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 heād argued along the lines that you have, without completely making things up, he wouldnāt 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?
In the particular case of my friend, he painted a picture of a person with no connections to aboriginal life who had cynically exploited a degree of aboriginal descent to cash in. As far as I can tell, he based this verdict entirely on skin tone. In reality, my friend is culturally very close to people & country, spends every holiday back in ancestral country despite living in the city, and is in fact a prominent and respected mentor for aboriginal people in their professional field. All of which Bolt could have found out very easily, if heād cared. But he didnāt care, because his agenda was to delegitimise grants & scholarships to aboriginal people by painting their recipients as frauds.
I think by and large people aren't 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.
I generally believe that most people are racist. It is a matter of degree perhaps.
I watched at the Airport once a large black dude waiting at the gate with a bunch of flowers. He was a really well-built unit with tight shirt and a handsome guy. Out came the super-model, tall blonde with blue eyes, a very beautiful lady. Everyone stared; was it because such a handsome couple in a loving embrace, or was it a black bloke touching a white women. I thought about this all the way home, and still not sure my motivation in staring.
You always tend to favour what you know, so a response maybe to treat a white person different (better) than a coloured. Treatment may be marginal and not noticable to anyone, but it is still a form of racism.
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?
Libel laws are the safety net.
The whole HRC and its use of 18C is reminiscent of the very worst of ASADA and WADA. Assume guilty until innocent and accused has to prove otherwise.
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 heād argued along the lines that you have, without completely making things up, he wouldnāt 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. Itās a dangerous misuse of governmental power.
18c does not shut down debate. I mean really, does anyone believe we HAVENāT talked incessantly about this stuff for years? Debate has manifestly not been shut down.
To reiterate, truth is a 100% guaranteed defence against 18c charges. So is good faith belief. If you say something and can demonstrate you believed it on reasonable grounds, then youāre home free.
The only way you can be found guilty under 18c is if you are telling deliberate lies, or if you canāt demonstrate you made reasonable efforts to find out the truth.
Thereās a reason 18c cases are so rare - itās really incredibly hard to be found guilty of.
And to reiterate again, in the Bolt case, the plaintiffs had the option of levelling defamation charges, but opted for 18c because they wanted to make clear they were not acting out of personal interest or calling in the lawyers cos they saw an opportunity for a quick buck, and because they felt Bolts racist lies against them were part of a broader attack on the aboriginal community and that their suit should reflect that.
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 heād argued along the lines that you have, without completely making things up, he wouldnāt 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. Itās a dangerous misuse of governmental power.
18c does not shut down debate. I mean really, does anyone believe we HAVENāT talked incessantly about this stuff for years? Debate has manifestly not been shut down.
To reiterate, truth is a 100% guaranteed defence against 18c charges. So is good faith belief. If you say something and can demonstrate you believed it on reasonable grounds, then youāre home free.
The only way you can be found guilty under 18c is if you are telling deliberate lies, or if you canāt demonstrate you made reasonable efforts to find out the truth.
Thereās a reason 18c cases are so rare - itās really incredibly hard to be found guilty of.
And to reiterate again, in the Bolt case, the plaintiffs had the option of levelling defamation charges, but opted for 18c because they wanted to make clear they were not acting out of personal interest or calling in the lawyers cos they saw an opportunity for a quick buck, and because they felt Bolts racist lies against them were part of a broader attack on the aboriginal community and that their suit should reflect that.
Counter argument would be they went to 18C so as to prevent people ever questioning or doubting those specific 9 people again.
Which is basically what has happened so their choice has worked.
Larissa Behrendtās claim on being Indigenous is tenuous at best for example and given her whole career is based on being Aboriginal, any question on her heritage would be personally costly for her.
Iām not really buying the altruistic motives of the 9 personally.
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 heād argued along the lines that you have, without completely making things up, he wouldnāt 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. Itās a dangerous misuse of governmental power.
18c does not shut down debate. I mean really, does anyone believe we HAVENāT talked incessantly about this stuff for years? Debate has manifestly not been shut down.
To reiterate, truth is a 100% guaranteed defence against 18c charges. So is good faith belief. If you say something and can demonstrate you believed it on reasonable grounds, then youāre home free.
The only way you can be found guilty under 18c is if you are telling deliberate lies, or if you canāt demonstrate you made reasonable efforts to find out the truth.
Thereās a reason 18c cases are so rare - itās really incredibly hard to be found guilty of.
And to reiterate again, in the Bolt case, the plaintiffs had the option of levelling defamation charges, but opted for 18c because they wanted to make clear they were not acting out of personal interest or calling in the lawyers cos they saw an opportunity for a quick buck, and because they felt Bolts racist lies against them were part of a broader attack on the aboriginal community and that their suit should reflect that.
Youāre normally across these matters more than I am, but Iām not sure you are correct regarding 18C.
Here it is:
Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
(3) In this section: āpublic placeā includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.
So to the best of my knowledge, matters of ātruthfulnessā are not covered by 18C. I personally think the definition is too broad.
Counter argument would be they went to 18C so as to prevent people ever questioning or doubting those specific 9 people again.
Which is basically what has happened so their choice has worked.
Larissa Behrendtās claim on being Indigenous is tenuous at best for example and given her whole career is based on being Aboriginal, any question on her heritage would be personally costly for her.
Iām not really buying the altruistic motives of the 9 personally.
Re: your counter-argument: For the sake of clarification, why would successfully suing Bolt have been less of a deterrent?
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 heād argued along the lines that you have, without completely making things up, he wouldnāt 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. Itās a dangerous misuse of governmental power.
18c does not shut down debate. I mean really, does anyone believe we HAVENāT talked incessantly about this stuff for years? Debate has manifestly not been shut down.
To reiterate, truth is a 100% guaranteed defence against 18c charges. So is good faith belief. If you say something and can demonstrate you believed it on reasonable grounds, then youāre home free.
The only way you can be found guilty under 18c is if you are telling deliberate lies, or if you canāt demonstrate you made reasonable efforts to find out the truth.
Thereās a reason 18c cases are so rare - itās really incredibly hard to be found guilty of.
And to reiterate again, in the Bolt case, the plaintiffs had the option of levelling defamation charges, but opted for 18c because they wanted to make clear they were not acting out of personal interest or calling in the lawyers cos they saw an opportunity for a quick buck, and because they felt Bolts racist lies against them were part of a broader attack on the aboriginal community and that their suit should reflect that.
Counter argument would be they went to 18C so as to prevent people ever questioning or doubting those specific 9 people again.
Which is basically what has happened so their choice has worked.
Larissa Behrendtās claim on being Indigenous is tenuous at best for example and given her whole career is based on being Aboriginal, any question on her heritage would be personally costly for her.
Iām not really buying the altruistic motives of the 9 personally.
Do you have the slightest evidence for that, or is it just based on feels?
If it wasnāt altruistic, why DIDNāT they sue for defamation as well?
And in the case of Behrendt (who I know nothing about), to reiterate once again because the message doesnāt seem to be getting through - Bolt had the chance to exonerate himself in a court of law (a real one, not some CAS rubbish) by displaying ANY evidence that āher claim to being indigenous is tenuousā. Any evidence at all. It didnāt even have to be TRUE evidence, just evidence that was good enough to prove heād made a legit effort to find out the truth by telling racist lies about her. He (and all of News Corpās expensive lawyers) failed to do this, so the conclusion I draw from that is that the evidence does not exist.
Of COURSE they were hoping that the court case would mean nobody would tell these racist lies about them any more. I mean, one would hope that once a claim has been found to be racist lies in a frigging court of law, itād deter reasonable people from repeating those racist lies, right? Thatās the whole point to bringing a case like this.
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 heād argued along the lines that you have, without completely making things up, he wouldnāt 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. Itās a dangerous misuse of governmental power.
18c does not shut down debate. I mean really, does anyone believe we HAVENāT talked incessantly about this stuff for years? Debate has manifestly not been shut down.
To reiterate, truth is a 100% guaranteed defence against 18c charges. So is good faith belief. If you say something and can demonstrate you believed it on reasonable grounds, then youāre home free.
The only way you can be found guilty under 18c is if you are telling deliberate lies, or if you canāt demonstrate you made reasonable efforts to find out the truth.
Thereās a reason 18c cases are so rare - itās really incredibly hard to be found guilty of.
And to reiterate again, in the Bolt case, the plaintiffs had the option of levelling defamation charges, but opted for 18c because they wanted to make clear they were not acting out of personal interest or calling in the lawyers cos they saw an opportunity for a quick buck, and because they felt Bolts racist lies against them were part of a broader attack on the aboriginal community and that their suit should reflect that.
Youāre normally across these matters more than I am, but Iām not sure you are correct regarding 18C.
Here it is:
Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.
(3) In this section: āpublic placeā includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.
So to the best of my knowledge, matters of ātruthfulnessā are not covered by 18C. I personally think the definition is too broad.
18D outlines some exemptions to 18C that incorporate elements of genuine belief and truthfulness
Counter argument would be they went to 18C so as to prevent people ever questioning or doubting those specific 9 people again.
Which is basically what has happened so their choice has worked.
Larissa Behrendtās claim on being Indigenous is tenuous at best for example and given her whole career is based on being Aboriginal, any question on her heritage would be personally costly for her.
Iām not really buying the altruistic motives of the 9 personally.
Re: your counter-argument: For the sake of clarification, why would successfully suing Bolt have been less of a deterrent?
Because the burden of proof is far higher and as far as I can tell what he said was not libellous.
It would have been a far riskier approach for the 9.
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 heād argued along the lines that you have, without completely making things up, he wouldnāt 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. Itās a dangerous misuse of governmental power.
18c does not shut down debate. I mean really, does anyone believe we HAVENāT talked incessantly about this stuff for years? Debate has manifestly not been shut down.
To reiterate, truth is a 100% guaranteed defence against 18c charges. So is good faith belief. If you say something and can demonstrate you believed it on reasonable grounds, then youāre home free.
The only way you can be found guilty under 18c is if you are telling deliberate lies, or if you canāt demonstrate you made reasonable efforts to find out the truth.
Thereās a reason 18c cases are so rare - itās really incredibly hard to be found guilty of.
And to reiterate again, in the Bolt case, the plaintiffs had the option of levelling defamation charges, but opted for 18c because they wanted to make clear they were not acting out of personal interest or calling in the lawyers cos they saw an opportunity for a quick buck, and because they felt Bolts racist lies against them were part of a broader attack on the aboriginal community and that their suit should reflect that.
Counter argument would be they went to 18C so as to prevent people ever questioning or doubting those specific 9 people again.
Which is basically what has happened so their choice has worked.
Larissa Behrendtās claim on being Indigenous is tenuous at best for example and given her whole career is based on being Aboriginal, any question on her heritage would be personally costly for her.
Iām not really buying the altruistic motives of the 9 personally.
Do you have the slightest evidence for that, or is it just based on feels?
If it wasnāt altruistic, why DIDNāT they sue for defamation as well?
And in the case of Behrendt (who I know nothing about), to reiterate once again because the message doesnāt seem to be getting through - Bolt had the chance to exonerate himself in a court of law (a real one, not some CAS rubbish) by displaying ANY evidence that āher claim to being indigenous is tenuousā. Any evidence at all. It didnāt even have to be TRUE evidence, just evidence that was good enough to prove heād made a legit effort to find out the truth by telling racist lies about her. He (and all of News Corpās expensive lawyers) failed to do this, so the conclusion I draw from that is that the evidence does not exist.
Of COURSE they were hoping that the court case would mean nobody would tell these racist lies about them any more. I mean, one would hope that once a claim has been found to be racist lies in a frigging court of law, itād deter reasonable people from repeating those racist lies, right? Thatās the whole point to bringing a case like this.
Again, this is not quite right.
The 9 only had to prove that what was said could reasonably be inferred to cause them and/or their group injury. Bolt/News Ltd had to prove otherwise. Thatās a pretty big ask.
Sort of like Jobe having to prove that he did not take TB4 and if he couldnāt then he was guilty.
By the way, any knowing person who has looked into Berhrendtās background knows her claims to be Indigenous are tenuous.
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 heād argued along the lines that you have, without completely making things up, he wouldnāt 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. Itās a dangerous misuse of governmental power.
18c does not shut down debate. I mean really, does anyone believe we HAVENāT talked incessantly about this stuff for years? Debate has manifestly not been shut down.
To reiterate, truth is a 100% guaranteed defence against 18c charges. So is good faith belief. If you say something and can demonstrate you believed it on reasonable grounds, then youāre home free.
The only way you can be found guilty under 18c is if you are telling deliberate lies, or if you canāt demonstrate you made reasonable efforts to find out the truth.
Thereās a reason 18c cases are so rare - itās really incredibly hard to be found guilty of.
And to reiterate again, in the Bolt case, the plaintiffs had the option of levelling defamation charges, but opted for 18c because they wanted to make clear they were not acting out of personal interest or calling in the lawyers cos they saw an opportunity for a quick buck, and because they felt Bolts racist lies against them were part of a broader attack on the aboriginal community and that their suit should reflect that.
Counter argument would be they went to 18C so as to prevent people ever questioning or doubting those specific 9 people again.
Which is basically what has happened so their choice has worked.
Larissa Behrendtās claim on being Indigenous is tenuous at best for example and given her whole career is based on being Aboriginal, any question on her heritage would be personally costly for her.
Iām not really buying the altruistic motives of the 9 personally.
Do you have the slightest evidence for that, or is it just based on feels?
If it wasnāt altruistic, why DIDNāT they sue for defamation as well?
And in the case of Behrendt (who I know nothing about), to reiterate once again because the message doesnāt seem to be getting through - Bolt had the chance to exonerate himself in a court of law (a real one, not some CAS rubbish) by displaying ANY evidence that āher claim to being indigenous is tenuousā. Any evidence at all. It didnāt even have to be TRUE evidence, just evidence that was good enough to prove heād made a legit effort to find out the truth by telling racist lies about her. He (and all of News Corpās expensive lawyers) failed to do this, so the conclusion I draw from that is that the evidence does not exist.
Of COURSE they were hoping that the court case would mean nobody would tell these racist lies about them any more. I mean, one would hope that once a claim has been found to be racist lies in a frigging court of law, itād deter reasonable people from repeating those racist lies, right? Thatās the whole point to bringing a case like this.
Again, this is not quite right.
The 9 only had to prove that what was said could reasonably be inferred to cause them and/or their group injury. Bolt/News Ltd had to prove otherwise. Thatās a pretty big ask.
Sort of like Jobe having to prove that he did not take TB4 and if he couldnāt then he was guilty.
By the way, any knowing person who has looked into Berhrendtās background knows her claims to be Indigenous are tenuous. And sorry for being sceptical of someone like Geoff Clarke.
Counter argument would be they went to 18C so as to prevent people ever questioning or doubting those specific 9 people again.
Which is basically what has happened so their choice has worked.
Larissa Behrendtās claim on being Indigenous is tenuous at best for example and given her whole career is based on being Aboriginal, any question on her heritage would be personally costly for her.
Iām not really buying the altruistic motives of the 9 personally.
Re: your counter-argument: For the sake of clarification, why would successfully suing Bolt have been less of a deterrent?
Because the burden of proof is far higher and as far as I can tell what he said was not libellous.
It would have been a far riskier approach for the 9.
Okay thatās clearer. You think they chose an easier path, rather than that a succesful libel suit would be less of a deterrent than a successful 18C HRC suit.
Humble Minion can speak for himself but I donāt think he was talking about it being an altruistic move, more trying to make the message as clean and clear as possible. A message that certainly included an element of self-interest.
Also just to be clear, Bolt was never found guilty of being āracistā. The judge found;
"Today Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg found Bolt had breached the Racial Discrimination Act (18C) because the articles were not written in good faith and contained factual errors.
He said the articles would have offended a reasonable member of the Aboriginal community."
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 āfree speech Ć¼ber allesā brigade was deafening, and everyone clamoured for sbs to sack him, which they promptly did.
āFree speechā in modern politics is very very very often just a code word for āI want to be a racist or bigot and not get criticised for itā. Iāll start taking it seriously when āfree speechā 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, itās 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 itās 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 didnāt bother doing this or else he didnāt 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 werenāt 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 donāt 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 itās 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 youāre 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 arenāt 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?
The whole āfree speechā thing is about not being prosecuted by the government for airing your views. Employers =/= government.
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 āfree speech Ć¼ber allesā brigade was deafening, and everyone clamoured for sbs to sack him, which they promptly did.
āFree speechā in modern politics is very very very often just a code word for āI want to be a racist or bigot and not get criticised for itā. Iāll start taking it seriously when āfree speechā 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, itās 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 itās 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 didnāt bother doing this or else he didnāt 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 werenāt 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 donāt 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 itās 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 youāre 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 arenāt 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?
The whole āfree speechā thing is about not being prosecuted by the government for airing your views. Employers =/= government.
It also isnāt unlimited. The classic being āyou canāt yell FIRE in a crowded theatreā
Also just to be clear, Bolt was never found guilty of being 'racist'. The judge found;
"Today Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg found Bolt had breached the Racial Discrimination Act (18C) because the articles were not written in good faith and contained factual errors.
He said the articles would have offended a reasonable member of the Aboriginal community."
If you take out the āRacial Discrimination Actā and replaced it with āDiscrimination and Deceitful Actā we wouldnāt even be having this debate.
Bolt couldāve written the article with an honest approach and not have to add the factual errors. He didnāt even need to name people and simply done the research behind the scenes. Bolt gets enough coverage that without the naming of individuals he wouldāve got the same amount of coverage.
Iāve been following Petersonās case closely. There are a lot of issues that he is concerned about. Itās deeper than most of the headlines suggest (i.e. itās not just about him refusing to use āpreferred pronounsā). One of the things heās concerned about is the science. From a scientific perspective (heās also a research psychologist as well as a clinical psychologist), heās concerned that academics from disciplines without any expertise in biology are denying that thereās a relationship between biological sex and gender identity. Theyāre portraying gender as either completely āsocially constructed,ā or individually āchosen.ā Some of the gender studies academics are even claiming that biological sex itself is a myth. For example, this professor was on a talk show with Peterson and said the following:
This professor also said Peterson was āabusingā students if he did not use their preferred pronouns, and that this was tantamount to āviolenceā and āhate speechā: