Mad Monday...

[FuManchu]

There's a problem with that standard. When racial discrimination wasn't illegal you could make that argument but laws are always changing. Free speech has limitations for the overall benefit of society by protecting minorities and the vulnerable.

There is no such thing as free speech. Don't get confused by American jingoism. There are limitations on things we can say and do. All the more reason to allow even the most inane, even the offensive.... because by increasing the limits on what we can say and do is not a direction I want to be ushered towards.

 

[bjgoddard18]

There is no such thing as free speech. Don't get confused by American jingoism. There are limitations on things we can say and do. All the more reason to allow even the most inane, even the offensive.... because by increasing the limits on what we can say and do is not a direction I want to be ushered towards.

Think that's the crux of it, you're irrational fear that we'll become robots with what we can say is more important than protecting minorities and the vulnerable. I see it as a pretty selfish stance, and have no doubt we'd be a much more divided country without those protections like we were even 50 years ago. The Australian racial vilification act states " The right to freedom of opinion cannot be subject to any exception or restriction. However, the right to
freedom of expression is not absolute". It later says "The right to freedom of expression must therefore be balanced against other rights"

 

[PenAndPaper]

To give two pretty clear examples. Just my opinion.

This is ok:




This is pretty poor:

So because one person has a professional makeup artist do their black body paint, that means the one who did it themselves is doing the wrong thing...come on!

 

[AFC979810]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/photos-fnlmw1po-1227045110780/?page=1

Mitch Grigg loses out for going as himself

Hendo as Daniel Talia's cat

Can't wait for our club to come out and scream at Sam Shaw for this disgusting costume. He is dressed as Mugatu who is a known supporter of using child labor to manufacture clothes.

Very insensitive to the thousands affected by child labor.

 

[PenAndPaper]

Can't wait for our club to come out and scream at Sam Shaw for this disgusting costume. He is dressed as Mugatu who is a known supporter of using child labor to manufacture clothes.

Very insensitive to the thousands affected by child labor.

Not to mention Hendo dressed as a pussy...and we all know that sexual connotation. Death sentence I say

 

[FuManchu]

Think that's the crux of it, you're irrational fear that we'll become robots with what we can say is more important than protecting minorities and the vulnerable. I see it as a pretty selfish stance, and have no doubt we'd be a much more divided country without those protections like we were even 50 years ago. The Australian racial vilification act states " The right to freedom of opinion cannot be subject to any exception or restriction. However, the right to
freedom of expression is not absolute". It later says "The right to freedom of expression must therefore be balanced against other rights"

You don't get it. There are laws in place against vilification. There are laws against discrimination.

Show me where these two idiots broke a law in this instance. Show me where anyone had their rights diminished or affected.

 

[gutsroy]

an American playing an Australian playing a black American.

Epic!

Being an actor's no different than being a rugby player or construction worker, save for the fact that his tools are the mechanisms which trigger human emotion.

 

[gutsroy]

For what it's worth, I think it is a bit dangerous for us to imbue some young blokes letting their hair down at the end of a long season with various degrees of meaning / intent / insensitivity based on our perceptions of what they were projecting.
I don't think many of them will have spent much time pondering the consequences or potential for offence to be taken and won't have intended for that.

 

[thurmanmunson]

Another triumph for the professionally outraged.

Greatest post ever.

 

[DangerSloane]

Who has suggested they face legal consequences? You seem to be saying there should be no outrage. It is such a black and white view to say people can act in anyway they want without breaking the law and not be critisiced. I agree comedians should be controversial, but surely you'd agree there's a line. I can't see how trivialising child abuse somehow falls into being acceptable

So dressing up as Osama Bin Laden is trivialising terrorism?

Yeh give it a spell chief.

 

[whitelinefeva]

Blackface is culturally insensitive to Americans.

Suppressing the right for people to take the piss out of others/themself is culturally insensitive to Australians.

Would the outrage brigade please start their own thread and let the rest of us enjoy what is good about being Australian.

Ta

 

[nomadjack71]

Because people don't actually read the news or the reports, they just see the headline, and chinese whisper themselves into a frenzy

What's the age of consent in the UK peanut?

 

[bjgoddard18]

So dressing up as Osama Bin Laden is trivialising terrorism?

Yeh give it a spell chief.

Poor analogy. The correct analogy would be one dressed as Osama Bin Laden and the other as a victim of 9/11 at a mad monday. How would you feel about them doing that?

 

[bjgoddard18]

You don't get it. There are laws in place against vilification. There are laws against discrimination.

Show me where these two idiots broke a law in this instance. Show me where anyone had their rights diminished or affected.

As I asked earlier, who's said they broke the law? I'm simply saying there was considerable backlash for a good reason. The point of bringing up the racial vilifcation laws is because your points were used as arguments as opposition to those laws coming in.

 

[PenAndPaper]

Poor analogy. The correct analogy would be one dressed as Osama Bin Laden and the other as a victim of 9/11 at a mad monday. How would you feel about them doing that?

You know what, I would find it hilarious if one of them dressed up as the 'falling man'. Guess we all just have different senses of humour.

 

[FuManchu]

As I asked earlier, who's said they broke the law? I'm simply saying there was considerable backlash for a good reason. The point of bringing up the racial vilifcation laws is because your points were used as arguments as opposition to those laws coming in.

So, how would you prevent people doing things that are offensive but not illegal?

I'm guessing there is nothing you can do.

 

[bjgoddard18]

You know what, I would find it hilarious if one of them dressed up as the 'falling man'. Guess we all just have different senses of humour.

Again this is about the pair not just one person. I don't know how people can say the public outrage and criticism isn't justified when they have made light of child victims of sexual abuse with their offender

So, how would you prevent people doing things that are offensive but not illegal?

I'm guessing there is nothing you can do.

I'm not saying prevent them, but this sort of public reaction discourages it like other anti-social behavior.

 

[FuManchu]

Again this is about the pair not just one person. I don't know how people can say the public outrage and criticism isn't justified when they have made light of child victims of sexual abuse with their offender

I'm not saying prevent them, but this sort of public reaction discourages it like other anti-social behavior.

Yeah right, until another idiot(s) comes along.

 

[PenAndPaper]

Again this is about the pair not just one person. I don't know how people can say the public outrage and criticism isn't justified when they have made light of child victims of sexual abuse with their offender

I'm not saying prevent them, but this sort of public reaction discourages it like other anti-social behavior.

So you are fine with someone dressing up as someone who jumped from a burning building in one of the largest terrorist acts in history resulting in his imminent death because it was only one person dressed up. Yet are so outraged at the Rolf thing because it was a 2 person costume.

That is exactly what is wrong with people being outraged at this, such hypocrites

 

[bjgoddard18]

So you are fine with someone dressing up as someone who jumped from a burning building in one of the largest terrorist acts in history resulting in his imminent death because it was only one person dressed up. Yet are so outraged at the Rolf thing because it was a 2 person costume.

That is exactly what is wrong with people being outraged at this, such hypocrites

Please point to where I said that? For the record I would see that as humourless and distasteful so don't build a straw man argument to call me a hypocrite. It's a completely superficial point to say the only difference is it's a 2 person costume, you need to look at the context. It's impractical to dress up as someone the way you described, so to use the terrorism analogy brought up it would be like one dressing up as a know ISIS militant accompanied by a journalist holding a fake head. Like the Rolf Harris and school girl duo, it's topical and portrays the victim and offender together in a jovial manner.

 

[SterlingArcher]

That is exactly what is wrong with people being outraged at this, such hypocrites

Yes

I do love how everyone who only criticised Terlich and Georgiou for a stupid choice is considered 'outraged'. I could almost say people are more outraged at people being outraged, you are such a hypocrite.

 

[SterlingArcher]

Paul Roos what a hypocrite

 

[FlowersByIrene]

What's the age of consent in the UK peanut?

What does that have to do with the word "rape" sexual assault yes - rape - no

 

[thurmanmunson]

Did anyone dress up as Adam Goodes?

 

[pebblestone]

So the swasticka is fine to wear In australia?

Would it be fine in India?