of this sort of talk isn't limited to survivors. Rapists hear it as “What I do isn't rape”.
Don’t we have actual no doubt freedom of speech restrictions on speech that could encourage people to commit crimes? And people are getting up in arms about a bit of implied commercial pressure on this sort of speech?
I can only understand this if it’s because they haven’t really grokked yet that rapists hear it as ‘what I’m doing is ok’.
It’s not ok, and social pressure against saying this stuff, is very much ok.
-
A C Young, in reply to
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.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
I suppose I could have started my attempt to persuade people not to engage in speech designed to decrease the speech of others with an article about Into the River, or about about misogyny in politics, but that’s low-hanging fruit around here.
None taken. It's particularly easy when people email me personal abuse for doing it.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
None taken. It's particularly easy when people email me personal abuse for doing it.
Let's swap inboxes!
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I am ashamed of you all. By refusing to read Mark Hubbard’s blog you are violating his rights.
I'm going to call for a boycott against myself. Just give me a moment.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
Let’s swap inboxes!
I'll warn you, people are going to say some pretty confusing things about your tits.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
I'll warn you, people are going to say some pretty confusing things about your tits.
And about your fascist roots.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I assume everyone disagreeing with Edgeler thinks editorial indepedence is a dumb idea?
No, it isn't a dumb idea. What is dumb however is to believe for a second that editorial independence exists in talkback radio. The format is designed to attract controversy and the owners/editors have demonstrated time and again that they only care about advertisers dollars.
That is why the public protest was appropriate.
-
Sacha, in reply to
By refusing to read Mark Hubbard's blog you are violating his rights.
I've been oppressing him for ages by ignoring his wittering fantasy world.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I suppose I could have started my attempt to persuade people not to engage in speech designed to decrease the speech of others with an article about Into the River, or about about misogyny in politics, but that's low-hanging fruit around here.
Haven't seen it elsewhere either. Just lots of blokes 'defending' well-off older blokes who like saying shit about the relatively disadvantaged.
-
Sacha, in reply to
NZ's Got X-Voice
-
Sacha, in reply to
If there's something special about their loss of opportunity to speak then there was something special about their speech.
And if there was something special about their speech then there wasn't an opportunity to counter it by the public by simply speaking up, was there?
Logic win #applause
-
Andrew Geddis, in reply to
You can argue that it’s a slippery slope, but I don’t think it is. Maybe it’s the top step of a sets of stairs, and at the bottom is the world where I don’t get to watch 7 Days or South Park. But I don’t see any sign we’re rushing madly down the staircase. In fact, from where I’m looking, a lot of the stairs in between seem to be… missing.
Exactly.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
OK Graeme, here’s a question. Do you believe that structural inequality – of the type that privileges some voices over others – exists?
Sorry, missed it.
[Assuming I know what the term means] Yes, I do.
The evidence of the post strongly suggests that you don't. But at an even more basic level, I find your inability to conceive of how advertisers *already* shape public discourse quite astonishing. As I wrote in my post, the fact that the near totality of our media rely entirely on advertising revenue means that the message we see and hear are subject to commercial - and not public interest - imperatives, which is why broadcasters are strongly incentivised to offend, exclude, cause controversy. That anyone should think that this is in fact a state of purity to be preserved borders on the grotesque.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.