Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #1
As good a coverage of the issue as you will find anywhere.
http://www.thevocal.com.au/next-tim...-send-factual-takedown-theyre-probably-wrong/
Welcome back to the land of Section 18C (and more importantly, Section 18D)
Every debate around freedom of speech and the Racial Discrimination Act specifically obsesses over part 18C of the Act.
Let’s get the facts straight.
Section 18C states that a person can’t do something that is “reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people” and do it on the basis of another person’s “race, colour, national or ethnic origin”.
When read in isolation the law is expansive – if anyone could invoke the laws purely on the basis of being insulted, it would constrict much of the debate around race relations in the media, and swiftly lead to most of the right-wing media ending up in court cases.
Yet despite Cory Bernardi’s insistence that it’s destroying free speech, very few people have been found to have breached the law. People continue to spit out racist, vile commentary and cartoons every other day without heading to court.
So why is that?
Because unsurprisingly, right below section 18C is section 18D – which provides a very wide defence precisely to ensure that these laws don’t inhibit free speech.
Section 18D states that:
Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
a. in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
b. in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or
c. in making or publishing:
i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or
ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.
If you’re bored to tears by legislation, here’s a brief summary: if you’re doing anything for artistic, academic or scientific purposes, you’re exempt from these laws. And according to 18D(c) you can say whatever you want in the media as long as it’s based on facts and is a genuinely held belief. The judge said this even extends to protecting opinions that most people would consider abhorrent. That’s very broad. The rationale? You can comment on anything you want, but you’ve got to provide the facts that led you to that decision so the audience can judge the comment themselves. It doesn’t stop anyone from weighing in on controversial issues – it stops people from offending and humiliating others with false allegations.
The notorious “Bolt case”
Which brings us to the most public case regarding 18C. Mention 18C and the next words will either be Andrew or Bolt. It’s a perfect example of how blatantly wrong the public has interpreted the law and its implications.
In September 2010, nine people sued Bolt and the Herald Sun over two of Bolt’s blog posts. In these posts, titled “It’s so hip to be black” and “White fellas in the black” he lashed out at prominent Aboriginal people such as Professor Larissa Behrendt, Bindi Cole, Geoff Clark and Leeanne Enoch by suggesting that they falsely “chose” to be Aboriginal to advance their careers and claim “special help” they aren’t entitled to. For example, he states that Larissa Behrendt ‘chose to be Aboriginal’ and now ‘demands law to give… [her] more rights as a white Aborigine than… [her] own white dad’ while Danie Mellor is a ‘white and cosseted’ man awarded an Aboriginal art prize even though the art ‘shows no real Aboriginal techniques or traditions’.
Classy stuff.
It’s pretty clear that this superficial, stereotypical assessment of Aboriginal heritage would insult a reasonable fair-skinned Aboriginal person. Therefore, it breached section 18C.
But this alone isn’t enough to make Bolt’s comments unlawful. Bolt also had to fail Section 18D which provides a defence of “fair comment” – you can say whatever you want (no matter how racist) as long as it’s based on facts.
This is where Bolt failed – miserably.
His columns were a mess of factual inaccuracies – some of them bordering on the bizarre.
...
A Bunch Of Hypocrites
“Sometimes, in politics and life, there are things so important that they need to be defended under any circumstances. For lovers of freedom and jousters in the battle of ideas, one of those principles is freedom of speech.”
Fair point Cory, you greatly value your freedom of speech. So it makes sense that you would be up in arms at every attack on free speech, fuming at the very thought that people aren’t able to speak openly. Funny that, because I don’t remember seeing Cory Bernardi or Malcolm Roberts protesting in the streets when the Border Force Act made it possible for a doctor, welfare worker or an “entrusted person” to be imprisoned for 2 years if they speak out about abuses in detention – a blatant restriction of freedom of speech.
I don’t remember them appearing on national TV fuming about prosecuting people for verbally advocating terrorism, another clear violation of what they refer to as our “freedom of speech”.
It’s blatant hypocrisy.
http://www.thevocal.com.au/next-tim...-send-factual-takedown-theyre-probably-wrong/
Welcome back to the land of Section 18C (and more importantly, Section 18D)
Every debate around freedom of speech and the Racial Discrimination Act specifically obsesses over part 18C of the Act.
Let’s get the facts straight.
Section 18C states that a person can’t do something that is “reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people” and do it on the basis of another person’s “race, colour, national or ethnic origin”.
When read in isolation the law is expansive – if anyone could invoke the laws purely on the basis of being insulted, it would constrict much of the debate around race relations in the media, and swiftly lead to most of the right-wing media ending up in court cases.
Yet despite Cory Bernardi’s insistence that it’s destroying free speech, very few people have been found to have breached the law. People continue to spit out racist, vile commentary and cartoons every other day without heading to court.
So why is that?
Because unsurprisingly, right below section 18C is section 18D – which provides a very wide defence precisely to ensure that these laws don’t inhibit free speech.
Section 18D states that:
Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:
a. in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or
b. in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or
c. in making or publishing:
i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or
ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.
If you’re bored to tears by legislation, here’s a brief summary: if you’re doing anything for artistic, academic or scientific purposes, you’re exempt from these laws. And according to 18D(c) you can say whatever you want in the media as long as it’s based on facts and is a genuinely held belief. The judge said this even extends to protecting opinions that most people would consider abhorrent. That’s very broad. The rationale? You can comment on anything you want, but you’ve got to provide the facts that led you to that decision so the audience can judge the comment themselves. It doesn’t stop anyone from weighing in on controversial issues – it stops people from offending and humiliating others with false allegations.
The notorious “Bolt case”
Which brings us to the most public case regarding 18C. Mention 18C and the next words will either be Andrew or Bolt. It’s a perfect example of how blatantly wrong the public has interpreted the law and its implications.
In September 2010, nine people sued Bolt and the Herald Sun over two of Bolt’s blog posts. In these posts, titled “It’s so hip to be black” and “White fellas in the black” he lashed out at prominent Aboriginal people such as Professor Larissa Behrendt, Bindi Cole, Geoff Clark and Leeanne Enoch by suggesting that they falsely “chose” to be Aboriginal to advance their careers and claim “special help” they aren’t entitled to. For example, he states that Larissa Behrendt ‘chose to be Aboriginal’ and now ‘demands law to give… [her] more rights as a white Aborigine than… [her] own white dad’ while Danie Mellor is a ‘white and cosseted’ man awarded an Aboriginal art prize even though the art ‘shows no real Aboriginal techniques or traditions’.
Classy stuff.
It’s pretty clear that this superficial, stereotypical assessment of Aboriginal heritage would insult a reasonable fair-skinned Aboriginal person. Therefore, it breached section 18C.
But this alone isn’t enough to make Bolt’s comments unlawful. Bolt also had to fail Section 18D which provides a defence of “fair comment” – you can say whatever you want (no matter how racist) as long as it’s based on facts.
This is where Bolt failed – miserably.
His columns were a mess of factual inaccuracies – some of them bordering on the bizarre.
...
A Bunch Of Hypocrites
“Sometimes, in politics and life, there are things so important that they need to be defended under any circumstances. For lovers of freedom and jousters in the battle of ideas, one of those principles is freedom of speech.”
Fair point Cory, you greatly value your freedom of speech. So it makes sense that you would be up in arms at every attack on free speech, fuming at the very thought that people aren’t able to speak openly. Funny that, because I don’t remember seeing Cory Bernardi or Malcolm Roberts protesting in the streets when the Border Force Act made it possible for a doctor, welfare worker or an “entrusted person” to be imprisoned for 2 years if they speak out about abuses in detention – a blatant restriction of freedom of speech.
I don’t remember them appearing on national TV fuming about prosecuting people for verbally advocating terrorism, another clear violation of what they refer to as our “freedom of speech”.
It’s blatant hypocrisy.
