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 DCBCauchi,
My only response is that something being notoriously hard to do is no reason not to attempt it.
It's hard to disagree with that. So I'm not even going to try.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Islander,
Which does rather bring up the rather loaded query – who is an artist?
If the National Front wants to organise a march against Muslims and call it performance art, I think the state will have the right to differ, and to test that claim in a court of law. I also think it is not very difficult to place the Robinson picture in the correct discursive context, and protect it from attempts to censor it. The lines that DCBCauchi refers to are drawn all the time, but they are notoriously hard to define in universal terms. I happen to think that it's a good thing, that we don't have a test that forecloses any kind of argument a priori. If that makes me a question dodger, so be it, but that's my answer: we have criteria in law; they are tested by the courts; they are continuously updated as society and the media evolve.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to DCBCauchi,
No, I think he meant the specific ‘you’.
About halfway. I thought it would be in the interest of artists that their freedom of expression not be subject to there not being any form of censorship whatsoever. And I stand by that.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to DCBCauchi,
Really, how hard is it?
Don't know. Have you read them, for a start? Because that ought to give you a pretty good idea of their purposes and framework. I also think your question has been answered half a dozen times but if that's now how it feels to you I'm not sure where to go from here.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to DCBCauchi,
Hypothetically, what specific criteria should we use to determine whether something is legitimate free speech?
Why be hypotehtical? Have you got any specific problem with the statutes that we do have?
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Steve Barnes,
Gio’s opinion, apparently.
Don't be disingenuous.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to giovanni tiso,
I thought I had already given you my opinion.
Except to say this, and then leave the presents for a couple of hours: if your beef is with the fact that issues of free speach can be raised at all, I think it would serve artists poorly. You want people to be shocked at Pakeha Have Rights Too, you want some of them to demand that it be removed from public view, or destroyed. And not because courting controversy pays off, but because provocative statements are provocative only if there is that tension in society, a willingness to be confronted and even outraged. The role of our civic institutions in such instances is (or should be) to protect art and artists, and to draw the line between freedom of expression and the statements that actually incite hatred. Drawing the line is important, as you say. Free speech absolutism doesn’t allow you to do that.
-
If the example is the picture itself, I thought I had already given you my opinion.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to DCBCauchi,
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?
It’s hard to judge on the merit of a case I’m ignorant of. Specifically: did the people who wanted the artwork removed appeal to the university, or to the police or the courts? Was the complaint formally addressed? Was it upheld? Since you’re insisting to make a real world example, which I find laudable, I’d like to have the details before I comment on it.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Steve Barnes,
Just handing him enough rope.
Not really. And you (should) know it.