"Hey, AO. You want to answer my question from a couple of pages back? Who is speaking up for the young women in this case? Why are you so concerned about free speech, and not concerned about a culture that means young women are too afraid to make a complaint to police, let alone to speak publicly about what had happened to them. Where is your outrage about _that_?"
I’m not concerned about free speech but I’ve gotten a better understanding of this theme in my short time here. I hold a different view to many here but one shouldn’t automatically assume much of anything as a result.
@Lucy Telfar Barnard
"I don’t think you understand what victim-blaming is.
They didn’t say “we condone rape and the actions of rapists”. They said [things that mean they condone rape and the actions of rapists]. “
What they said and what they’ve been interpreted as saying are two different things. What matters the most is the actual evidence of their actions and not interpretations thereof.
“You can’t blame rape victims for their rape without saying that it’s [at least partly] their fault. “
Again, a discussion can be held without needing to blame anyone.
Please Jackie, don’t assume that scorn (or blame) is being heaped on anyone just for having an approach that may differ from your own. We’re all educated (if indeed we have responsible parents) on the multitude of dangers that life may throw at us. This education can differ between boys and girls but nonetheless most of us are fortunate enough to receive the insight. The point is that the world is not a safe place for anyone, arguably more so for women than men, but we equip our children the best we can despite knowing that it may never be enough.
Bottom line is that like most issues, there are many angles here that can be discussed – the trick is to do so in a manner that’s as respectful and as sensitive as possible. Respect and understanding opens many doors.
What I am saying Danielle is basically one of the core themes of this thread – that allowing for all points of view is far more in the spirit of free speech than attempting to silence opposing views. There’s more than one approach that can be taken around this issue…
@ Craig Ranapia
Craig, they asked some seriously inappropriate questions that much is true. Their whole interview/show was a walking disaster and I don’t begrudge what’s befallen them whatsoever, except for one thing – neither stated that they condone rape or the actions of rapists.
@ Chris Waugh - rape is no longer up for discussion on Radio Live. There's a whole lot of ways to look at this but that's the key one.
@ Stephen Judd - I guess I'm one of the few people that actually listened to the show, albeit it was too cringe-worthy to listen in its entirety Nonetheless, I still see no evidence that they condone rape or rapists - just a lot of coloured interpretation. .
Support, education, prevention, law enforcement, legalities, gender affairs...just to name a few. How many of these get an airing?
Wille and JT should be reprimanded for asking stupid and inappropriate questions but whether they actually stated “ they condone rape and the actions of rapists” or anything anywhere near to this is another matter altogether. I’ve yet to see any evidence that shows that they did just that.
The issue of rape is off the table at Radio Live. It isn’t much of a leap to suggest that the issue of rape could be off the table everywhere if the events that led to its silence on Radio Live are allowed to flourish. And who knows what issue may suffer the same fate next? Rape, like most issues can be a multi-faceted affair. Attempting to shoehorn it into a one-dimension issue just leads to deafening silence as the Radio Live furore has shown.
Without doubt, trying to change an opposing point of view is more in keeping with the spirit of free speech (and far more productive to boot) than trying to silence it.