Posts by Morgan Nichol
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I don't really see why the size of paper the words are printed on is treated as so controversial by some people. Broadsheet is usually a pain in the arse to unfold in a cafe (and even worse when you're trying to hold it up to read without a table) and there's nothing implicitly wise or informative about an A1 sheet. It's just a shame they're not doing the same with the Saturday edition, which is the only one I usually read in paper form.
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Do we really want laws that we hope will only be enforced sometimes?
Or does everyone go before the tribunal and the ones who weren't really serious maybe they get let off?
Because Paul Chambers was convicted for his stupid "I'm blowing the airport sky high!" joke, and it took three appeals & two years to clear his name, and in the meantime he lost his job and faced who knows how much stress.
All for saying something stupid on twitter.
That kind of thing doesn't seem desirable to me.
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Is being annoyed the same as being harmed? Irritated? Upset? Bothered? Flustered? Insulted? Where is the line drawn?
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Yes it does.
Agree.
People have to be able to express "wrong" opinions. Even stupid, racist, homophobic, misogynist, anti-semitic, anti-religious, anti-whatever opinions.
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to ScottY,
Good news! We already have one.
No we absolutely do not have one.
Because what I mean is a written constitution that codifies our many freedoms, in a form that can't be overruled by ordinary laws as passed by parliament.
Basically what the BORA was originally proposed to be, but which was watered down by parliament, so which we didn't get.
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Russell Brown,
It says that political speech requires the highest degree of protection.
That's just how it starts. Then pretty soon there's the running and the screaming, the police water canons, and the gulags.
Which I don't think is what the Commission means, but it has certainly left itself open to that interpretation.
It's quite a frightening prospect. Hopefully they change their bloody tunes long before this becomes anything like a law.
We need a goddamn constitution.
-
Where do we stop once we decide we need to protect people from ever being upset? And who do we decide to protect or ignore? How does a law differentiate between protecting the very powerful (who don't need it) from the very vulnerable (who might need it)?
Do we want laws to protect our prime minister from mockery? Because look at, for instance, Thailand's law protecting their king from insult. It's abusive and draconian (and very old fashioned).
(One of many examples: American gets 2.5 years for insulting Thai monarchy - CNN.)
Do people who are religious really have a right to never be offended because of people disrespecting their religion? The news just yesterday of French tourists in Sri Lanka being sentenced to 6 months hard labour (suspended, thankfully) for 'wounding or insulting the religious feelings of any class of persons' by taking inappropriate photos with a buddha statue"? Is that what we want? Because some people probably would claim it was grossly offensive.
(Cite: French tourists guilty in Sri Lanka over Buddha photos - BBC News.)
Ridiculous.
Making it easier for some people to get protection from specific targeted ongoing harassment seems reasonable. And I've heard many times that our defamation laws are slow, unwieldy, and very expensive. But along with trying to solve those problems seems to have been bundled the ludicrous idea that people shouldn't ever be upset.
If I want to mock a religion for some reason I'll do it. And as it turns out, I sometimes do have cause to do that. I don't do it in an email, DM, or txt message. I don't target specific people with the intent of hurting them. I'm very much an opt-in ranter, which to me seems like a really important distinction - and not one I'm seeing mentioned by the law commission (but then, really, tldr).
The classic XKCD joke - "someone's wrong on the internet" appears to be morphing into "someone's wrong on the internet, better call the police".
What a mad rant this turned into, gosh I hope I didn't upset anyone with my grossly offensive overuse of parentheses or awkward slipperyslopism.
-
Fucking hell, the twist.
-
it feels quite novel being promoted.
FTFY.
-
Hard News: The not-so-Evil Empire, in reply to Gareth Ward,
I've heard that. I've never had any desire to jailbreak, but maybe it's time to do it now.