 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| David wrote: | | I could also ask Wokko and other opponents of 18C just how far they think restrictions on freedom of speech should go. |
Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. Trying to convince someone or a group of someones to commit violence or aggression. Direct verbal abuse against an individual. Pretty much anything covered by slander, breaching the peace or assault laws.
Any curb on freedom of expression beyond this should not happen. Let ideas, insults, offensive speech be aired and rebutted. Not stopped only through fear. Treat people like adults, not like naughty children you have to threaten. Educate, don't legislate (Abbott should grab that one actually, 3 words, gets the message across, even a moron can understand)  |
|
|
|
 |
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | David wrote: | | I could also ask Wokko and other opponents of 18C just how far they think restrictions on freedom of speech should go. |
Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. Trying to convince someone or a group of someones to commit violence or aggression. Direct verbal abuse against an individual. Pretty much anything covered by slander, breaching the peace or assault laws. |
But the anti-racism laws you hate cover that same ground. Most of the actions taken under the racial discrimination act could, instead, have been taken just as successfully under the civil laws of slander and libel. The difference - and it is a crucial difference - is that prosecutions for slander and libel can only be carried out by the rich and powerful because no-one else can afford the massive legal expenses. This is your real objection to them: not that they infringe liberty of speech (for they do not, they are less restrictive than the laws of libel and slander), but that they allow the weak, the powerless and the racially abused some of the same rights that are given to the wealthy.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | PTID, I just wish that someone on either side of the debate would sketch out the boundaries a little. It seems like on one side we've got people like Atkinson whose otherwise brilliant speech is marred by a refusal to address where the limitation of free speech might lie; but I feel like you're coming from the opposite direction and doing exactly the same thing. My question, then (and I think I already posed this to Tannin earlier on in the thread) is this: how far would you be willing to see freedom of expression reduced if the goal were, say, to reduce oppressive language against minorities? I could also ask Wokko and other opponents of 18C just how far they think restrictions on freedom of speech should go.
That's really where the core of the argument lies, and I feel the restatement of ideological commitments doesn't really help us solve that problem; it just leads us to the conclusion that we need to protect minorities from oppression, that we need to protect free speech from authoritarian control and that where these two goals clash, we need to resolve it. That's more or less where we are now, so how do we work out which way to go?
|
No, that's not the core argument. The received, uncritical, fundamentalist view of the law and our cultural adoration for outdated, US foundationalist and imperialist propaganda is the problem.
So much of this debate is in the realm of imaginary ideas, distant times and hand-me-down dogma on the one hand, and a complete inability to grasp the experiences of the less powerfuldespite the swags of accessible data we have on their suffering, and our ability to see and experience the world beyond the wildest fantasies of humans before uson the other.
The problem you mention is not mine because I don't think the comforting warmth of mental symmetry has anything to do with morality, except by chance. It's not that we don't have genetic behavioural drives, it's just that the reasoning capacity of our advanced fore brains has long outgrown those drives, leaving them a mixed bag.
No matter what people say, in the end all we're left with is maximising wellbeing and happiness. And that means making a calculation, which in this case tells us 18C is a great relief to many, and of no real-world negative consequence to everyone else.
If we see abuse of 18C, which we don't, we can always modify it. I can assure you Jesus will not be offended and strike you down for failing to achieve perfect mental symmetry and fully calming your super-ego.
We have known for years now that the innate genocidal tendencies of our species is something that has to be strongly hedged against, especially on a shrinking multicultural planet. We also know that "free" speech and expression in Australia are at historical highs, while race hate and paranoia have the nation's politics by the throat, with the ALP having all but stooped to the vile standard of the Glibs since the 2001 election.
So the obvious solution is to prioritise, and stop suckling on the breast of some imaginary, decontextualized Ten Commandments view of what law is. In the end the law is the servant of power, and a site for the contest of power. We can use it to codify progress, or we can use it to codify oppression. 18C works well enough, though we might want to bother checking the real-world, lived data beyond Andrew Bolt's puerile self obsession to see just how well it's working.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Last edited by pietillidie on Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:39 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Can you tell me any gossip? What is that feeling like? Who made you the restatement of ideological commitments doesn't help us solve that problem; it leads us to the conclusion that we need to protect minorities from oppression that we need to protect free speech from authoritarian control and that where these two goals clash we need to resolve it ? |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | But the anti-racism laws you hate cover that same ground. Most of the actions taken under the racial discrimination act could, instead, have been taken just as successfully under the civil laws of slander and libel. The difference - and it is a crucial difference - is that prosecutions for slander and libel can only be carried out by the rich and powerful because no-one else can afford the massive legal expenses. This is your real objection to them: not that they infringe liberty of speech (for they do not, they are less restrictive than the laws of libel and slander), but that they allow the weak, the powerless and the racially abused some of the same rights that are given to the wealthy. |
Plenty of no win no fee Lawyers to cover anyone's litigation needs. If there was money in suing Bolt under the civil system then they would've found someone to take the case. If the laws in 18C are covered elsewhere, then they're redundant anyway. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | | Wokko wrote: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gciegyiLYtY&feature=youtu.be
Rowan Atkinson on freedom of speech/expression. |
Great you tube but unrelated to the Andrew Bolt repeal being conducted by the Government that is, repeal of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. |
....... The only way you could see it as not a relvent or congruous discussion is if you were acting in a completely disingenuous way to push your own agenda.
These laws in all their forms, wherever in the world they're found are bad laws and directly and indirectly attack freedom of expression.
Righteous indignation aside, glad you liked it, Atkinson speaks very well when he's being serious, even if people still can't help but laugh at him |
Not quite hairy legs:
Libertarians accusing supporters of the status quo (pre repeal 18C) of having an agenda 
Libertarian arguments resorting to the use of Hitler when discussing free speech & having to repeal 18C because big bad government is gunna get us all is not having an agenda? 
Libertarians willfully misrepresenting 18C & suggesting there has always been free speech is not an agenda
Nope, not related to the reality of 18C at all unless of course one has an agenda to obfuscate the reality of 18C
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Last edited by watt price tully on Sat Apr 05, 2014 10:58 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Great video, Wokko. Before anyone suggests that it's irrelevant to the Australian context, remember that the word "insult" also appears in section 18C of our own racial vilification act. It seems like it's interpreted less broadly here than there, but it's a reminder of where we don't want to go. |
The word insult might be in the Act David but is not a sufficient condition for the the pre repeal 18C too be applied.
In other words, it's a nonsense to suggest, imply or infer that the word "insult" can be successfully used in pre-repeal 18C.
Never has been the case, never was the case & in so far as it is being used in the way you think it has relevance to the You tube & 18C, it again is part of the misleading campaign against it mostly inspired by the tea bagist groups, so called libertarians & other assorted fundamentalists.
Watching the you tube I was wondering why Waleed Ali wasn't making the very same speech?
The you tube is irrelevant to 18C (apart from some tenuous associations).
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | In other words, it's a nonsense to suggest, imply or infer that the word "insult" can be successfully used in pre-repeal 18C. |
If we focus solely on the "insult" part of 18C, this is what it says:
| Quote: | Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to insult another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group. |
Section 18D then lays out the exceptions to this rule:
| Quote: | Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing:
(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or
(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment. |
According to the letter of the law, if I insult you on account of your national origin ("you Americans are all uneducated slobs") and my insult is deemed reasonably likely to be insulting to most people of that nationality, and it isn't found that I did so "reasonably and in good faith" (could such a statement ever be, even as a joke?), then I have committed an unlawful act.
Now, as Tannin might point out here, such a literal interpretation of the law is yet to take place. But oughtn't we be at least mildly concerned by the presence of a law that we're hoping doesn't get taken too literally in borderline cases? If you agree with me on that, then the answer is not to throw it out altogether (as the Government is proposing) but just to tighten the criteria a little.
If I were to speculate on changes to wording, I would probably be satisfied if the words "insult" and "offend" were removed, with "intimidate" and "humiliate" kept along with the rest of the section.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
If I were to speculate on changes to wording, I would probably be satisfied if the words "insult" and "offend" were removed, with "intimidate" and "humiliate" kept along with the rest of the section. |
Which is pretty close to the proposed changes.
http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/Attachment%20A.pdf
Vilify and Intimidate are the new two. Surely that should satisfy Ptiddy as well?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Just another little tidbit for those playing at home to consider.
Section 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which has been in force in Australia since 1980.
| Quote: | Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. |
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | | In other words, it's a nonsense to suggest, imply or infer that the word "insult" can be successfully used in pre-repeal 18C. |
If we focus solely on the "insult" part of 18C, this is what it says:
| Quote: | Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to insult another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group. |
Section 18D then lays out the exceptions to this rule:
| Quote: | Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or
(c) in making or publishing:
(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or
(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment. |
According to the letter of the law, if I insult you on account of your national origin ("you Americans are all uneducated slobs") and my insult is deemed reasonably likely to be insulting to most people of that nationality, and it isn't found that I did so "reasonably and in good faith" (could such a statement ever be, even as a joke?), then I have committed an unlawful act.
Now, as Tannin might point out here, such a literal interpretation of the law is yet to take place. But oughtn't we be at least mildly concerned by the presence of a law that we're hoping doesn't get taken too literally in borderline cases? If you agree with me on that, then the answer is not to throw it out altogether (as the Government is proposing) but just to tighten the criteria a little.
If I were to speculate on changes to wording, I would probably be satisfied if the words "insult" and "offend" were removed, with "intimidate" and "humiliate" kept along with the rest of the section. |
My post said specifically:
The word insult might be in the Act David but is not a sufficient condition for the the pre repeal 18C too be applied.
In other words, it's a nonsense to suggest, imply or infer that the word "insult" can be successfully used in pre-repeal 18C.
It has never been the case that the word Insult on its own is a sufficient basis for successful prosecution.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| What is specifically
[b]The word insult might be in the Act David but a sufficient condition [you]for the the pre repeal 18C be applied[you]? |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: |
If I were to speculate on changes to wording, I would probably be satisfied if the words "insult" and "offend" were removed, with "intimidate" and "humiliate" kept along with the rest of the section. |
Which is pretty close to the proposed changes.
http://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/Attachment%20A.pdf
Vilify and Intimidate are the new two. Surely that should satisfy Ptiddy as well? |
Then you haven't been following the posts on your thread if you think that should satisfy PTID.
My view is "if it ain't broke don't fix it". It wasn't broke.
Because Bolt copped a good smacking for going too far &* being sloppy the mad men of the Mad Misogynist right have wanted to right this perceived wrong to Andrew using the guise of Free Speech.
Brandeis has stuffed this up for the Libs that he has now allowed a lot of backbenchers to feel very nervous while allowing divisions in the Lib Gnats over this.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | My post said specifically:
The word insult might be in the Act David but is not a sufficient condition for the the pre repeal 18C too be applied.
In other words, it's a nonsense to suggest, imply or infer that the word "insult" can be successfully used in pre-repeal 18C.
It has never been the case that the word Insult on its own is a sufficient basis for successful prosecution. |
Perhaps I misunderstood. How is "insult" not sufficient? All the act requires is that you insult someone on the basis of their background and don't do it in "good faith". Seems pretty sufficient to me.
Stui, I was sort of with the proposal until sections 3) and 4). How is a general member of the Australian public supposed to know how it would feel to be the target of racial vilification and this judge what or what doesn't cross the line? And those exemptions seem very broad, considering that what the act has already been reduced to is inciting hatred and vilifying others.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
