Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Stephen Judd,
Which callers would have enlightened them, given the usual dynamic between caller and host on talkback? This idea is just fantasy.
Well, the callers who were actually calling in, for a start. There were enough mentions of them in my facebook and twitter feeds to be confident there were quite a few.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Russell Brown,
And he uses the word “boycott” 24 times in this post.
I’m a bit taken aback, to be honest.
Well, weren't a lot of things I was talking about, undisputed boycotts? What word would you have me use?
And you may disagree, but I do consider that the advertisers here were being made to bear a responsibility for things said on Radio Live over which they have no control. And I think they were getting the message that they would suffer economically if they didn't pull advertising. There may be a difference in emphasis, but I'm not seeing a major difference in principle. Pressure was placed on advertisers to do something about the content of a news commentary show.
I would also note that discussion of Roast Busters is being used by me as a springboard to a wider discussion about a variety of speech aimed at silencing (or reducing the reach) of others.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Stephen Judd,
The kinds of culture war censorship that Graeme alludes to don’t have parallel support in this country and I doubt they ever will.
Some bookstores have pulled Into the River.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Emma Hart,
This. Of course advertisers think about associations when they choose where to advertise. We do make connections between two things we hear or see right next to each other, and advertisers have every right to decide what associations they want their potential customers to have.
Please point me to where I said they didn't. Because I'd like to amend it, if you really think that's what I said.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
You argue that we shut down discussion, well I’d argue the reverse, there was far more discussion of what rape-culture actually is because of the boycott, certainly in our tea room and in the media I saw.
But what was the audience for that discussion? Was it people who listened to Willie and JT interview Amy?
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Deborah,
I’m hearing overtones of a fancied up version of “women, get to the back of the bus and wait your turn” in this analysis.
Well, I certainly didn't expect everyone to agree with me, but I wasn't anticipating this response.
I guess maybe I suggesting that the better option is to take your turn at the same time as others, rather than silencing others so you can speak?
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to BenWilson,
Considering the Roast Busters are 25 years my junior, that’s not really fast enough. It’s only going to die if society actually kills it.
Whereas I'd say: it's not going to die until you counter the idea, rather than silence some of those who give it wide currency.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Oh and from someone prone to long posts my personal feeling is that if you have to write 10 pages to justify your position it’s worth taking a long hard look at your position because you are probably wrong.
I tried it in 140 character pieces, but it didn't seem to be getting through.
And I know this is too long. It's around 3500 words, and I have the sense that there is a 2000-word article I'd have really liked in there, but if I'd taken the time to write that, I'd have been too late for the debate.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to James Butler,
I have no trouble deciding which of these speeches is worth protecting.
And other people have no trouble deciding either, they just disagree. There are plenty of people out there who consider that telling women that "no means no" is dangerous because it they don't think it will protect women from rape, and may discourage actions they consider would protect women from rape.
-
Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you…, in reply to Thomas Beagle,
That was a good article and I generally support the idea of “more free speech”.
That’s a nice change: when Breaking Silence was about to be released, the spokesperson for the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties was in favour of bookstores refusing to stock it :-)