 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
^ indeed, yet more evidence that we no longer even understand the concept. It is a very peculiar use of the English language to say that asking someone not to present a particular work at a particular event, or opining that they should not present it at a given event, is "banning" it. It is not at all.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
 |
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
On the contrary, this is a relevant consideration in the broader contexts of no-platforming and control of what can be expressed in certain spaces. It may be on the edge of free speech, but it's a valid part of the conversation.
My view for a while has been that editorial/curatorial decision-making is a valid exercise and necessarily entails the selection of some viewpoints and not others*. But the minute that editorial decisions are overturned by external authorities or popular campaigns (which is effectively what Abbott is arguing for here), something else is happening: an attempt to signpost that a certain expression or speaker is to be widely condemned and that the act of platforming it (or them) must be suppressed and/or come with negative consequences. That does affect what can and can't be said in the public space, and that is a free speech issue.
*Although it should be noted that certain editorial decisions can be taken with the fear of backlash in mind that is part of what is commonly referred to as an overall chilling effect on free speech, as it necessarily curtails what can or can't be said in public.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
thesoretoothsayer
Joined: 26 Apr 2017
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I prefer politics out of sport, but:
The ARL, as a private entity, should be free to hire whatever performer it wants.
Macklemore, as a performer, should be free to sing whatever song he wants.
The crowd, as private citizens, should be free to respond to the performance in whatever way they want. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well said
And anyhow just how many of the crowd will actually connect that song with the subject? Lucy in the sky with Diamonds had no subject matter for me for about 20 years!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | Macklemore should be deported th moment he gets off the plane and banned for life. Disgusting to even consider allowing this turkey into the country.
(Couldn't care less about his views on marriage equality, but apparently he plays rap. Rap is the pits.)
The NRL needs to hire a world-renowned singer of quality, such as Meatloaf.
Um ... |
nah yeah nah
Man you need to look at the well not quite first ones but pretty classy (of course taste is subjective - my taste & then poor taste)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PobrSpMwKk4
This written by my brothers ex-parter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT8H29ooC0E
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| thesoretoothsayer wrote: | I prefer politics out of sport, but:
The ARL, as a private entity, should be free to hire whatever performer it wants.
Macklemore, as a performer, should be free to sing whatever song he wants.
The crowd, as private citizens, should be free to respond to the performance in whatever way they want. |
Absolutely. And they are. Abbott is just saying that he does not think that the song is appropriate for that time and place, as is his right. It is not "banning free speech" to say so. Would it be "banning free speech" to voice an objection if some of the more misogynistic rap songs were planned, and to urge that they not be played at that time and place ?
Having read the lyric, I think Abbott's wrong in his view, but that's not the point.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | On the contrary, this is a relevant consideration in the broader contexts of no-platforming and control of what can be expressed in certain spaces. It may be on the edge of free speech, but it's a valid part of the conversation.
My view for a while has been that editorial/curatorial decision-making is a valid exercise and necessarily entails the selection of some viewpoints and not others*. But the minute that editorial decisions are overturned by external authorities or popular campaigns (which is effectively what Abbott is arguing for here), something else is happening: an attempt to signpost that a certain expression or speaker is to be widely condemned and that the act of platforming it (or them) must be suppressed and/or come with negative consequences. That does affect what can and can't be said in the public space, and that is a free speech issue.
*Although it should be noted that certain editorial decisions can be taken with the fear of backlash in mind that is part of what is commonly referred to as an overall chilling effect on free speech, as it necessarily curtails what can or can't be said in public. |
Again, how would you feel if the "curator" planned to stage a rap song with characteristically violent and misogynistic sentiments at an AFL final ? Would an "outsider" have the right to argue that it is not appropriate for this time and place, and would it harm free speech if they did so ? Free speech has always meant the right to say whatever you please at reasonably suitable spaces in the public domain. It does not mean saying it at any place and time, regardless of intent or likely harm (the famous Wendell Holmes' judgement invoking someone pshouting fire in a crowded theatre"). Whilst this particular lyric seemed to me fairly unobjectionable, would deploring public obscenity at a football match be "banning free speech" too, in the sense that we usually use these words ?
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Perhaps it's better to see all such decisions as a form of censorship. The question is what we're willing to censor and what we aren't here, affirmations of gay love can reasonably be considered not to be objectionable, whereas (what the general public consider to be) obscene content might be. In those cases, censorship bothers us less.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Perhaps it's better to see all such decisions as a form of censorship. The question is what we're willing to censor and what we aren't here, affirmations of gay love can reasonably be considered not to be objectionable, whereas (what the general public consider to be) obscene content might be. In those cases, censorship bothers us less. |
The degree censorship bothers us is in direct proportion to our care factor, and standing on the issue we are talking about.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Perhaps it's better to see all such decisions as a form of censorship. The question is what we're willing to censor and what we aren't here, affirmations of gay love can reasonably be considered not to be objectionable, whereas (what the general public consider to be) obscene content might be. In those cases, censorship bothers us less. |
^ Yes I think that's right, David, but now that we all agree that there is a line, and the line changes with the setting, then I hope we can logically follow the argument that Tony Abbott has the right to express an opinion about that line in this setting without being accused of "banning free speech" as that term is usually and meaningfully understood.
There are many people with power who would like to do away with free speech, and a people whose conceptual understanding of it is so slipshod, is in danger of losing this precious right altogether.
_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Last edited by Mugwump on Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I don't think anyone has the right to not have their views criticised, fairly or otherwise. He can say what he likes, but if people think that his argument is against free speech then I think they have the right to say so. Ultimately I think Abbott's position on free speech is quite inconsistent, and often seems to closely follow his views on various issues. That being so...
| think positive wrote: |
The degree censorship bothers us is in direct proportion to our care factor, and standing on the issue we are talking about. |
This is why principles are important, as they help deter us from such short-term thinking. The need to draw lines in the sand shouldn't prevent us from striving towards some kind of principle-based approach. Only allowing speech that we approve of isn't ultimately free speech at all.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | I don't think anyone has the right to not have their views criticised, fairly or otherwise. He can say what he likes, but if people think that his argument is against free speech then I think they have the right to say so. Ultimately I think Abbott's position on free speech is quite inconsistent, and often seems to closely follow his views on various issues. That being so...
| think positive wrote: |
The degree censorship bothers us is in direct proportion to our care factor, and standing on the issue we are talking about. |
This is why principles are important, as they help deter us from such short-term thinking. The need to draw lines in the sand shouldn't prevent us from striving towards some kind of principle-based approach. Only allowing speech that we approve of isn't ultimately free speech at all. |
Ok, now it's getting silly. Of course people have the right to say that they think Abbott's argument is "banning free speech". No one is denying them that right. I'm simply saying that their argument is intellectually void, and far more dangerous to free speech than what Abbott said because it fails to understand the principles and the concept of free speech itself.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | Tony Abbott has the right to express an opinion about that line in this setting without being accused of "banning free speech" |
This is why I think it's important to be careful of our language on this it's easy for both sides of free speech debates to confuse criticism with censorship which is particularly unfortunate given that criticism is one of the best forms of free speech we have or to conflate the act of calling for speech to be suppressed (which in itself is an act of free expression) with the thing they're advocating for, or to assert rights where there can be none. It's a minefield that confounds the best of us, but one that I think we have to carefully navigate.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ Indeed, words are slippery things. Is it "censorship" to prevent licentious content or anti-Islam protest being published at a football match ? I think the answer is that yes, it is - but this kind of censorship is not suppression, and most of us know that it does not offend free speech.
Censorship which prevents content from being expressed in places normally suitable for its expression is contrary to free speech principles. So sex acts may be permitted in a theatre, but not usually on a nudist beach, and certainly not in Federation Square. It is "censorship" of a kind to stop them in Fed Square, but it is not really suppression of free speech in the sense that we usually use, or value, that term.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu 
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
He can sing itsy bitsy spider for all I care as long as Storm win!!!! 
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
Last edited by Morrigu on Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
