Society/Culture Has cancel culture gone too far?

Remove this Banner Ad

Verdun

Premium Gold
Oct 16, 2011
3,892
6,521
AFL Club
St Kilda
Mere "offence" is not the basis of defamation law. That's what distinguishes it from cancel culture.

Read that again slowly if you must.


Mate you are a bit slow...


Defamation law is used continually by the offended, by those who can afford it against those who can not.

Cancel cutlure

catch up.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,446
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Clueless. The narrative being pushed by this defamation stuff is to 'shut the fu** up'. Powerful men, using the implicit threat of being inAnyvolved in the legal system to chill speech.
Defamation law is a legal protection against reputational damage.

That has nothing to do with cancel culture, which relies on "offence" and generally has no basis in law.

The difference is obvious.

It's not a flashy, woke or edgelord statement, but its white wealthy men controlling access to speech and determining those who are heard. This notion of a cancel culture oppressing these people is patently ******* dumb. Anyone who buys into it is a halfwit.
I'm not the one asserting a connection.

One is a legal protection, based in law. The other isn't. It's that simple.

You may as well start arguing that copyright law is cancel culture as well because Paul McCartney won't let you re-record all the Beatles' songs and sell them as your own work.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,446
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Defamation law is used continually by the offended, by those who can afford it against those who can not.

Cancel cutlure

catch up.
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.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Verdun

Premium Gold
Oct 16, 2011
3,892
6,521
AFL Club
St Kilda
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.
 

Soft Downhill Skier

2008-2010 wasn't me.
Sep 21, 2004
42,424
43,349
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.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,446
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?
 

Verdun

Premium Gold
Oct 16, 2011
3,892
6,521
AFL Club
St Kilda
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?
 

Soft Downhill Skier

2008-2010 wasn't me.
Sep 21, 2004
42,424
43,349
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'.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,446
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Do you understand the impact of starting a defamation case against someone who can not defend it?
It still has a basis in law, champ.

How do you not grasp this distinction?

Same question to you as I asked the other one, what are you advocating here? Do you think there shouldn't be defamation law?
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,446
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?
 

Verdun

Premium Gold
Oct 16, 2011
3,892
6,521
AFL Club
St Kilda
Champ!

I got a champ!!

Do you understand the impact of starting a defamation case against someone who can not defend it?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,446
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?
 

Verdun

Premium Gold
Oct 16, 2011
3,892
6,521
AFL Club
St Kilda
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.
 

Soft Downhill Skier

2008-2010 wasn't me.
Sep 21, 2004
42,424
43,349
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.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,446
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.
 

Verdun

Premium Gold
Oct 16, 2011
3,892
6,521
AFL Club
St Kilda
Sounds like you've done your dash.

As I said agreeing with yourself is not an argument. Do that on your own.

Please answer:





Do you understand the impact of starting a defamation case against someone who can not defend it?
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,446
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.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad