Legal Beagle: Think it possible that you may be mistaken
394 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
(Apologies if this has already been said in comments, I skimmed 177 of them.) If all speech is created equally, let me ask--when's the last time you received a rape threat in the comments section of your work, Graeme? When were you last forced to move house to get away from sexually violent stalkers who didn't like what you wrote, or gave up writing publicly because you could no longer take waking up to a barrage of comments about what a fat slut you were who's too ugly to be raped? This happens to women who write online routinely; but then you wouldn't know this or find it particularly relevant, presumably, since you've blundered into specialised fields of study and politics--feminism and anti-rape culture--with little understanding or research of how they work.
One of the frustrating things about this whole debate has been the voices of [presumably] non-survivor cis men at the front of the dialogue--both on the rape apologist side and the outraged sanctimony side. A lot of men loudly condemning the Roastbusters--both in my personal acquaintance and in the media--have been apologists for rapists in their own social and political circles, anti-feminist and anti-women, or have even committed physical and/or sexual violence themselves. So it's depressing to then see a big circle of these cis men patting each other on the back for being so aware about anti-rape stuff. Meanwhile women and non-cis people wait for their turn to speak which never comes, because cis men think that all that's required for us to speak freely is to successfully interrupt one tiny part of the continuous surrounding noise of patriarchy. As though this counts as 'silencing' the entire dialogue--as though that were remotely possible for us. And I express this frustration as a cis woman with a public platform, though like Deborah I wasn't paid for my article.
Incidentally, your understanding of free speech seems to hinge on the idea that people getting personally offended by it is everyone's criterion to deny something public exposure. But what Willie and JT have done is not just offensive, it's oppressive. I.e. it perpetuates existing power systems that suppress particular demographics at social and material levels.
-
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
If you think your opinion is repressed as a woman, try being given a voice to air libertarian views. Only 327 people looked at my post
That’s because no-one gives a shit about a libertarian view. That’s not you being repressed – that’s because all freaking libertarian opinions are EXACTLY THE SAME (which is kinda ironic I suppose).
-
James Dunne, in reply to
Yes, the plan was literally to push the advertisers into having Willie and JT killed. Or at the very least to have their tongues taken out.
That's what you're saying, right? Because nobody could be so obtuse as to seriously claim that "not getting a radio show" is the same as "lost their freedom of speech", surely.
-
Deborah, in reply to
Usually when we talk about silencing someone permanently, we have horridly sinister intentions. I don't think that Giovanni had any intent whatsoever like that.
-
A C Young, in reply to
The practical application of your "healthy society" results in silencing young women and rape victims in favour of radio hosts.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
If all speech is created equally, let me ask–when’s the last time you received a rape threat in the comments section of your work, Graeme? When were you last forced to move house to get away from sexually violent stalkers who didn’t like what you wrote, or gave up writing publicly because you could no longer take waking up to a barrage of comments about what a fat slut you were who’s too ugly to be raped? This happens to women who write online routinely
It does. And it is appalling. That is speech designed to stop people from speaking, which is exactly what my article is opposed to.
-
Simon Wilson has a masterful editorial on all this in the new Metro. I've asked if they'll put it online, but in the meantime, I think this is the killer line:
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.
Boo-ya.
-
My main question would be why rights to 'free speech' seem to be invoked only to defend dickheads?
-
Sacha, in reply to
designed
seems to rely on intent, like many 'free-speech' arguments I've read lately. How is intent as opposed to results relevant?
-
Sacha, in reply to
a libertarian view
If we hear more than one in every hundred comments spouting that stuff, it's more than their share. But try telling em they don't own all the oxygen..
-
Sacha, in reply to
what Willie and JT have done is not just offensive, it's oppressive
because speech is action
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
That’s irrelevant. Tiso’s campaign in going to the advertisers, could only have had the one intention, being to silence them permanently.
Depends on how you define 'silencing'. It's not like they've been shot at and had their throats slit, which is comparing apples and oranges.
-
And the wider issue from Radiolivegate is that, for lack of a better analogy, free speech around the world has become cartelised. Refer my earlier post RE: Shadows of Liberty.
-
Mark Hubbard, in reply to
Usually when we talk about silencing someone permanently, we have horridly sinister intentions. I don’t think that Giovanni had any intent whatsoever like that.
Thanks all above for proving my statement about context dropping. Especially to James Dunne also.
I merely meant that Tiso definitely intended to have them taken off air permanently. That was the reason for writing to the advertisers.
Keep this linguistic puritanism up, and we end up with a very narrow, bullying society.
Case in point. Tiso refused to read my blog pieces simply because - note this Martin Lindberg - I have a liberatarian (more often anarcho-capitalist) viewpoint. I read Tiso's blog, and Deborah's for that matter. My contention would be that Tiso, arrogantly only interested in his own viewpoint, takes that narrow to closed mindedness to everything he does: it's the way he thinks. That includes regarding this campaign.
In fact even this thread seems to be making a blatant statement it is the modus operandi of the Left.
Perhaps we all grow up, then continue this debate?
-
Long but prescient
http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomphillips/the-29-stages-of-a-twitterstorm …
-
(Apologies if this has already been said in comments, I skimmed 177 of them.)
No, I don’t think it has. And it was good, thanks.
I take your point about how easy it is for many of us cis guys to congratulate ourselves and each other on our right-on-ness.
On the other hand, it’s sometimes really hard to see these comments made by other guys and say, ah, I’ll leave it for a woman to answer that, that can be their job. Maybe especially on a post concentrating on Tamihere and Jackson’s ‘freedom of speech’, why should you have to bother? But maybe excuses.
But yeah, I’m done. Lovely evening.
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
Maybe if you dropped the link to your blog in twitter a bit more you'd have more readers.
It's not fucking about you.
Now I'm done. Lovely evening.
-
Andre Alessi, in reply to
FFS, Kundera writes about the cultural disassociation of expatriates and exiles, and you somehow get a paean to political and social orthodoxy out of it?
ETA: Sorry about the tangent, but others are tackling the important issues up thread. I'm mostly just here to defend Milan's rep in the face of wilful misinterpretation.
-
Mark Hubbard, in reply to
I've only imposed myself in this because I was following up on a comment Deborah made: ie, it had relevance. Further, Tiso's mindset, the way he thinks, which I think is closed, and to close down what he doesn't like, is entirely relevant. I might have almost total agreement with him in 'this' campaign, but what of when this *does' move on to issues I don't agree with him on?
-
Mark Hubbard, in reply to
That quotation is talking to any campaign that involves "people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unison". Mob versus diversity and the individual voice.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Maybe if you dropped the link to your blog in twitter a bit more you'd have more readers.
I think there are some indigenous tribes deep in the Borneo who haven't been spammed by Mark yet. We should also sponsor him to go on an expedition.
-
Anne R. has said much more of interest than anyone else on this page, maybe this whole damn thread. Quick cis dudes, let's not acknowledge her.
(Honest, I'm going to enjoy the last of the sun, promise)
-
Mark Hubbard, in reply to
I think there are some indigenous tribes deep in the Borneo who haven’t been spammed by Mark yet. We should also sponsor him to go on an expedition.
Again. The real Tiso. As with your callous treatment of Thompson, which was evil, Giovanni..
It's not fair I sidetrack this anymore .. I'm out.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
Long but prescient
John, your constant snide inanity and obviously deeply felt desire to ridicule the whole idea that rape apology may be a serious issue have been some of the the most reliable companions I've had in the past two weeks. Keep it up.
-
Nice one, Metro.
The excellent Simon Wilson editorial I mentioned earlier is now online.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.