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
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!
 

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
Ahahahaha!!

Dude follow-ups are your full time job, even after you’ve been sat on your arse!
When did that happen, Chiefy?

Just because you had a dream about it, doesn't mean it was real. You couldn't sit me on my arse even if you got on all fours and offered to be my pouffe.
 

HahnPremium

Premiership Player
Jun 19, 2008
3,461
8,215
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Defamation is adjucated in a court of law. Not denying it has flaws in its application. But it is a process.
Cancel culture is largely determined by a court of commercial vested interest. Unfortunately. Not always for a greater holistic view for the betterment of mankind. Tho I dont deny there are those pure at heart who rightly defend marginalisation. But its driven by voices of a populus and not an actual documented and practised process.
Colour me cynical and basic but thats how my simple minds eye sees the variance of the two.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,446
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Defamation is adjucated in a court of law. Not denying it has flaws in its application. But it is a process.
Cancel culture is largely determined by a court of commercial vested interest. Unfortunately. Not always for a greater holistic view for the betterment of mankind. Tho I dont deny there are those pure at heart who rightly defend marginalisation. But its driven by voices of a populus and not an actual documented and practised process.
Colour me cynical and basic but thats how my simple minds eye sees the variance of the two.
One is a legal protection. The other is all about "offence", and generally has no basis in law.

It's not hard.

These peanuts are saying a dog and an elephant are the same because they both have 4 legs.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

HahnPremium

Premiership Player
Jun 19, 2008
3,461
8,215
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
All good. I was just really struggling to understand the argument littered over several pages. Not for the first time on BF.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,446
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
All good. I was just really struggling to understand the argument littered over several pages. Not for the first time on BF.
These peanuts want to pretend that cancel culture isn't a real thing, or that it's so overstated by conservatives that even talking about it is off limits.

So their latest argument is "yeah well but defamation cases are cancel culture" without understanding the difference, or that many defamation cases are brought against media outlets, not against Joe Public. If you got rid of defamation law, Murdoch tabloids would have a field day.
 

HahnPremium

Premiership Player
Jun 19, 2008
3,461
8,215
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Vested and myopic commercial interests are a dirty thing. But like oxygen, they undeniably exist. As does cancel culture due to its largely commercial oxygen. I dont even subscribe to the whole woke/non woke thang. Its a masquerade parade of semantics.. Sustained by economic interests.
But as I said, I have no doubt there are those that genuinely want equality for all but the loudest voices/reactions seem to me to be commercialy driven.
I dont even understand why this is even a topic of argument when its so patently obvious.
 

bfff

Club Legend
Jun 6, 2006
1,634
798
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
That makes no difference.

Threats of defamation action still derive from legal protections against reputational damage.

Cancel culture has nothing to do with that, and it generally has no basis in law. Cancel culture is about "offence" and breaches of ideological orthodoxy. That's not what defamation law involves. You can't bring a defamation suit simply because you were "offended".

A defamation threat may be used as a tactic to silence a critic or may be the expression of a legitimate grievance.

Couldn’t ‘cancellers’ also be expressing a legitimate grievance? There are legal protections against hate speech and discrimination.
 

Sweet Jesus

The Lord of the Dance
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,446
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
A defamation threat may be used as a tactic to silence a critic or may be the expression of a legitimate grievance.
It still has basis in law, unlike cancel culture, which is simply a matter of "offence" or breaching certain orthodoxies.

You can't ignore the distinction between something that is a matter of law and something that isn't.

Couldn’t ‘cancellers’ also be expressing a legitimate grievance? There are legal protections against hate speech and discrimination.
And I'm generally fine with those protections, depending how "hate speech" claims are defined and assessed. And discrimination isn't a matter of speech, necessarily. It's a matter of material discrimination. Maybe you mean vilification?

I'm not some fundamentalist who says absolutely anything goes. There are still public health and safety arguments that I accept, but I think generally there needs to be a high bar for censorship or removal. It can't simply be a matter of someone being "offended". That's not sufficient. But if it's content that is obviously illegal, then I don't think we're talking about cancel culture. That's simply a matter of enforcing the law, which I regard as distinct from cancel culture.

For example, if the government and/or platforms crack down on Islamic State recruiting people online by sharing beheading videos, I don't regard that as cancel culture. Same goes for inciting violence, other forms of online radicalisation, child porn, copyright infringements and any number of other legal restrictions on speech.

We can debate those restrictions but enforcing legal prohibitions, for which there are agreed reasons, isn't cancel culture. That's not what I'm talking about when I criticise cancel culture. That's reserved for content or speech that is otherwise legal but has simply been deemed "offensive" or disagreeable, prompting some folks to demand its removal.
 

Lethality

Most successful team in your lifetime
Oct 23, 2014
34,963
40,876
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Melbourne Hawks, NY Rangers
Interesting that even Mark Hamill who is probably close to far-left, liked this tweet as well.

 

Ghost Patrol

Vice President of Antifa (not PRGuy)
Sep 17, 2019
13,060
21,834
AFL Club
Richmond
Interesting that even Mark Hamill who is probably close to far-left, liked this tweet as well.

What a bizarre thing to say. What makes you think that Mark Hamill is close to far left?

Your compass is broken.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad