Society/Culture Has cancel culture gone too far?

Can you string a sentence together?

Defamation law is a legal protection. Cancel culture, on the other hand, generally has no basis in law.

They are unrelated.

Let me say it slowly for you sweeeeeety they are not unrelated.


That is your 'opinion' not a fact.
 
Sep 21, 2004
46,417
52,570
AFL Club
GWS
Can you string a sentence together?

Defamation law is a legal protection. Cancel culture, on the other hand, generally has no basis in law.

They are unrelated.
One is often used by the powerful to prevent speech. It has a legal basis and is exploited by the wealthy to dissuade criticism.

The other is 'an impulse' and has been described as financially lucrative to the supposed victims of cancel culture.

You're right; they are unconnected.
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
One is often used by the powerful to prevent speech. It has a legal basis and is exploited by the wealthy to dissuade criticism.

The other is 'an impulse' and has been described as financially lucrative to the supposed victims of cancel culture.

You're right; they are unconnected.
This is where you descend into incoherence.

If you want to criticise Australian defamation law, that's fine. There are many valid criticisms.

However, it's not cancel culture, which relies solely on "offence" and generally has no basis in law. That's not how defamation law works. You have to demonstrate reputational damage or at least the capacity for reputational damage. You can't file a suit saying "I was offended". That doesn't cut the mustard.

That aside, what are you actually advocating? Do you think there shouldn't be defamation law?
 
This is where you descend into incoherence.

If you want to criticise Australian defamation law, that's fine. There are many valid criticisms.

However, it's not cancel culture, which relies solely on "offence" and generally has no basis in law. That's not how defamation law works. You have to demonstrate reputational damage or at least the capacity for reputational damage. You can't file a suit saying "I was offended". That doesn't cut the mustard.

That aside, what are you actually advocating? Do you think there shouldn't be defamation law?


Do you understand the impact of starting a defamation case against someone who can not defend it?
 
Sep 21, 2004
46,417
52,570
AFL Club
GWS
This is where you descend into incoherence.

If you want to criticise Australian defamation law, that's fine. There are many valid criticisms.

However, it's not cancel culture, which relies solely on "offence" and generally has no basis in law. That's not how defamation law works. You have to demonstrate reputational damage or at least the capacity for reputational damage. You can't file a suit saying "I was offended". That doesn't cut the mustard.

That aside, what are you actually advocating? Do you think there shouldn't be defamation law?
When your brain becomes fried by pronouns, cancel culture and Jordan ******* Peterson, all notion of power and class just melts away.

The mere threat of or discussion of defamation is enough to chill speech. It is a tool used by the powerful.

Little more than an 'impulse'.
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
When your brain becomes fried by pronouns, cancel culture and Jordan ******* Peterson, all notion of power and class just melts away.

The mere threat of or discussion of defamation is enough to chill speech. It is a tool used by the powerful.

Little more than an 'impulse'.
And you've hit the wall, once again.

Tell me, do you think there shouldn't be defamation law? Is that what you're arguing?
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Do you understand the impact of starting a defamation case against someone who can not defend it?
You're describing frivolous litigation? What about it? Make your case.

It's still based in law, distinguishing it from cancel culture, which is not based in law.

Is your position that we shouldn't have defamation law?

Refer to Verdun's question.
Why? You can't answer my question yourself?

Is your position that we shouldn't have defamation law? What do you think would happen if that occurred?

You think it's only the powerful bullying the powerless with defamation suits? If we're talking about media outlets being sued, these are not "powerless" entities. What if it's Joe Public being defamed by a Murdoch tabloid? Would you be so critical of defamation law in that case?
 
You're describing frivolous legislation? What about it? Make your case.

It's still based in law, distinguishing it from cancel culture, which is not based in law.

Is your position that we shouldn't have defamation law?

Why? You can't answer my question yourself?

Is your position that we shouldn't have defamation law? What do you think would happen if that occurred?

You think it's only the powerful bullying the powerless with defamation suits? If we're talking about media outlets being sued, these are not "powerless" entities. What if it's Joe Public being defamed by a Murdoch tabloid? Would you be so critical of defamation law in that case?

'It's still based in law, distinguishing it from cancel culture, which is not based in law.'

Cancel culture.
 
Sep 21, 2004
46,417
52,570
AFL Club
GWS
You're describing frivolous legislation? What about it? Make your case.

It's still based in law, distinguishing it from cancel culture, which is not based in law.

Is your position that we shouldn't have defamation law?

Why? You can't answer my question yourself?

Is your position that we shouldn't have defamation law? What do you think would happen if that occurred?

You think it's only the powerful bullying the powerless with defamation suits? If we're talking about media outlets being sued, these are not "powerless" entities. What if it's Joe Public being defamed by a Murdoch tabloid? Would you be so critical of defamation law in that case?
It's not my position we shouldn't have it.

It's often used to as a threat to speech by the powerful.
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
'It's still based in law, distinguishing it from cancel culture, which is not based in law.'
Yeah, that's right. There's a material distinction between them.

It's not my position we shouldn't have it.
Right, so we agree that we need defamation law, even if there are legitimate criticisms of it, particularly in Australia.

It's often used to as a threat to speech by the powerful.
And media outlets aren't "the powerful"? It's also a legal protection against abuse by those outlets.

Poor Rupert Murdoch, getting bullied by defamation suits. Is that your concern?

Either way, none of this makes it akin to cancel culture.
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
As I said agreeing with yourself is not an argument. Do that on your own.
My argument is that there is a material difference between defamation law, which is a legal protection against reputational damage, and cancel culture, which relies on "offence" and has no basis in law.

That's my argument. And you have no coherent response.

Do you understand the impact of starting a defamation case against someone who can not defend it?
What kind of answer do you expect to such an open-ended question? Are you talking about frivolous litigation? Or a case where the defendant would be inclined to settle? Both of those happen in a range of civil matters aside from defamation. That doesn't mean those laws aren't worth having. It doesn't make them all akin to cancel culture.

But please go ahead and explain yourself, and hopefully make a point for once.

Even if someone can't or doesn't defend the defamation claim, it still has a basis in law, which distinguishes it from cancel culture, which doesn't.

That is the material distinction which you simply can't erase.

Is copyright law also cancel culture? Paul McCartney won't let you re-record all the Beatles' songs and pass them off as your own work? OMG that's cancel culture!

Your argument is absurd, baseless and fact-free.
 
My argument is that there is a material difference between defamation law, which is a legal protection against reputational damage, and cancel culture, which relies on "offence" and has no basis in law.

That's my argument. And you have no coherent response.

What kind of answer do you expect to such an open-ended question? Are you talking about frivolous litigation? Or a case where the defendant would be inclined to settle? Both of those happen in a range of civil matters aside from defamation. That doesn't mean those laws aren't worth having. It doesn't make them all akin to cancel culture.

But please go ahead and explain yourself, and hopefully make a point for once.

Even if someone can't or doesn't defend the defamation claim, it still has a basis in law, which distinguishes it from cancel culture, which doesn't.

That is the material distinction which you simply can't erase.

Is copyright law also cancel culture? Paul McCartney won't let you re-record all the Beatles' songs and pass them off as your own work? OMG that's cancel culture!

Your argument is absurd, baseless and fact-free.

Yes or no? You are getting a tad nasty - are you ok?

I take from your response - no!
 
Back