Australian Politics (1 Viewer)

[funkshen]

I don't understand your distinction here

you are free to speak as you wish. your speech does not require prior approval by some arbitrary authority who may preclude it from the public domain (i.e. censorship)

the corollary to this is that
1) you are, to an extant, liable under civil law for the consequences of your speech insofar as they are defamatory
2) you are, to an extant, liable under criminal law for your speech insofar that it is a breach of the criminal code (e.g. if it is an assault against the state, or the personal integrity of the body (mind?) upheld by the state)

the point is not that law is irrelevant to free speech (or that being able to freely speak is ipso facto free speech). rather, i would say that insofar as any party to a conflict that believes in the legitimacy of civil and criminal codes of law, and are never actually forbidden to speak a thought (but rather may be punished after the fact), they are free to speak. this means that free speech does not imply freedom to verbally harass or abuse, or to defame

But it was limited by coercion. You are free to kill someone, and free to suffer the consequence. That consequence is incarceration by the state; that is coercion by fear of said incarceration. While this is a diluted example the same principle applies.

given what i have written above, this is patently false. you are not free to kill someone. any indication of such a desire will be met with preventative measures by law enforcement. but to indicate that you might, in the future, defame someone is not a crime. i.e. there is no such thing as conspiracy to defame. there is conspiracy to murder.

 

[Annihilist]

you are free to speak as you wish. your speech does not require prior approval by some arbitrary authority who may preclude it from the public domain (i.e. censorship)

the corollary to this is that
1) you are, to an extant, liable under civil law for the consequences of your speech insofar as they are defamatory
2) you are, to an extant, liable under criminal law for your speech insofar that it is a breach of the criminal code (e.g. if it is an assault against the state, or the personal integrity of the body (mind?) upheld by the state)

the point is not that law is irrelevant to free speech (or that being able to freely speak is ipso facto free speech). rather, i would say that insofar as any party to a conflict that believes in the legitimacy of civil and criminal codes of law, and are never actually forbidden to speak a thought (but rather may be punished after the fact), they are free to speak. this means that free speech does not imply freedom to verbally harass or abuse, or to defame




given what i have written above, this is patently false. you are not free to kill someone. any indication of such a desire will be met with preventative measures by law enforcement. but to indicate that you might, in the future, defame someone is not a crime. i.e. there is no such thing as conspiracy to defame. there is conspiracy to murder.

Makes sense.

 

[funkshen]

although i would perhaps argue that "free to speak as you wish" is a misnomer considering both an individuals preferences and epistemology, especially regarding law and justice, are very much contingent on the parameters of civil and criminal jurisdictions (i.e. what foucalt wrote a lot about). but i guess to consider whether we are truly free to speak is definitely a foray into the absurd.

 

[mirakon]

although i would perhaps argue that "free to speak as you wish" is a misnomer considering both an individuals preferences and epistemology, especially regarding law and justice, are very much contingent on the parameters of civil and criminal jurisdictions (i.e. what foucalt wrote a lot about). but i guess to consider whether we are truly free to speak is definitely a foray into the absurd.

Is foucault the one who talked about prisons and stuff?

 

[Lolsmith]

you are free to speak as you wish. your speech does not require prior approval by some arbitrary authority who may preclude it from the public domain (i.e. censorship)

the corollary to this is that
1) you are, to an extant, liable under civil law for the consequences of your speech insofar as they are defamatory
2) you are, to an extant, liable under criminal law for your speech insofar that it is a breach of the criminal code (e.g. if it is an assault against the state, or the personal integrity of the body (mind?) upheld by the state)

the point is not that law is irrelevant to free speech (or that being able to freely speak is ipso facto free speech). rather, i would say that insofar as any party to a conflict that believes in the legitimacy of civil and criminal codes of law, and are never actually forbidden to speak a thought (but rather may be punished after the fact), they are free to speak. this means that free speech does not imply freedom to verbally harass or abuse, or to defame

All right, thanks for that.

Specifically with Bolt though, what was the big deal with what he published? From what I've read, he published straight out lies, which is of course just stupid, but if he published *proven* lies, how has he defamed the people he was criticising? In what way has their reputation been damaged? Was he even in court for defamation?

 

[funkshen]

All right, thanks for that.

Specifically with Bolt though, what was the big deal with what he published? From what I've read, he published straight out lies, which is of course just stupid, but if he published *proven* lies, how has he defamed the people he was criticising? In what way has their reputation been damaged? Was he even in court for defamation?

he was in court for contravening the racial discrimination act. under said act, it is unlawful (Section 18C) to do an act, otherwise than in private, if

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.


the law does not render unlawful any act said or done reasonably and in good faith (Section 18D):

(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.


in the case of Eatock vs Bolt, it was found that:

imputations which I have found were conveyed by the newspaper articles were plainly calculated to convey a message about the race, ethnicity or colour of fair-skinned Aboriginal people, including whether those people are sufficiently of Aboriginal race,
colour or ethnicity to be identifying as Aboriginal (i.e. bolt was making a comment specifically about aboriginals, particularly fair-skinned aboriginals)

beyond the hurt and insult involved, the conduct was reasonably likely to have an intimidatory effect on some fair-skinned Aboriginal people and in particular young Aboriginal persons or others with vulnerability in relation to their identity. (i.e. not only was there real hurt and insult, but wider ramifications)

bolt was found not to be covered by section 18D due to "the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language." (i.e. the comments were not a "fair and accurate report" nor a "genuine belief")




bolt therefore contravened the racial discrimination act

 

[Lolsmith]

I have no argument against this

edit: except the "intimidatory effect" it would have. That doesn't really sound like anything based in reality and I don't understand how that conclusion was drawn. I read Bolt's article and (obviously paraphrasied and simplified) he was just saying that "are white people cashing in on positions designated for black people?", which is of course a legitimate question. Personally I don't think the positions should even exist in the first place, but that's irrelevant.

I just don't get this whole race thing. I honestly don't understand it and I don't think I ever will, which is why I have such difficulty coming to grips with this sort issue.

 

[funkshen]

I have no argument against this

edit: except the "intimidatory effect" it would have. That doesn't really sound like anything based in reality and I don't understand how that conclusion was drawn. I read Bolt's article and (obviously paraphrasied and simplified) he was just saying that "are white people cashing in on positions designated for black people?", which is of course a legitimate question. Personally I don't think the positions should even exist in the first place, but that's irrelevant.

yes it was a legitimate question, but it was not a fair and accurate report, which is the whole point. the "hurt and insult involved" was in regards to Eatock who brought the case (i think it was 9 people?), not every aboriginal person out there. but it was also found that bolt's comments would have had a similar effect on the broader fair-skinned/aboriginal community and in particular those with "vulnerability in relation to their identity/", ergo an "intimidatory effect" that must be taken into account.

I just don't get this whole race thing. I honestly don't understand it and I don't think I ever will, which is why I have such difficulty coming to grips with this sort issue.

you're not supposed to "get it" you autist

 

[Rafy]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...the-second-storm/story-e6frg6z6-1226366162052

 

[Garygaz]

i lurv lines like

'But senior Labor strategists fear doing so wouldn't end the matter.'

or anything to the accord of faceless men pulling the puppeteers strings on our politicians. such an easy line filler in today's a-class media.

 

[soloooooo]

Gillards wealth redistribution policy starts at the end of this month.

 

[powlmao]

Gillards wealth redistribution policy starts at the end of this month.

Fuck I hate her.

I wish the Labor goernment would just commit mass sucide. they are that bad

 

[halapenyo]

Gillards wealth redistribution policy starts at the end of this month.

wat does that involve

 

[Lolsmith]

wat does that involve

the carbon tax

 

[powlmao]

Its going to fuck over anyone earning a decent salary

 

[Absolutezero]

It really won't.

 

[Lolsmith]

Its going to fuck over anyone earning a decent salary

how

and define "decent"

 

[powlmao]

The payments are to individuals earning less than ~$80,000 (gross). People who earn more than that are just going to miss out again

 

[Absolutezero]

The payments are to individuals earning less than ~$80,000 (gross). People who earn more than that are just going to miss out again

If they are already earning over $80k, are they really being fucked over?

 

[powlmao]

If they are already earning over $80k, are they really being fucked over?

To an extent. Income earners of that amount always miss out on government benefits, such as the stimulus package