Thanks Mark – lots to ponder on this.
I find myself broadly agreeing about the distinction between ‘de-platforming’ and denying free speech. Especially when people go on all sorts of media whining freely about this, as if a radio programme or a rally venue were theirs as of right. Hey, most of us never get close to having such a platform.
But … there has to be a point where the distinction disappears. If we stopped (in the old days!) a group from meeting anywhere or banned their publications – that would surely qualify as restricting their speech. Without getting onto a slippery slope, I’m not sure exactly where the line is drawn – or quite how it should be.
Especially in today’s internetofeverything. Which we need to talk about, because it seems to have changed both freedom (you can pretty much say anything, at least in the right forum …) and speech (sadly, people do say just about anything. It’s fascinating to watch the 1080 “debate” – intensely polarising, and exchanges can very quickly turn to slanging matches.)
Watching Goff denying the canadians the use of council facilities, I was struck by the resonance with some of the things Josh at TPM has been saying about how private companies (notably facebook) have taken over the ‘public square’ – the place where issues are talked and argued – and how they impose their own ‘regulations’ on speech. (Cant’ seem to google the latest – but he’s had a lot of insight into google and facebook’s influence on publishing generally.)
While to some degree facebook’s ‘mores’ are designed by the public (unwittingly, maybe, by how we click) for the comfort of the public, they are essentially unrelated to any principles of freedom of speech, and highly related to algorithms of profitability and advertiser preference. Our angry outbursts and public posturings are (it seems weird to even say it) being sold to advertisers. (Or putting a different spin on it, advertisers are paying for the space we conduct our public debates.)
Where Goff has to face the public; facebook is accountable mostly to accountants.
At any event, some of our fundamental ideas about freedom of speech may need overhauling. Hard to do while we’re all shouting at each other.
Jase wouldn’t mind, as long as he was on TV.
He does mud-wrestle in that very clip, so you're probably right. But he's a kinder (and funnier and hipper) bloke than you'll see on TV. At least he used to be.
“the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.”
Sounds great. Didn't realise PC was a term of praise - where do join up?
Bottom line is its pretty easy to grow - a lot simpler than making a good beer, at least in my experience. That's part of why it's so hard to control, and also likely to keep a ghastly corporate plastic-high from taking off - or at least taking over.
From Miles Stratford, no less. It would be interesting to know how much he’s made personally from meth-testing.
Spinoff doing more good work. AA put out a striking press release and the msm pick it up and run with the headline. Another moral panic based on misapplied "studies" and unverified assumptions? https://thespinoff.co.nz/media/21-06-2018/are-drug-drivers-really-killing-us-by-the-droves/
Thanks Joe. That did me good - I think!
Great interview, Russell. Thanks!
Does anyone else get a sense there's something about western culture in this 21st century world that's seriously askew? Courtesy of the youngers,listening to a fair bit of contemporary music - from pop to anti-folk. There seems to be a deep vein of sadness, wistfulness, and irony gentle or savage, running through most of it. Feels in striking contrast to the optimism (and anger) of 60s music, for example.
Yay. Great work - and thank goodness. Moral panics have an underlying nastiness, but this was fueled by greed too. BS testing - and 'cleansing' have become 'standard' in many tenancy arrangements now. Hopefully that disappears overnight.