Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
My conclusion was that regulation of internet speech was impractical and probably unwise.
But other media might still be? Yet another challenge for any definitive or universal test for the "potential for harm".
No, I think we should specify those broad principles as much as possible.
Ditto, I can't however... I have only a vague memory of defamation law (and possibly even an Act since amended). Perhaps your earlier insistence reflects a respect for the diversity of knowledge often resident here but I was not focusing not on the details... it is Friday afterall!
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to DCBCauchi,
No-one has in any way tried to specify how to determine that. That's all I'm asking.
You think there should be a simple and universal answer rather than broad principles and common law? I'd worry that the bar would be set very low.
-
And still no-one has addressed my question, whichever way I put it.
I think there's been a few, good faith, attempts (and perhaps you needn't insist that yours is the only question).
Interestingly, from the "scandal" relating to Henson's photos of naked adolescents, there was a great deal of discussion about the specific content of the various laws, free speech, pornography etc, here in NSW. FYI, this article canvasses the issues broadly and I recall how poor and predictable our politicians were.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Russell Brown,
At the supermarket, assisting capitalism. 'pologies.
No smart phone? Kidding.
Actually, I thought the regulars made plain the degree of tolerance that applied here, after which il Dottore stepped into the doorman's role nicely.
-
Or Frampton's "Ohhh Bailey I love you way..."
-
Go away son of little p, you've not managed to say anything challenging or worthy of debate, your comments are rambling obscenities. I was right to regret engaging.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to DCBCauchi,
That's not what I though Giovanni was saying, the informed citizenry is one step removed from writing the law, but nonetheless frame it.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Che Tibby,
Che, agreed, but my experience is that it's done to generate support from the (potentially) disenfranchised. Alan Jones is a perfect proxy for the privileged, but his listeners don't live on the Harbour, they live in South Western Sydney.
-
and beneficiary bashing by NZ politicians feeds off the same dynamic
Indeed. At the risk of repeating something already said, or simply known, I think fear is a precusor of anger.
-
It's more of a dissection of a specific example than a universal definition, but feel free to copy and disseminate in whole or part as you please.
I understand, it's just that largely corelates with my general experience dealing with trolls; it's a great diagnostic, a simple troll pathology.
may i ask you if you honestly believe that real hatred is something that, in our own present time, can simply be incited?
Yes, people marginal or disenfranchised can readily be encouraged to blame someone else for their predicament. Fear and hatred of migrants in Australia is whipped up by shock jocks who claim "they'll take your jobs" etc. The Cronulla Riots were fueled by exactly this.
I'm going to regret engaging...