Society/Culture I support free speech, unless it offends me

[telsor]

 

[Play by Numbers]

Interesting, a true challenge to freedom of speech in Australia. A girl documents the harm done by a logging company and becomes part of a multi million dollar lawsuit aimed at silencing critics.


http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/defendant-5-opening-shot/

Defendant 5 is the personal story of one young woman who learnt that fighting for what she believed in had repercussions beyond her wildest nightmares.

Young filmmaker Heidi Lee Douglas goes to Tasmania to make a film about the effect of logging on the community. She discovers that one company is profiting most from the logging of the old growth forests, Gunns Ltd, the biggest wood chipper in the Southern Hemisphere.

As the campaign to protect the old growth forests escalates, Heidi takes more risks and crosses the line from filmmaker to activist. Community support to protect Tasmania’s forests spreads across Australia and around the world. But the issue is divisive, with timber workers, many of whom work for Gunns, believing their futures are at stake.

Without warning, Heidi and 19 other critics are sued by Gunns for .4 million dollars for allegedly conspiring to harm the company's business. The defendants are a disparate group - elected politicians, campaigners, a doctor, a dentist, an author and students. Together they become known as the Gunns 20.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/defendant-5-opening-shot/

 

[telsor]

Interesting, a true challenge to freedom of speech in Australia. A girl documents the harm done by a logging company and becomes part of a multi million dollar lawsuit aimed at silencing critics.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/defendant-5-opening-shot/

I'm sure she'll be fine, so long as all the facts are right, and the judge doesn't consider the tone 'wrong'.

After all, that's what Bolt got strung up for, right?

 

[Partridge]

He perfectly sums it up. Hitch outlined something similar as well.

 

[benchwarmer5]

I'm sure she'll be fine, so long as all the facts are right, and the judge doesn't consider the tone 'wrong'.

After all, that's what Bolt got strung up for, right?

Ahh no, he was telling porkies

"I have not been satisfied that the offensive conduct that I have found occurred, is exempted from unlawfulness by section 18D. The reasons for that conclusion have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language."
https://indymedia.org.au/2011/09/30/judges-reasoning-in-andrew-bolt-racial-discrimination-case


Political correctness is a card that some on the right (usually conservatives) like to pull out to entertain their victim mentality.
If someone is preaching hateful bigoted views then they deserve to be called out on it. Its not political correctness, its them being a dik and they deserve any kick back

 

[telsor]

Ahh no, he was telling porkies

"I have not been satisfied that the offensive conduct that I have found occurred, is exempted from unlawfulness by section 18D. The reasons for that conclusion have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language."
https://indymedia.org.au/2011/09/30/judges-reasoning-in-andrew-bolt-racial-discrimination-case


Political correctness is a card that some on the right (usually conservatives) like to pull out to entertain their victim mentality.
If someone is preaching hateful bigoted views then they deserve to be called out on it. Its not political correctness, its them being a dik and they deserve any kick back.

That was my point...If the film doesn't contain errors of fact, distortions of the truth, inflammatory & provocative language, etc, then it should be fine, right?

 

[benchwarmer5]

That was my point...If the film doesn't contain errors of fact, distortions of the truth, inflammatory & provocative language, etc, then it should be fine, right?

Yes it appears so
Not sure what happened, my bad

 

[Contra Mundum]

Rupert Murdoch (and a lot of Murdoch journalists including Bolt) love freedom of speech until it comes to reforming the law of defamation in Australia. They are the locus classicus of "I support free speech unless it offends me". Slick Willy Houghton has brought many very profitable defamation cases on behalf of their journalists and old Rupert himself

 

[GTOA]

The Spectator published a well timed article earlier this week:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features...ys-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/.

Read it if you have the time, but his general point is that people are more and more concerned these days about being comfortable in their groupthink than upholding free speech. He relies on two personal examples:

1. He and another journalist were recently banned from debating abortion at Christ Church, Oxford because they weren't women. A group of students protested against the debate on the grounds that the debators ‘do not have uteruses’ and it would threaten the "mental safety" of Oxford students.
2. He participated in a debate at Cambridge on religious schools. However he was shouted down because he had the audacity to suggest that 'lad culture’ will not turn men into rapists.

As he later points out, "I ... spent my student days arguing against the very ideas they were now spouting — against the claim that gangsta rap turned black men into murderers or that Tarantino flicks made teens go wild and criminal". This reminded me of a recent spate of articles about where RedFoo was publicly harrassed by the PC crew for apparently calling somebody a **** in a song (shock horror), after which he ended up issuing a public apology. Obviously these people never grew up listening to gangster rap.

Whinging about other's opinions and demanding censorship of them used to be domain of old bored conservative curmudgeons. Now, however, I'm concerned that the silencing of debate seems to be becoming a more widespread tactic used in society to push an agenda. I open the floor to you.

Wouldn't it be "They don't have uteri"?

 

[Lester Burnham]

I always wonder what the reaction would be if Jimi Hendrix was around today and released 'Hey Joe' as his first single. Would he even make it to a second single?

Welsh rugby chiefs urged to ban Tom Jones' 'Delilah' before matches at Millennium Stadium

Pre-match song trivialises violence against women, claims former Plaid Cymru president


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...lah-before-matches-at-Millennium-Stadium.html

 

[Contra Mundum]

Welsh rugby chiefs urged to ban Tom Jones' 'Delilah' before matches at Millennium Stadium

Pre-match song trivialises violence against women, claims former Plaid Cymru president


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...lah-before-matches-at-Millennium-Stadium.html

Those Welsh names are pretty weird - they have more consonents in a row than Croatian names

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Welsh rugby chiefs urged to ban Tom Jones' 'Delilah' before matches at Millennium Stadium

Pre-match song trivialises violence against women, claims former Plaid Cymru president


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...lah-before-matches-at-Millennium-Stadium.html

Really? Does anybody even know any of the words other than the "my my my" and "why why why" lines?

 

[clogged]

Really? Does anybody even know any of the words other than the "my my my" and "why why why" lines?

I didn't. Lyrics don't seem that bad anyway.

 

[kfc1]

So any song with violence in it trivialises violence? Or is it only when it's a female?

 

[Lester Burnham]

Really? Does anybody even know any of the words other than the "my my my" and "why why why" lines?

Apparently they put the lyrics on the big screen so everyone can sing along. I reckon the fans will react against the comments and sing it even louder.

But then again the Chelsea fans had to behave when they were ordered to stop sing the 'celery song'' I'll leave you to google it

 

[The Coup]

Rupert Murdoch (and a lot of Murdoch journalists including Bolt) love freedom of speech until it comes to reforming the law of defamation in Australia. They are the locus classicus of "I support free speech unless it offends me". Slick Willy Houghton has brought many very profitable defamation cases on behalf of their journalists and old Rupert himself

It is weakness really.

They know if their views are challenged their views will be shown to be racist, stupid and bigoted. So they claim that they are being "shouted down" or the "thought police" are coming after them under the banner of "political correctness".

The reality is if right wingers say dumb s**t, they should be ignored at first.

If they have a platform to keep saying it though, and they profit from saying deliberately wrong, stupid, harmful stuff... the law needs to step in.

They need to be confronted publicly and have their opinions/statements hammered into the dirt.

Then have their bank accounts opened up, show who they are really talking for and why.

Then a public tarring and feathering, then 8 hours in the stocks at Federation Square.

Freedom of speech with real consequences.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

The reality is if right wingers say dumb s**t, they should be ignored at first.

If they have a platform to keep saying it though, and they profit from saying deliberately wrong, stupid, harmful stuff... the law needs to step in.

Should this apply to left wingers who say dumb s**t as well?

 

[Contra Mundum]

Should this apply to left wingers who say dumb s**t as well?

There are a lot of those IN - usually people who come from University Labor Clubs

 

[The Coup]

Should this apply to left wingers who say dumb s**t as well?

Absolutely. Me in particular.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Those Welsh names are pretty weird - they have more consonents in a row than Croatian names

The Welsh sure love their double D's, anyway. The last of the independent Welsh royals was Dafydd ap Gruffydd of Gwynedd, hung, drawn and cut into quarters by Edward 'the longshanks' in 1283.

 

[telsor]

So any song with violence in it trivialises violence? Or is it only when it's a female?

What does that mean for "A boy named Sue"?

 

[Contra Mundum]

What does that mean for "A boy named Sue"?

and President Bush had that guy in the white house - "I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die"- the Man in Black didn't chose the Gangsta Thug Life

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

What does that mean for "A boy named Sue"?

I think poor old Sue became the victim of conservative attitudes against a bloke who had a girl's name. See, in a progressive society he wouldn't have to grow up quick or grow up mean coz if it aint the norm then its called 'obscene'... and it wouldn't matter if he was Bill or George or Sue, Julia, Tony, Kevin or whatever

 

[Milkshaker]

The line "a kid needs a father" is no less a throw away line of convenience than the meaningless "god given right" and no less wrong either.
Many, many millions of children have been raised by just a mother or just a father without any negative effects.
Many millions have been scarred for life, if the lived, by both mothers and fathers, or both.

These old wives tales which some put forward as "over arching truths" are nothing but bunkum.
Two parents are better than one in every instance whether they be Mum and Dad, Mum and Mum or Dad and Dad simply by weight of numbers.
More attention, more resources, more time, more love.

People say it's better to have christian parents..blah blah...well not if you are the kid getting fiddled by the priest.
It's all relative...to the facts.

87% of male juveniles in detention in the US have never had consistent/present/sound male role model in their lives. Find some other reason if you like but this is more than just a coincidence. Being a father is important despite how the current influx of social engineers around us try to spin it.

...........and not every Christian kid has been fiddled with by priests who for no real reason.....you are just being inflammatory.

 

[Milkshaker]

Pro-lifers are often criticized for their position that a new, human life begins at conception. Many incorrectly think that this belief is based on some blind religious dogma, a scripture passage somewhere, or some stubborn need to tell women what to do with their bodies. All the while, this same opposition likes to pretend that they are the scientific, logical ones – obviously not blinded by religion or some judgmental God.

Of course, this is exactly backwards from reality. The entire basis for a new, human life beginning at conception stems from well documented, universally recognized scientific fact. The only ones who deny this are those blinded by their own religious dogma of so-called “choice” who have a stubborn need to deny scientific fact in order to stay faithful to their own ideology.