Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Keir Leslie,
I think there’s a huge overestimation of how important people like Family First are
I don't think I've over-estimating this. I think that in New Zeleand they have a much lower chance of successfully arranging a situation where far fewer people get to see or hear a particular viewpoint than people who are progressive.
However, I now how recent this phenomenon is, and I don't assume that it will necessarily last forever. I can easily conceive of events in New Zealand that could get liberals shouted down or hounded from the airwaves as 'terrorist sympathisers 'or the like.
I suspect I could have made many of the same arguments I make here in a post at the time Family First was campaigning against Into the River, and they would have been far less controversial. I chose to make them here precisely because I do oppose what Willie and JT were saying.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Lilith __,
But I expect lawyers to use language precisely, and that clearly is not happening here.
I think I have. I see very little difference between what Russell thinks an advertiser boycott would include, and what I understand happened here.
I suspect we get pretty close to agreeing what the threat of an advertiser boycott involves. I just think the test is either met, or is so close to being met that the distinction does not matter in the present case. Russell disagrees.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
It was quite a process, it began before they even received Giovanni’s email, and people there felt quite strongly about taking a stand.
And they did. And it's a stand I have not slated them for. I'm pretty confident from your description that they fully weighed the pros and cons - that's all I'm asking of anyone.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
Meaning that only speech that I (as a good lefty liberal) like will be threatened, whilst speech that the bad guys (Family First, etc) like will flourish unencumbered. Which actually is the worst of all possible worlds for me.
I will make the same argument to Bob McCoskrie, and hope to be (at least partially) successful. Bob is highly concerned about censorship (state or otherwise) of traditional Christian views about a range of issues, such as same-sex marriage. There will be a number of issues where Family First thinks the risk involved is worth it (and I imagine Into the River would be one of them), but on a lot of issues, I'd like to think that Bob could realise that his calling to limit free speech in some way could come back to bite him.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Lilith __,
This is not what banning a book looks like. It’s still freely available , it’s just not stocked in some stores.
No, it's not. But I think Breaking Silence, a book about how poverty and the underclass, and cycles of deprivation can lead to tragic results, and about how we have to do something about child abuse gets a lot closer.
No, it's not completely banned, but that isn't the point. If there is speech you think is important, you want as many people as possible to see it or hear it. If if people take actions that mean that fewer people will hear an important message, that is detrimental.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Lilith __,
And when is our turn, Graeme? When?
But you got Willie and JT off the air: surely it’s your turn now?
edit: sorry, that's a little snarky, but part of my point is that stopping people you don't like from speaking widely doesn't actually make it easier for you to get your message out there. If the aim of those who were campaigning against Willie and JT was to get a voice for those who hold opposing views into mainstream commercial media, then they have failed dramatically.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
That is NOT what Gio did, but I suspect many people like me extended the questioning of advertisers desire to be associated with Radio Live to what would amount to a change in purchasing behaviour (a boycott by any other name).
Yeah, that too :-)
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Russell Brown,
I want you to show us the boycott first.
As kiwicmc notes, Giovanni discussed his campaign as follows:
The more prosaic truth is that SPONSOR BOYCOTTS, far from leading directly to gulags and the mass murder of heretics, are a very limited tool that is available to us in the circumstances – likely to be most rare – when events call for it, and most specifically when the issue that is being campaigned around relates to the consumption of hate speech. One of the key aspects that made the Amy interview stand out to the extent that it did is that it was packaged as a podcast, so that the people who didn’t listen to the show would be able to access it, and was even included that evening in promos for the show scheduled for the next day (on this point, and the blame that pertains to RadioLive, see Matt McCarten’s column). So, far from being something that just happened in the natural course of strong opinions being voiced, and that the station regretted, the segment immediately became a product for sale. It is only at that point that it made sense to attempt to disrupt the commercial side of the arrangement, even if it meant enlisting the help of a bunch of PR departments.
[ EMPHASIS added]
I’m happy to disagree with him on this as well :-) but should I need to?
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to ChrisW,
Graeme – in writing this lengthy post, did you at any point pause to think it possible that you may be mistaken?
I did. That's a large part of why I included lots of may's and might's etc.
And why, instead of calling for people to not boycott speech they don't like, I simply asked people to weigh the consequences before boycotting. I cannot expect my views to hold sway. Some people will think that some boycotts are worth the risks I mention.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Lastly, I’ve said it before, but the old adage of shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre comes to mind.
That analogy of Oliver Wendall Holmes was hilariously inapt. It came in a decision upholding convictions for publishing pamphlets opposing the draft during World War I.