andrew bolt GUILTY (2 Viewers)

[Lentern]

Well

No nothing is absolute, I never said such a thing. I said I support unfettered freedom of speech. Admittedly I was talking about legislative action against speech, but it just as much applies to this situation. No I wouldn't defend that, it is a reprehensible act, but that does not in any way mean that he should immediately be disallowed to do such a thing. The consequences will be his own to undertake whether they be lynch mobs or civil litigation against him. Also, when you are under oath you are agreeing to limit your speech to the truth as you see it. The key factor being that you *agree* to do such a thing. Again, the consequences are your own if you fail to hold up that contract.

Woah woah woah, how is society in any way benefiting from a journalist publishing that sort of information.Of course it should be illegal and it reflects very badly on anyone who says otherwise. And there is no consensual agreement to give evidence under oath you can be subpoena'd and held for contempt if you refuse.

Never said it was an absolute, just that I support people's ability to write/say whatever the shit they want.

Except when you don't, in the instance of privileged information for example in which you said a private contract could mitigate it.

Bess Price for starters

She can fuck off

 

[Cianyx]

What about defamation. It can be objective.

If reputation (how others perceive you) is a subjective term, I don't think defamation can be objective. You would also need to quantify reputation to show that it was harmed which I don't think is possible either.

dunno lol

 

[Blastus]

Woah woah woah, how is society in any way benefiting from a journalist publishing that sort of information.Of course it should be illegal and it reflects very badly on anyone who says otherwise.

To avoid having the argument you shift the burden of proof and then assert the axiom whilst simultaneously throwing in a weak ad-hom against anyone who disagrees. CLASSIC BOS POSTING.

And there is no consensual agreement to give evidence under oath you can be subpoena'd and held for contempt if you refuse.

If only we had some way of protecting people against compelled self-incrimination.

Except when you don't, in the instance of privileged information for example in which you said a private contract could mitigate it.

A private contract provides methods for establishing a grievance in court. We're going to wander down that wonderful social contract Rousseauian slippery slope so I'll give that a miss for now.

She can fuck off

freedom of speech I agree with. You don't think Price has valid concerns about the SES of Indigenous communities? Or are you taking the equally offensive viewpoint that she's News Ltd's pet aborigine?


In terms of this Bolt case I don't really see it as a free speech argument in the way that it's been framed. I see the real weakness as the clauses of the RDA that grant damages when offense has been made against an individual along biological lines. Bolt would have had protection under the 'fair comment' clause of the act if he had bothered to do any basic research on the allegations he made against the individuals named in the case.

I think what's most offensive about this entire brouhaha is how News Ltd and specifically the Oz went on the offensive on bolt's behalf after Behrendt brought the case and went out of their way to smear her in regards to tweets and the like to try and get her employer (UTS) to fire her. If that's not substantial abuse of privilege then I'm not sure what is.

 

[antonio primo]

Or are you taking the equally offensive viewpoint that she's News Ltd's pet aborigine?

yeah shes pretty retarded i doubt she got her jeb anyw other way

 

[Lolsmith]

Woah woah woah, how is society in any way benefiting from a journalist publishing that sort of information.Of course it should be illegal and it reflects very badly on anyone who says otherwise. And there is no consensual agreement to give evidence under oath you can be subpoena'd and held for contempt if you refuse.

When did I ever say I cared about how society benefits from people's actions? A journalist would know that publishing such things would lead to a decrease in revenue for them because everyone would fucking despise them thereafter, so they wouldn't publish it. Not because the government says he can't, but because it doesn't serve him any benefit. And upon that correction, no, no one should be coerced into doing shit they don't want just to serve the State's will. This isn't a matter of freedom of speech though.

Except when you don't, in the instance of privileged information for example in which you said a private contract could mitigate it.

Are you ignoring the fact that they're choosing *not* to write/say things? That they've willingly contracted to sign away some of their freedom for their own financial/professional benefit. That's not censorship or repression. Again, I never said that freedom of speech was an absolute thing, of course it can be bent to an individual's will as he so chooses.

She can fuck off

nice

 

[Blastus]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-...and-a-profoundly-disturbing-judgement/3038156

But this judgment reinforces all the concerns that its opponents had when the Keating government added Part 2A to the Racial Discrimination Act in 1995. It creates one particular area of public life where speech is regulated by tests that simply don't apply anywhere else, and in which judges - never, for all their pontifications, friends of free speech - get to do the regulating.

fucken SNAP

 

[mirakon]

What I don't get is this: how can Aboriginals wish to be treated equally and then demand added benefits?

I mean isn't the essence of equality not only having the same rights, but shouldering the same responsibilities as everyone else?

 

[thank_dentists]

No. They be at lower rung in society because persecution, thus shoulder more responsibility. That added on to racism, they no have equal opportunity.

 

[Rafy]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...nist-andrew-bolt/story-e6frg996-1226151936970

THE Coalition has signalled it will try to amend the Racial Discrimination Act in government, branding it a "terrible statute" after News Limited columnist Andrew Bolt was found guilty of breaching the law.

 

[LonelyWolf]

I'm still in shock, I can't believe this

 

[Rafy]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...152196836?sv=6df347a72a88a6b91af01847924d30de

 

[Blastus]

 

[Lentern]

When did I ever say I cared about how society benefits from people's actions? A journalist would know that publishing such things would lead to a decrease in revenue for them because everyone would fucking despise them thereafter, so they wouldn't publish it. Not because the government says he can't, but because it doesn't serve him any benefit. And upon that correction, no, no one should be coerced into doing shit they don't want just to serve the State's will. This isn't a matter of freedom of speech though.

Are you honestly saying that the market encourages quality journalism as opposed to gossip, emotional driven hysteria and "gotcha!" exclusives? People might know that publishing private information of a child like that is a bad thing to do but it doesn't mean they don't privately want to know the information. To take a more trivial example, how many people actually think it's any of their business what the royal couple do on their honeymoon? Juxtapose that number against the number of people who would eagerly find out that private information.

Are you ignoring the fact that they're choosing *not* to write/say things? That they've willingly contracted to sign away some of their freedom for their own financial/professional benefit. That's not censorship or repression. Again, I never said that freedom of speech was an absolute thing, of course it can be bent to an individual's will as he so chooses.

I'm not ignoring that at all, it just bears no impact on the topic of disagreement which is whether there are circumstances where someone should not have the right to unfettered free speech. "oh but there's a contract" you say, yes that's the point, you're accepting the premise that someone can contract those rights away.

nice

What? I'm supposed to be nuanced and politer with regard to her because she's an aborigine?

 

[Lolsmith]

Are you honestly saying that the market encourages quality journalism as opposed to gossip, emotional driven hysteria and "gotcha!" exclusives? People might know that publishing private information of a child like that is a bad thing to do but it doesn't mean they don't privately want to know the information. To take a more trivial example, how many people actually think it's any of their business what the royal couple do on their honeymoon? Juxtapose that number against the number of people who would eagerly find out that private information.

No, I'm not saying that journalists always create or write about actual news or real things, but with the specific example you gave me previously, the journo in question would not publish anything like that due to fear of reprisal and a loss of income. People privately want to know about a heap of shit, that doesn't mean anything.

I'm not ignoring that at all, it just bears no impact on the topic of disagreement which is whether there are circumstances where someone should not have the right to unfettered free speech. "oh but there's a contract" you say, yes that's the point, you're accepting the premise that someone can contract those rights away.

I think this might have gotten away from us. I never said freedom of speech was absolute, I just don't condone the state limiting people's opinions because it doesn't like it. People can do whatever the shit they want with their own person because that is their property, as long as they don't inhibit the rights of other individuals directly. We're kind of arguing the same point atm.

What? I'm supposed to be nuanced and politer with regard to her because she's an aborigine?

no lol she's a terrible human being, but I can't help but notice the double standard applied to Aboriginals being racist against whites because there was no institutionalised version of it a few decades ago.

 

[Graney]

What about when I commit fraud using my words, what right does the government have to restrict my free speech to misrepresent my self and business?

 

[Garygaz]

born into a society without your consent, forced to abide by a set of laws which of that you do not agree, paying tax to help those you do not care about, being told what substances you can't put into your body

 

[Cianyx]

if you dont like it, you can move to somalia hurr

 

[zombie omie jay]

id move to somalia if i was a total bad arse and knew how to manipulate a heap of bad arse muslims and had a group of my ex sas bad arse mates and we wanted to become super warlords of the horn of africa and usher in a new era east african superiority (wssup 120,000bc)

 

[Lentern]

No, I'm not saying that journalists always create or write about actual news or real things, but with the specific example you gave me previously, the journo in question would not publish anything like that due to fear of reprisal and a loss of income. People privately want to know about a heap of shit, that doesn't mean anything.

But they wouldn't lose income. Ok perhaps an underling who went out on a limb and published that might get fired by an honourable employer but the owner of a newspaper/magazine/radio station isn't going to lose out financially by publishing it, on the contrary he's probably going to sell more copies to people who privately want to know but publicly condemn the medium for peddling the gossip. A "naughty naughty" segment from Jonathan Holmes on media watch and five minutes of "oh isn't it horrible" on the insiders couch is the extent to which he would lose out.

I think this might have gotten away from us. I never said freedom of speech was absolute, I just don't condone the state limiting people's opinions because it doesn't like it. People can do whatever the shit they want with their own person because that is their property, as long as they don't inhibit the rights of other individuals directly. We're kind of arguing the same point atm.

Which is a reasonable argument and I said at the beginning that it's fair to have conjecture about whether the line was drawn in the wrong place regarding Bolt, what I said was that this ideological, holy grail chest beating about freedom of speech needing to be unfettered, inalienable, all encompassing etc was a nonsense.

no lol she's a terrible human being, but I can't help but notice the double standard applied to Aboriginals being racist against whites because there was no institutionalised version of it a few decades ago.

True, bbviously a previous generation of injustices will entrench some complicated double standards.

 

[Lolsmith]

What about when I commit fraud using my words, what right does the government have to restrict my free speech to misrepresent my self and business?

cunt you know exactly my answer to this, don't play dumb please

But they wouldn't lose income. Ok perhaps an underling who went out on a limb and published that might get fired by an honourable employer but the owner of a newspaper/magazine/radio station isn't going to lose out financially by publishing it, on the contrary he's probably going to sell more copies to people who privately want to know but publicly condemn the medium for peddling the gossip. A "naughty naughty" segment from Jonathan Holmes on media watch and five minutes of "oh isn't it horrible" on the insiders couch is the extent to which he would lose out.

There are plenty of other media outlets that will condemn it. There are various other ways that the public can be alerted to such an atrocity. The family can take the media source to court for publishing private information against their will. This arguments going around in a circle a bit. I think you're assuming too much of the public.

Which is a reasonable argument and I said at the beginning that it's fair to have conjecture about whether the line was drawn in the wrong place regarding Bolt, what I said was that this ideological, holy grail chest beating about freedom of speech needing to be unfettered, inalienable, all encompassing etc was a nonsense.

Those are different things though. I never said freedom of speech can't be restricted, what I meant is that it should only be restricted as a willing participant in something. A journalist can sign a contract to be a part of a media outlet that follows a specific code of conduct that will limit what they can publish on or speak about. A doctor with patient confidentiality. What I don't like is a society that you have no ability to opt out of, coerces you into not voicing an opinion just because they don't like it, or it upsets people. You know who else censored people he didn't like?

True, bbviously a previous generation of injustices will entrench some complicated double standards.

Indeed