Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

Read Post

Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you may be mistaken

394 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 8 9 10 11 12 16 Newer→ Last

  • Fentex, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    If it is adequate, in your mind, for their poor behavior to be countered by speech (such as by callers to radio shows) why is their opportunity to speak any the less now they have exactly the same opportunities as others?

    If there's something special about their loss of opportunity to speak then there was something special about their speech.

    And if there was something special about their speech then there wasn't an opportunity to counter it by the public by simply speaking up, was there?

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2013 • 3 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to Sacha,

    My main question would be why rights to ‘free speech’ seem to be invoked only to defend dickheads?

    Well, I did it because it's harder, and because it's easier to accept my claims are genuine if I am defending the speech of those with whom I disagree.

    I suppose I could have started my attempt to persuade people not to engage in speech designed to decrease the speech of others with an article about Into the River, or about about misogyny in politics, but that's low-hanging fruit around here.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3211 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler, in reply to Russell Brown,

    The price of freedom of speech for Jackson and Tamihere on this issue would have been to remind sexual abuse victims of the futility of exercising their own freedom to speak up.

    Except that they had stopped, before they were taken off the air.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3211 posts Report Reply

  • ScottY,

    I am ashamed of you all. By refusing to read Mark Hubbard's blog you are violating his rights.

    West • Since Feb 2009 • 794 posts Report Reply

  • A C Young, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    Except that they had stopped, before they were taken off the air.

    By stopped, do you mean stopped talking about this case?

    Or do you mean that they had given some sort of indication that they would not attempt to silence rape victims by bullying their supporters or implying that they invited it.

    Because they gave no such indication, in fact they implied that they believed that their handling of the issue was appropriate(they even did the classic “I'm sorry if you were offended” non-apology). I don’t think you can say someone has permanently stopped a behaviour unless they have given some indication that they in tend to do so.

    Wellington • Since Feb 2011 • 35 posts Report Reply

  • Tim Hannah, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    How so?

    Where did they stop making it clear that speaking up wasn't futile?

    I don't think that actually happened. Could be wrong but my recollection of events goes something like:

    1) Make it clear to Amy and listeners that speaking up is futile
    2) Apologise for any offence caused by reasonable position that speaking up is futile
    3) Hang up on callers / throw Hooten out
    4) Stop discussing it at all
    5) Get stood down

    In the middle there they did stop saying speaking up was futile, but the words were still on the table, not retracted. Impact can be seen in places like this, where not many women are speaking up, and those that do are frequently ignored.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 228 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    Had they permanently stopped, or just taken a break? Because "yer honour, I'd stopped robbing houses an hour before the police caught me" isn't a great defence.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 976 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    it perpetuates existing power systems that suppress particular demographics at social and material levels.

    I would really love it if this thread - and Graeme - could grapple with what Anne's saying, because I think it's important. If rape apologism is oppressive - and I think it's pretty clear that to a lot of us it really, really is - we seem, as a society, to be approaching the issue ass-backwards.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Swan,

    I assume everyone disagreeing with Edgeler thinks editorial indepedence is a dumb idea?

    (I realise the Marxists like Tiso do, but assume some of y'all are generally in favour of liberal democracy)

    Birkenhead • Since Feb 2011 • 86 posts Report Reply

  • Lucy Telfar Barnard,

    OK, it took me a while, but I think I get what you're saying Graeme.

    I don't think you're saying that JT and Willie getting taken off air was a breach of their freedom of speech (since as all good lawyers know, the right to freedom of speech is a right against State persecution, not against private consequences). I think you're saying only that if I push for them to experience private consequences because I don't like what they've said/done, then I should be prepared for the possibility that some other programming I enjoy but others don't could get taken off air because those others threaten to boycott advertisers.

    Fine. I accept that possibility. And in fact, how I wish I had a whole lot more of that power. How I wish that a small group of people phoning Bunnings or, I don't know, Vodafone and threatening to boycott them would have the effect of ensuring that The Block and NZ's Got X-Voice never blighted our screens again. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be enough to just irritate me to get something off-air.

    A programme apparently has to offend an enormous number of people at a very fundamental level before there are actually consequences.

    If the balance one day starts to tip too far towards "one person rang in and said this programme made them mildly uncomfortable, so we're taking it off air", then fine, time to start pushing back, but it's not even close.

    You can argue that it's a slippery slope, but I don't think it is. Maybe it's the top step of a sets of stairs, and at the bottom is the world where I don't get to watch 7 Days or South Park. But I don't see any sign we're rushing madly down the staircase. In fact, from where I'm looking, a lot of the stairs in between seem to be... missing.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 585 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to Swan,

    Oh god, really? We’re going to have THIS argument now? ”If we stop on-air talkback bullies your right to have Joanne Black natter on inanely in the Listener WILL BE NEXT!” I mean, fucksake.

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Alex Coleman, in reply to Danielle,

    I’ve not waded in on this because why be yet another bloke saying what’s already been said, but jesus.

    and I think it’s pretty clear that to a lot of us it really, really is

    This.

    The effect of this sort of talk isn't limited to survivors. Rapists hear it as “What I do isn't rape”.

    Don’t we have actual no doubt freedom of speech restrictions on speech that could encourage people to commit crimes? And people are getting up in arms about a bit of implied commercial pressure on this sort of speech?

    I can only understand this if it’s because they haven’t really grokked yet that rapists hear it as ‘what I’m doing is ok’.

    It’s not ok, and social pressure against saying this stuff, is very much ok.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 247 posts Report Reply

  • A C Young, in reply to Swan,

    I assume everyone disagreeing with Edgeler thinks editorial indepedence is a dumb idea?

    I don't see how protesting the actions of talk-back hosts implies any lack of belief in editorial independence.

    Wellington • Since Feb 2011 • 35 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    I suppose I could have started my attempt to persuade people not to engage in speech designed to decrease the speech of others with an article about Into the River, or about about misogyny in politics, but that’s low-hanging fruit around here.

    None taken. It's particularly easy when people email me personal abuse for doing it.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso, in reply to Emma Hart,

    None taken. It's particularly easy when people email me personal abuse for doing it.

    Let's swap inboxes!

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to ScottY,

    I am ashamed of you all. By refusing to read Mark Hubbard’s blog you are violating his rights.

    I'm going to call for a boycott against myself. Just give me a moment.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22848 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart, in reply to giovanni tiso,

    Let’s swap inboxes!

    I'll warn you, people are going to say some pretty confusing things about your tits.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso, in reply to Emma Hart,

    I'll warn you, people are going to say some pretty confusing things about your tits.

    And about your fascist roots.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

  • Bart Janssen, in reply to Swan,

    I assume everyone disagreeing with Edgeler thinks editorial indepedence is a dumb idea?

    No, it isn't a dumb idea. What is dumb however is to believe for a second that editorial independence exists in talkback radio. The format is designed to attract controversy and the owners/editors have demonstrated time and again that they only care about advertisers dollars.

    That is why the public protest was appropriate.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 4460 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to ScottY,

    By refusing to read Mark Hubbard's blog you are violating his rights.

    I've been oppressing him for ages by ignoring his wittering fantasy world.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19740 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    I suppose I could have started my attempt to persuade people not to engage in speech designed to decrease the speech of others with an article about Into the River, or about about misogyny in politics, but that's low-hanging fruit around here.

    Haven't seen it elsewhere either. Just lots of blokes 'defending' well-off older blokes who like saying shit about the relatively disadvantaged.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19740 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,

    NZ's Got X-Voice

    Reaching new lows

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19740 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Fentex,

    If there's something special about their loss of opportunity to speak then there was something special about their speech.

    And if there was something special about their speech then there wasn't an opportunity to counter it by the public by simply speaking up, was there?

    Logic win #applause

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19740 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew Geddis, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,

    You can argue that it’s a slippery slope, but I don’t think it is. Maybe it’s the top step of a sets of stairs, and at the bottom is the world where I don’t get to watch 7 Days or South Park. But I don’t see any sign we’re rushing madly down the staircase. In fact, from where I’m looking, a lot of the stairs in between seem to be… missing.

    Exactly.

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2007 • 206 posts Report Reply

  • giovanni tiso, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,

    OK Graeme, here’s a question. Do you believe that structural inequality – of the type that privileges some voices over others – exists?

    Sorry, missed it.

    [Assuming I know what the term means] Yes, I do.

    The evidence of the post strongly suggests that you don't. But at an even more basic level, I find your inability to conceive of how advertisers *already* shape public discourse quite astonishing. As I wrote in my post, the fact that the near totality of our media rely entirely on advertising revenue means that the message we see and hear are subject to commercial - and not public interest - imperatives, which is why broadcasters are strongly incentivised to offend, exclude, cause controversy. That anyone should think that this is in fact a state of purity to be preserved borders on the grotesque.

    Wellington • Since Jun 2007 • 7473 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 8 9 10 11 12 16 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

This topic is closed.