I dunno what it's like in the USA, but in Australian terms I'll take all this pious concern for free speech rights seriously when their proponents are just as loud in defence of someone like Scott McIntyre as they are in defence of people's right to be racist.
Who was Scott McIntyre? He was the sbs reporter who a while back went on a huge twitter rant about how much he hated Anzac Day, and that it glorified war and imperialism, and that many Australian soldiers serving in war were thieves or rapists. The silence from the âfree speech Ăźber allesâ brigade was deafening, and everyone clamoured for sbs to sack him, which they promptly did.
âFree speechâ in modern politics is very very very often just a code word for âI want to be a racist or bigot and not get criticised for itâ. Iâll start taking it seriously when âfree speechâ advocates start getting serious about demanding defamation law reform, or increased whistleblower protection, or opposing the runaway use of judicial suppression orders in legal cases of public interest, or promoting anti-SLAPP measures. But they never do. In the Australian context, itâs always all about 18c and the right to be racist. In the US it seems to be more about the right to abuse gays, but itâs really the same phenomenon.
As a brief aside about 18c, something that gets lost in the cloud of bullshit is that not only is is truth a 100% valid defence against 18c charges, but so is good faith - the reasonable belief that what you are saying is true, even if it turns out you were mistaken. 18c targets very narrowly, and it targets deliberate or blatantly negligent lies. I know one of the people who brought suit against Bolt under 18c. What he said was racist lies, plain and simple, and a quick google could have proved it, but Bolt either didnât bother doing this or else he didnât want to let the truth get in the way of his determination to write racist lies. The complainants against Bolt had the option to sue him for defamation (and they would have won, easily) but chose to sue under 18c instead because they wanted to make it clear they werenât acting out of self interest. In a fantasy world where journalistic integrity is a real thing, immefiately after the verdict bolt would have been sacked and have his carrer killed inmediately and permanently FOR MAKING UP LIES IN HIS COLUMN and his editor would have been sacked for letting him get away with it. He and the paper utterly discredited themselves.
Free speech is powerful, and is a powerful weapon. Without stuff like 18c, how do you fight back against people in the media, or in politics, willing to make up deliberate racist lies to attack enemies and invoke prejudice against people they donât like?
Scott McIntyre has every right to voice his opinion on Anzac Day, and every freedom to do so, but when it infringes on the reputation of his employer - whom fairly or unfairly he is expected to publically represent in a positive light even in his free time - that may be treated differently. Now you may disagree with that, and fair enough, but I think itâs more of a debate over what rights and expectations an employer has of their employees, versus a consideration of free speech.
YeeeeeeeahâŚ
I have some issues with that when it comes to whatâs left of journalism.
Lots, actually.
Having said that, social media is a new world, and I donât know what was said.
Boltâs contention wasnât racist by the way. At least in my understanding, he was questioning a system thatâs setup to allow certain people to claim special treatment based on very tenuous ancestral ties. Should someone be able to label themselves aboriginal on the basis of some distant ancestor, despite the vast majority of their relatives being white and the opportunities afforded them the same as a regular white person? Does this not undermine such a system existing in the first place - one that ostensibly was created to remedy a perceived imbalance between white Australians and indigenous Australians?
I dunno what it's like in the USA, but in Australian terms I'll take all this pious concern for free speech rights seriously when their proponents are just as loud in defence of someone like Scott McIntyre as they are in defence of people's right to be racist.
Who was Scott McIntyre? He was the sbs reporter who a while back went on a huge twitter rant about how much he hated Anzac Day, and that it glorified war and imperialism, and that many Australian soldiers serving in war were thieves or rapists. The silence from the âfree speech Ăźber allesâ brigade was deafening, and everyone clamoured for sbs to sack him, which they promptly did.
âFree speechâ in modern politics is very very very often just a code word for âI want to be a racist or bigot and not get criticised for itâ. Iâll start taking it seriously when âfree speechâ advocates start getting serious about demanding defamation law reform, or increased whistleblower protection, or opposing the runaway use of judicial suppression orders in legal cases of public interest, or promoting anti-SLAPP measures. But they never do. In the Australian context, itâs always all about 18c and the right to be racist. In the US it seems to be more about the right to abuse gays, but itâs really the same phenomenon.
As a brief aside about 18c, something that gets lost in the cloud of bullshit is that not only is is truth a 100% valid defence against 18c charges, but so is good faith - the reasonable belief that what you are saying is true, even if it turns out you were mistaken. 18c targets very narrowly, and it targets deliberate or blatantly negligent lies. I know one of the people who brought suit against Bolt under 18c. What he said was racist lies, plain and simple, and a quick google could have proved it, but Bolt either didnât bother doing this or else he didnât want to let the truth get in the way of his determination to write racist lies. The complainants against Bolt had the option to sue him for defamation (and they would have won, easily) but chose to sue under 18c instead because they wanted to make it clear they werenât acting out of self interest. In a fantasy world where journalistic integrity is a real thing, immefiately after the verdict bolt would have been sacked and have his carrer killed inmediately and permanently FOR MAKING UP LIES IN HIS COLUMN and his editor would have been sacked for letting him get away with it. He and the paper utterly discredited themselves.
Free speech is powerful, and is a powerful weapon. Without stuff like 18c, how do you fight back against people in the media, or in politics, willing to make up deliberate racist lies to attack enemies and invoke prejudice against people they donât like?
Scott McIntyre has every right to voice his opinion on Anzac Day, and every freedom to do so, but when it infringes on the reputation of his employer - whom fairly or unfairly he is expected to publically represent in a positive light even in his free time - that may be treated differently. Now you may disagree with that, and fair enough, but I think itâs more of a debate over what rights and expectations an employer has of their employees, versus a consideration of free speech.
YeeeeeeeahâŚ
I have some issues with that when it comes to whatâs left of journalism.
Lots, actually.
Having said that, social media is a new world, and I donât know what was said.
YepâŚ
But what if letâs say a footballer comes out and says that all women are the devil, and all black people should be sent back to Africa. Do you think the football club he plays for should have any recourse in terms of reprimanding said player, or should he be able to hide behind the excuse of free speech? Itâs a tricky one for sure.
Bolt's contention wasn't racist by the way. At least in my understanding, he was questioning a system that's setup to allow certain people to claim special treatment based on very tenuous ancestral ties. Should someone be able to label themselves aboriginal on the basis of some distant ancestor, despite the vast majority of their relatives being white and the opportunities afforded them the same as a regular white person? Does this not undermine such a system existing in the first place - one that ostensibly was created to remedy a perceived imbalance between white Australians and indigenous Australians?
He lied about so many things, about so many people, in those articles.
Knowingly.
To push an agenda based on race.
If heâd argued along the lines that you have, without completely making things up, he wouldnât be a rightly convicted racist.
I dunno what it's like in the USA, but in Australian terms I'll take all this pious concern for free speech rights seriously when their proponents are just as loud in defence of someone like Scott McIntyre as they are in defence of people's right to be racist.
Who was Scott McIntyre? He was the sbs reporter who a while back went on a huge twitter rant about how much he hated Anzac Day, and that it glorified war and imperialism, and that many Australian soldiers serving in war were thieves or rapists. The silence from the âfree speech Ăźber allesâ brigade was deafening, and everyone clamoured for sbs to sack him, which they promptly did.
âFree speechâ in modern politics is very very very often just a code word for âI want to be a racist or bigot and not get criticised for itâ. Iâll start taking it seriously when âfree speechâ advocates start getting serious about demanding defamation law reform, or increased whistleblower protection, or opposing the runaway use of judicial suppression orders in legal cases of public interest, or promoting anti-SLAPP measures. But they never do. In the Australian context, itâs always all about 18c and the right to be racist. In the US it seems to be more about the right to abuse gays, but itâs really the same phenomenon.
As a brief aside about 18c, something that gets lost in the cloud of bullshit is that not only is is truth a 100% valid defence against 18c charges, but so is good faith - the reasonable belief that what you are saying is true, even if it turns out you were mistaken. 18c targets very narrowly, and it targets deliberate or blatantly negligent lies. I know one of the people who brought suit against Bolt under 18c. What he said was racist lies, plain and simple, and a quick google could have proved it, but Bolt either didnât bother doing this or else he didnât want to let the truth get in the way of his determination to write racist lies. The complainants against Bolt had the option to sue him for defamation (and they would have won, easily) but chose to sue under 18c instead because they wanted to make it clear they werenât acting out of self interest. In a fantasy world where journalistic integrity is a real thing, immefiately after the verdict bolt would have been sacked and have his carrer killed inmediately and permanently FOR MAKING UP LIES IN HIS COLUMN and his editor would have been sacked for letting him get away with it. He and the paper utterly discredited themselves.
Free speech is powerful, and is a powerful weapon. Without stuff like 18c, how do you fight back against people in the media, or in politics, willing to make up deliberate racist lies to attack enemies and invoke prejudice against people they donât like?
Scott McIntyre has every right to voice his opinion on Anzac Day, and every freedom to do so, but when it infringes on the reputation of his employer - whom fairly or unfairly he is expected to publically represent in a positive light even in his free time - that may be treated differently. Now you may disagree with that, and fair enough, but I think itâs more of a debate over what rights and expectations an employer has of their employees, versus a consideration of free speech.
YeeeeeeeahâŚ
I have some issues with that when it comes to whatâs left of journalism.
Lots, actually.
Having said that, social media is a new world, and I donât know what was said.
YepâŚ
But what if letâs say a footballer comes out and says that all women are the devil, and all black people should be sent back to Africa. Do you think the football club he plays for should have any recourse in terms of reprimanding said player, or should he be able to hide behind the excuse of free speech? Itâs a tricky one for sure.
I dunno what it's like in the USA, but in Australian terms I'll take all this pious concern for free speech rights seriously when their proponents are just as loud in defence of someone like Scott McIntyre as they are in defence of people's right to be racist.
Who was Scott McIntyre? He was the sbs reporter who a while back went on a huge twitter rant about how much he hated Anzac Day, and that it glorified war and imperialism, and that many Australian soldiers serving in war were thieves or rapists. The silence from the âfree speech Ăźber allesâ brigade was deafening, and everyone clamoured for sbs to sack him, which they promptly did.
âFree speechâ in modern politics is very very very often just a code word for âI want to be a racist or bigot and not get criticised for itâ. Iâll start taking it seriously when âfree speechâ advocates start getting serious about demanding defamation law reform, or increased whistleblower protection, or opposing the runaway use of judicial suppression orders in legal cases of public interest, or promoting anti-SLAPP measures. But they never do. In the Australian context, itâs always all about 18c and the right to be racist. In the US it seems to be more about the right to abuse gays, but itâs really the same phenomenon.
As a brief aside about 18c, something that gets lost in the cloud of bullshit is that not only is is truth a 100% valid defence against 18c charges, but so is good faith - the reasonable belief that what you are saying is true, even if it turns out you were mistaken. 18c targets very narrowly, and it targets deliberate or blatantly negligent lies. I know one of the people who brought suit against Bolt under 18c. What he said was racist lies, plain and simple, and a quick google could have proved it, but Bolt either didnât bother doing this or else he didnât want to let the truth get in the way of his determination to write racist lies. The complainants against Bolt had the option to sue him for defamation (and they would have won, easily) but chose to sue under 18c instead because they wanted to make it clear they werenât acting out of self interest. In a fantasy world where journalistic integrity is a real thing, immefiately after the verdict bolt would have been sacked and have his carrer killed inmediately and permanently FOR MAKING UP LIES IN HIS COLUMN and his editor would have been sacked for letting him get away with it. He and the paper utterly discredited themselves.
Free speech is powerful, and is a powerful weapon. Without stuff like 18c, how do you fight back against people in the media, or in politics, willing to make up deliberate racist lies to attack enemies and invoke prejudice against people they donât like?
Scott McIntyre has every right to voice his opinion on Anzac Day, and every freedom to do so, but when it infringes on the reputation of his employer - whom fairly or unfairly he is expected to publically represent in a positive light even in his free time - that may be treated differently. Now you may disagree with that, and fair enough, but I think itâs more of a debate over what rights and expectations an employer has of their employees, versus a consideration of free speech.
Free speech is free speech, surely? The bolded part is quite extraordinary. The mere fact of signing a contract of employment means that your employer has veto power over what you say, even in your free time, even when youâre not even saying anything about your employer? How is that REMOTELY compatible with a robust and honest public dialogue about issues?
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. Why arenât the louder free speech enthusiasts screaming about this sort of thing? Surely an employer requiring you to give up your free speech rights merely to get a job is an outrage?
I dunno what it's like in the USA, but in Australian terms I'll take all this pious concern for free speech rights seriously when their proponents are just as loud in defence of someone like Scott McIntyre as they are in defence of people's right to be racist.
Who was Scott McIntyre? He was the sbs reporter who a while back went on a huge twitter rant about how much he hated Anzac Day, and that it glorified war and imperialism, and that many Australian soldiers serving in war were thieves or rapists. The silence from the âfree speech Ăźber allesâ brigade was deafening, and everyone clamoured for sbs to sack him, which they promptly did.
âFree speechâ in modern politics is very very very often just a code word for âI want to be a racist or bigot and not get criticised for itâ. Iâll start taking it seriously when âfree speechâ advocates start getting serious about demanding defamation law reform, or increased whistleblower protection, or opposing the runaway use of judicial suppression orders in legal cases of public interest, or promoting anti-SLAPP measures. But they never do. In the Australian context, itâs always all about 18c and the right to be racist. In the US it seems to be more about the right to abuse gays, but itâs really the same phenomenon.
As a brief aside about 18c, something that gets lost in the cloud of bullshit is that not only is is truth a 100% valid defence against 18c charges, but so is good faith - the reasonable belief that what you are saying is true, even if it turns out you were mistaken. 18c targets very narrowly, and it targets deliberate or blatantly negligent lies. I know one of the people who brought suit against Bolt under 18c. What he said was racist lies, plain and simple, and a quick google could have proved it, but Bolt either didnât bother doing this or else he didnât want to let the truth get in the way of his determination to write racist lies. The complainants against Bolt had the option to sue him for defamation (and they would have won, easily) but chose to sue under 18c instead because they wanted to make it clear they werenât acting out of self interest. In a fantasy world where journalistic integrity is a real thing, immefiately after the verdict bolt would have been sacked and have his carrer killed inmediately and permanently FOR MAKING UP LIES IN HIS COLUMN and his editor would have been sacked for letting him get away with it. He and the paper utterly discredited themselves.
Free speech is powerful, and is a powerful weapon. Without stuff like 18c, how do you fight back against people in the media, or in politics, willing to make up deliberate racist lies to attack enemies and invoke prejudice against people they donât like?
Scott McIntyre has every right to voice his opinion on Anzac Day, and every freedom to do so, but when it infringes on the reputation of his employer - whom fairly or unfairly he is expected to publically represent in a positive light even in his free time - that may be treated differently. Now you may disagree with that, and fair enough, but I think itâs more of a debate over what rights and expectations an employer has of their employees, versus a consideration of free speech.
Free speech is free speech, surely? The bolded part is quite extraordinary. The mere fact of signing a contract of employment means that your employer has veto power over what you say, even in your free time, even when youâre not even saying anything about your employer? How is that REMOTELY compatible with a robust and honest public dialogue about issues?
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. Why arenât the louder free speech enthusiasts screaming about this sort of thing? Surely an employer requiring you to give up your free speech rights merely to get a job is an outrage?
Exactly and I believe that was partly the point of the article
Not sure I agree with that. In fact, you can defame some-one even if what you say is the truth in many jurisdictions. If you have published something in order to cause hurt or loss, then it is a actionable act under Victorian Law. I reckon that James Hird could have had Caro in court for some of her articles, but it is obviously hard to prove and you would need a Judge who hated journalists.
I dunno what it's like in the USA, but in Australian terms I'll take all this pious concern for free speech rights seriously when their proponents are just as loud in defence of someone like Scott McIntyre as they are in defence of people's right to be racist.
Who was Scott McIntyre? He was the sbs reporter who a while back went on a huge twitter rant about how much he hated Anzac Day, and that it glorified war and imperialism, and that many Australian soldiers serving in war were thieves or rapists. The silence from the âfree speech Ăźber allesâ brigade was deafening, and everyone clamoured for sbs to sack him, which they promptly did.
âFree speechâ in modern politics is very very very often just a code word for âI want to be a racist or bigot and not get criticised for itâ. Iâll start taking it seriously when âfree speechâ advocates start getting serious about demanding defamation law reform, or increased whistleblower protection, or opposing the runaway use of judicial suppression orders in legal cases of public interest, or promoting anti-SLAPP measures. But they never do. In the Australian context, itâs always all about 18c and the right to be racist. In the US it seems to be more about the right to abuse gays, but itâs really the same phenomenon.
As a brief aside about 18c, something that gets lost in the cloud of bullshit is that not only is is truth a 100% valid defence against 18c charges, but so is good faith - the reasonable belief that what you are saying is true, even if it turns out you were mistaken. 18c targets very narrowly, and it targets deliberate or blatantly negligent lies. I know one of the people who brought suit against Bolt under 18c. What he said was racist lies, plain and simple, and a quick google could have proved it, but Bolt either didnât bother doing this or else he didnât want to let the truth get in the way of his determination to write racist lies. The complainants against Bolt had the option to sue him for defamation (and they would have won, easily) but chose to sue under 18c instead because they wanted to make it clear they werenât acting out of self interest. In a fantasy world where journalistic integrity is a real thing, immefiately after the verdict bolt would have been sacked and have his carrer killed inmediately and permanently FOR MAKING UP LIES IN HIS COLUMN and his editor would have been sacked for letting him get away with it. He and the paper utterly discredited themselves.
Free speech is powerful, and is a powerful weapon. Without stuff like 18c, how do you fight back against people in the media, or in politics, willing to make up deliberate racist lies to attack enemies and invoke prejudice against people they donât like?
Scott McIntyre has every right to voice his opinion on Anzac Day, and every freedom to do so, but when it infringes on the reputation of his employer - whom fairly or unfairly he is expected to publically represent in a positive light even in his free time - that may be treated differently. Now you may disagree with that, and fair enough, but I think itâs more of a debate over what rights and expectations an employer has of their employees, versus a consideration of free speech.
Free speech is free speech, surely? The bolded part is quite extraordinary. The mere fact of signing a contract of employment means that your employer has veto power over what you say, even in your free time, even when youâre not even saying anything about your employer? How is that REMOTELY compatible with a robust and honest public dialogue about issues?
This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. Why arenât the louder free speech enthusiasts screaming about this sort of thing? Surely an employer requiring you to give up your free speech rights merely to get a job is an outrage?
Iâm not sure I agree, generally.
I donât think my employer would take kindly to me tweeting about which races are more likely to present to hospital when theyâre not really sick.
Even if I genuinely thought that was true and had some evidence to suggest it Was true.
I think theyâd have a right to say this doesnât reflect well on us and maybe you might be better suited elsewhere.
Bolt's contention wasn't racist by the way. At least in my understanding, he was questioning a system that's setup to allow certain people to claim special treatment based on very tenuous ancestral ties. Should someone be able to label themselves aboriginal on the basis of some distant ancestor, despite the vast majority of their relatives being white and the opportunities afforded them the same as a regular white person? Does this not undermine such a system existing in the first place - one that ostensibly was created to remedy a perceived imbalance between white Australians and indigenous Australians?
He lied about so many things, about so many people, in those articles.
Knowingly.
To push an agenda based on race.
If heâd argued along the lines that you have, without completely making things up, he wouldnât be a rightly convicted racist.
No - he argued that there were some (he named 9) privileged light-skinned Aboriginals who were taking advantage of government benefits at the expense of Aboriginals who actually needed it.
The judge found that this argument could cause offence to all lighter skinned Aboriginals.
What did he lie about if he genuinely believed this to be true?
It was only an opinion piece after all and sadly because of what happened we are no longer able to discuss this - many truly disadvantaged Aboriginal people are not very happy either that some in the cities with barely 5% Aboriginal blood can go and claim monies that the government has allocated for them.
Bolt's contention wasn't racist by the way. At least in my understanding, he was questioning a system that's setup to allow certain people to claim special treatment based on very tenuous ancestral ties. Should someone be able to label themselves aboriginal on the basis of some distant ancestor, despite the vast majority of their relatives being white and the opportunities afforded them the same as a regular white person? Does this not undermine such a system existing in the first place - one that ostensibly was created to remedy a perceived imbalance between white Australians and indigenous Australians?
He lied about so many things, about so many people, in those articles.
Knowingly.
To push an agenda based on race.
If heâd argued along the lines that you have, without completely making things up, he wouldnât be a rightly convicted racist.
No - he argued that there were some (he named 9) privileged light-skinned Aboriginals who were taking advantage of government benefits at the expense of Aboriginals who actually needed it.
The judge found that this argument could cause offence to all lighter skinned Aboriginals.
What did he make up?
Jobs and salaries held, from memory.
And privileged?
Really?
Compared to who?
And in what way?
Bolt's contention wasn't racist by the way. At least in my understanding, he was questioning a system that's setup to allow certain people to claim special treatment based on very tenuous ancestral ties. Should someone be able to label themselves aboriginal on the basis of some distant ancestor, despite the vast majority of their relatives being white and the opportunities afforded them the same as a regular white person? Does this not undermine such a system existing in the first place - one that ostensibly was created to remedy a perceived imbalance between white Australians and indigenous Australians?
He lied about so many things, about so many people, in those articles.
Knowingly.
To push an agenda based on race.
If heâd argued along the lines that you have, without completely making things up, he wouldnât be a rightly convicted racist.
No - he argued that there were some (he named 9) privileged light-skinned Aboriginals who were taking advantage of government benefits at the expense of Aboriginals who actually needed it.
The judge found that this argument could cause offence to all lighter skinned Aboriginals.
What did he make up?
Jobs and salaries held, from memory.
And privileged?
Really?
Compared to who?
And in what way?
Bolt's contention wasn't racist by the way. At least in my understanding, he was questioning a system that's setup to allow certain people to claim special treatment based on very tenuous ancestral ties. Should someone be able to label themselves aboriginal on the basis of some distant ancestor, despite the vast majority of their relatives being white and the opportunities afforded them the same as a regular white person? Does this not undermine such a system existing in the first place - one that ostensibly was created to remedy a perceived imbalance between white Australians and indigenous Australians?
He lied about so many things, about so many people, in those articles.
Knowingly.
To push an agenda based on race.
If heâd argued along the lines that you have, without completely making things up, he wouldnât be a rightly convicted racist.
No - he argued that there were some (he named 9) privileged light-skinned Aboriginals who were taking advantage of government benefits at the expense of Aboriginals who actually needed it.
The judge found that this argument could cause offence to all lighter skinned Aboriginals.
What did he make up?
Jobs and salaries held, from memory.
And privileged?
Really?
Compared to who?
And in what way?
I thought you said he lied about so many things?
Do you want me to find you a link?
Would that make you happy?
Bolt's contention wasn't racist by the way. At least in my understanding, he was questioning a system that's setup to allow certain people to claim special treatment based on very tenuous ancestral ties. Should someone be able to label themselves aboriginal on the basis of some distant ancestor, despite the vast majority of their relatives being white and the opportunities afforded them the same as a regular white person? Does this not undermine such a system existing in the first place - one that ostensibly was created to remedy a perceived imbalance between white Australians and indigenous Australians?
He lied about so many things, about so many people, in those articles.
Knowingly.
To push an agenda based on race.
If heâd argued along the lines that you have, without completely making things up, he wouldnât be a rightly convicted racist.
No - he argued that there were some (he named 9) privileged light-skinned Aboriginals who were taking advantage of government benefits at the expense of Aboriginals who actually needed it.
The judge found that this argument could cause offence to all lighter skinned Aboriginals.
What did he make up?
Jobs and salaries held, from memory.
And privileged?
Really?
Compared to who?
And in what way?
I thought you said he lied about so many things?
Do you want me to find you a link?
Would that make you happy?
I just thought that given you were so adamant he lied about so many things that you would at least be able to list a few of them.
Bolt's contention wasn't racist by the way. At least in my understanding, he was questioning a system that's setup to allow certain people to claim special treatment based on very tenuous ancestral ties. Should someone be able to label themselves aboriginal on the basis of some distant ancestor, despite the vast majority of their relatives being white and the opportunities afforded them the same as a regular white person? Does this not undermine such a system existing in the first place - one that ostensibly was created to remedy a perceived imbalance between white Australians and indigenous Australians?
He lied about so many things, about so many people, in those articles.
Knowingly.
To push an agenda based on race.
If heâd argued along the lines that you have, without completely making things up, he wouldnât be a rightly convicted racist.
No - he argued that there were some (he named 9) privileged light-skinned Aboriginals who were taking advantage of government benefits at the expense of Aboriginals who actually needed it.
The judge found that this argument could cause offence to all lighter skinned Aboriginals.
What did he make up?
Jobs and salaries held, from memory.
And privileged?
Really?
Compared to who?
And in what way?
Why not simply sue for defamation in that case?
18c shuts down all debate. Itâs a dangerous misuse of governmental power.
Bolt's contention wasn't racist by the way. At least in my understanding, he was questioning a system that's setup to allow certain people to claim special treatment based on very tenuous ancestral ties. Should someone be able to label themselves aboriginal on the basis of some distant ancestor, despite the vast majority of their relatives being white and the opportunities afforded them the same as a regular white person? Does this not undermine such a system existing in the first place - one that ostensibly was created to remedy a perceived imbalance between white Australians and indigenous Australians?
He lied about so many things, about so many people, in those articles.
Knowingly.
To push an agenda based on race.
If heâd argued along the lines that you have, without completely making things up, he wouldnât be a rightly convicted racist.
No - he argued that there were some (he named 9) privileged light-skinned Aboriginals who were taking advantage of government benefits at the expense of Aboriginals who actually needed it.
The judge found that this argument could cause offence to all lighter skinned Aboriginals.
What did he make up?
Jobs and salaries held, from memory.
And privileged?
Really?
Compared to who?
And in what way?
I thought you said he lied about so many things?
Do you want me to find you a link?
Would that make you happy?
I just thought that given you were so adamant he lied about so many things that you would at least be able to list a few of them.
Bolt's contention wasn't racist by the way. At least in my understanding, he was questioning a system that's setup to allow certain people to claim special treatment based on very tenuous ancestral ties. Should someone be able to label themselves aboriginal on the basis of some distant ancestor, despite the vast majority of their relatives being white and the opportunities afforded them the same as a regular white person? Does this not undermine such a system existing in the first place - one that ostensibly was created to remedy a perceived imbalance between white Australians and indigenous Australians?
He lied about so many things, about so many people, in those articles.
Knowingly.
To push an agenda based on race.
If heâd argued along the lines that you have, without completely making things up, he wouldnât be a rightly convicted racist.
No - he argued that there were some (he named 9) privileged light-skinned Aboriginals who were taking advantage of government benefits at the expense of Aboriginals who actually needed it.
The judge found that this argument could cause offence to all lighter skinned Aboriginals.
What did he make up?
Jobs and salaries held, from memory.
And privileged?
Really?
Compared to who?
And in what way?
Why not simply sue for defamation in that case?
18c shuts down all debate. Itâs a dangerous misuse of governmental power.
As I said earlier, I believe libel based on race is not just a crime against the individual, but society.
And should be recognised as such.
Thread title requires a âgone madâ addition. Thatâs what you hear.
âAnother case of political correctness gone madâ.
Also iâm sure someone of note has said the language we use influences the way we think. If we were allowed to be racists in public what would then be the next step result?
Debate is needed, but the way the debates are held (like on social media) are completely wrong. There needs to be a proper forum for this kind of debate, almost like a court case.
I think by and large people arenât racist. And if they are, they will be dealt with by the court of public opinion. When you police ideas and thoughts, you shutdown genuine discourse and sow the seed of discontent.
But what is the safety net in place if the opposite occurs? To some degree you are free to debate this right now. If the forum was set up correctly surely no one would want to use 18c?