Australian Politics (1 Viewer)

[soloooooo]

The point was it should have been shut down long ago.

 

[soloooooo]

Cronulla wasn't the problem, it was the people involved in it who were.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e-of-law-for-all/story-fn7078da-1226256676325

 

[Chemical Ali]

so is craig thompson clinically insane and metaphorically and arguably physically digging his own grave or is he involved in the biggest political scandal australian politics has seen?

The Right (tm) should jump on his side so they can write about Union Thugs who framed an innocent guy when he tried to make some changes, or like whatever

 

[Lolsmith]

Fuck, I had to venture onto the IPA to get an article about abolishing payroll tax it's just this haze of right wing wank. Save Andrew Bolt, shut down the tent embassy blah blah blah. I thought it was meant to be a libertarian thinktank, that place is full blown fascism.

I think you have a severely convoluted idea of what fascism constitutes

or am I being trolled

 

[Lolsmith]

The Andrew Bolt stuff you came across, was it a specifically "free speech" thing and not a "he was actually correct" thing?

Because yeah free speech is the reason you're allowed to have an opinion

 

[Annihilist]

Andrew Bolt should not be under fire for having an opinion, regardless of what that opinion entails. If it's a trash opinion, we can all disregard it and move on - which we should be doing with Andy here. Don't silence him, just ignore him.

 

[Lolsmith]

Oh come on, get real.

Look mate not all of us hate freedom all right

 

[funkshen]

all heil chris asberg

 

[Graney]

Andrew Bolt should not be under fire for having an opinion, regardless of what that opinion entails. If it's a trash opinion, we can all disregard it and move on - which we should be doing with Andy here. Don't silence him, just ignore him.

Should he be under fire when he lied and defamed people?

The Racial Discrimination Act upholds free speech, stating "insulting or humiliating people because of their race or colour is not unlawful when it is done "reasonably and in good faith" in pursuit of a matter of public interest."

But Bolt made false and defamatory allegations, that were not in the public interest.

 

[Annihilist]

Should he be under fire when he lied and defamed people?

The Racial Discrimination Act upholds free speech, stating "insulting or humiliating people because of their race or colour is not unlawful when it is done "reasonably and in good faith" in pursuit of a matter of public interest."

Who gets to decide that? It's not free speech if it's filtered.

But Bolt made false and defamatory allegations, that were not in the public interest.

Why are we so interested...in things that are not in the public interest?

If someone says false, trashy, cheap, or defamatory things, we should just ignore them. Because Andrew Bolt's not worth shit, and we know that (solooooo can be in the minority of course). So why are we giving him the leverage he does not deserve? His opinion doesn't matter, so why do we treat it like it does matter?

 

[Graney]

Who gets to decide that? It's not free speech if it's filtered.

Why should free speech include licence for slanderous statements?

If someone says false, trashy, cheap, or defamatory things, we should just ignore them.

Doesn't that enable the powerful to slander the powerless without repercussions? We should ignore false and defamatory statements, but in practice that doesn't always happen.

Those who have power and a public voice can destroy businesses and individuals with their word. Those without power don't have any guarantee of a voice if they don't have defamation law.

 

[funkshen]

limitations on free speech do not imply censorship. for instance, andrew bolt was free to defame others, and free to suffer the consequences. his freedom to speak was not stricken.

 

[Annihilist]

Unfettered free speech is just plain dumb. How can it possibly be in the social interest for the victim in a pedophilia case to have their name, address and contact details published in the national press?

Privacy is another issue entirely.

But you would defend such actions as an exercise of free speech would you? What if someone slandered the name of a doctors surgery, leveling accusations of dangerous malpractice with no foundation in fact? You would defend that as an exercise of free speech? The current debate about freedom of speech has been distorted by this fetishisation of a a catchy sounbite.

"What if? What if? What if...?" You are bringing up hypotheticals which are irrelevant to what I was defending. All these specific circumstances where my reasoning may fail, which are not as relevant to free speech as you might think.

But I will address your points anyway. As I said earlier, a victim of child molestation has a right to privacy, as does anyone. Of course. It's not free speech to spread someone else's personal details in the public domain. Your second instance is a little more complicated however. What sort of malpractice would we be talking about? Is is believable or not? How do we know it's slander/lies, and not just a confused idiot spreading bullshit? But more importantly, do we, the rest of the people, or the government, have the right to label another's statements? Do we get to call the validity on what other people say? There's a much higher probability of slander sanctioned by the state in the form of "censorship", where the government pulls rank on those trying to exercise free speech because what they are saying is deemed "inappropriate" or "false" by those in charge.

You have to have free speech, because who is in charge of what is acceptable or not? How do we know their verdict is fair, just, and balanced, and not biased to one side? And another thing - why is it's the government's role to strip away our rights to express what we think, regardless of how stupid these thoughts are? But I am digressing, I know.

We should fight dearly to ensure everyone has a voice, that we be able to plead our case for defense in a court of law, that we be able to advocate political ideas and policies publicly and freely but this does not mean we can say whatever we want, whenever we want without an iota of persona responsibility. What Andrew Bolt did was publish falsehoods about people in the national press. It was tawdry, squalid conduct and he has no business pretending he has been denied a human right.

The problem with your idea of "a voice" is that your voice is only allowed to be heard if it's approved by respective authorities. You can only say what you are allowed to say, and that's not a voice. It's the government's voice; it's the law's voice. It's not your voice if you can only say what's already approved of.

Andrew Bolt is insignificant. If what he says was so ridiculous, false, stupid, untrue, slanderous, then why do we care? We can dismiss it as idiocy and move on. We shouldn't be attacking and persecuting him, because he's not worth it. He can continue to exercise his free speech, everyone can ignore him, no one get's offended (because nothing he says has any real leverage) and we no longer get any media coverage of the guy. Stop wasting good paper and energy on talking about this useless fuck.

 

[Annihilist]

Why should free speech include licence for slanderous statements?

Free speech is free speech. Regulating free speech defeats the purpose of free speech.

Doesn't that enable the powerful to slander the powerless without repercussions? We should ignore false and defamatory statements, but in practice that doesn't always happen.

Because people are stupid and give weight to stupid comments where it isn't due.

Those who have power and a public voice can destroy businesses and individuals with their word. Those without power don't have any guarantee of a voice if they don't have defamation law.

How is that possible? If power is word, doesn't that illustrate the insane naivety of the people? Should we be trying to protect the naive, or teaching them to be less so?

 

[funkshen]

claims it's not free speech when its filtered

proceeds to rationalise certain filters to free speech

then pretends to speak for anyone defamed by andrew bolt

what a fascist.

 

[Graney]

Because people are stupid and give weight to stupid comments where it isn't due.

It's not necessarily that people are stupid, most of the time people simply don't have the available information to determine whether or not a statement is reliable. If the public believe the individual making the slanderous statement has been reliable in other instances, they have good reason to erroneously believe they are reliable in the instance that they make a slanderous claim.

In the Andrew Bolt case, most of the 'professional aborigines' were unknown to 99% of the population, most people couldn't easily research Bolts claims about them, and it fits the existing predjudices of many people so they wouldn't critically evaluate those claims. Their reputation was damaged in a way that could easily cause them financial and personal loss. They are an uninteresting and a small enough target that no equally powerful media source is going to defend their reputation.

How is that possible? If power is word, doesn't that illustrate the insane naivety of the people? Should we be trying to protect the naive, or teaching them to be less so?

I don't really understand what you're saying? Statements (words) by powerful people and organisations have a lot of influence. For people to believe claims made from authority doesn't necessarily demonstrate 'insane naivety'. Often that power and influence is well deserved and used appropriately, and it is wise for people to believe the statements being made by an individual in a position of authority.

If this power if abused to make slanderous claims, and the individual being slandered has much less power and influence than the person accusing them, they will have a tough time restoring their reputation if they don't have access to defamation law.

 

[Annihilist]

claims it's not free speech when its filtered

proceeds to rationalise certain filters to free speech

then pretends to speak for anyone defamed by andrew bolt

what a fascist.

The only time I came close to that was when I said that distributing someone else's private details doesn't come under free speech. I defended a hypothetical rape victim's anonymity and privacy.

Edit: I'm going to clarify that. It doesn't come under free speech in my opinion because it's merely relaying someone else's information; it's taking someone else's phone number, name, address, and distributing it. There is no (strictly speaking) speech involved, no expression; merely exposing someone else's privacy. It's quoting someone's personal details.

I never pretended to speak for anyone defamed by Andrew Bolt. I gave my perspective; we should stop caring about him.

 

[Lolsmith]

limitations on free speech do not imply censorship. for instance, andrew bolt was free to defame others, and free to suffer the consequences. his freedom to speak was not stricken.

I don't understand your distinction here

 

[Annihilist]

It's not necessarily that people are stupid, most of the time people simply don't have the available information to determine whether or not a statement is reliable. If the public believe the individual making the slanderous statement has been reliable in other instances, they have good reason to erroneously believe they are reliable in the instance that they make a slanderous claim.

In the Andrew Bolt case, most of the 'professional aborigines' were unknown to 99% of the population, most people couldn't easily research Bolts claims about them, and it fits the existing predjudices of many people so they wouldn't critically evaluate those claims. Their reputation was damaged in a way that could easily cause them financial and personal loss. They are an uninteresting and a small enough target that no equally powerful media source is going to defend their reputation.

Fair enough.

I don't really understand what you're saying? Statements (words) by powerful people and organisations have a lot of influence. For people to believe claims made from authority doesn't necessarily demonstrate 'insane naivety'. Often that power and influence is well deserved and used appropriately, and it is wise for people to believe the statements being made by an individual in a position of authority.

If this power if abused to make slanderous claims, and the individual being slandered has much less power and influence than the person accusing them, they will have a tough time restoring their reputation if they don't have access to defamation law.

I don't see how words can have any real power unless they have something to back it up, or to influence the naive masses. To believe a claim simply because it came from authority is naive. Influence is being changed by what someone says because of their status - now to assume the validity of a statement based on the person's status is, in my opinion, naive.

I personally think the perpetrator of a slanderous comment is not the main cause of someone losing reputation. I think when the masses take what someone says against another as though it were truthful without questioning it's validity (naivety) then you end up with damaged reputations and serious defamation. That's my opinion.

(Edit: "You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Graney again")

 

[Annihilist]

limitations on free speech do not imply censorship. for instance, andrew bolt was free to defame others, and free to suffer the consequences. his freedom to speak was not stricken.

But it was limited by coercion. You are free to kill someone, and free to suffer the consequence. That consequence is incarceration by the state; that is coercion by fear of said incarceration. While this is a diluted example the same principle applies.