Talking Politics

[Brodders17]

Yeah they failed, but the time, money and stress involved should never have happened. This will continue as long as 18c exists.

i think there is near universal agreement that there needs to be better 'screening' to stop petty cases.
i still dont think anyone has ever been able to explain what people can't say at present that they should be able to.

 

[jb03]

i still dont think anyone has ever been able to explain what people can say at present that they should be able to.

As you you know brodders i am not the brightest poster but i cannot work out your second sentence

 

[poppa x]

We live in a curious world.
In the past week we've heard calls to de-criminalise drugs.
And put legal restraints on free speech.

 

[tigersnake]

Yeah they failed, but the time, money and stress involved should never have happened. This will continue as long as 18c exists.

Fallacy. The cases, very rare examples, failed. That precedent set the bar higher and these two rare examples could meet, so by definition, they won't continue. That means even less cases will be possible, so the cases will be even less than bugger-all. As for time, money and stress, really? welcome to the legal system G-man old son. Amazing. The rich routinely use the legal system to silence and intimidate, its institutionalised and accepted. Poor old blackfellas and muslims are never gunna get the same privileges, obviously.

Nobody is talking about this as an issue accept the right of the coalition. And maybe G-man and a bunch of Murdoch columnists of course. Its an ideological stalking horse. Out of touch big time.

 

[tigersnake]

As you you know brodders i am not the brightest poster but i cannot work out your second sentence

;D its a good'n

 

[MB78]

We live in a curious world.
In the past week we've heard calls to de-criminalise drugs.
And put legal restraints on free speech.

Agree. I don't get it either.

 

[tigersnake]

We live in a curious world.
In the past week we've heard calls to de-criminalise drugs.
And put legal restraints on free speech.

We have defamation, libel and slander laws pop, and we've had them forever. Free speech has never meant saying whatever you want in ways that can hurt others who don't deserve it.

 

[Giardiasis]

Fallacy. The cases, very rare examples, failed. That precedent set the bar higher and these two rare examples could meet, so by definition, they won't continue. That means even less cases will be possible, so the cases will be even less than bugger-all. As for time, money and stress, really? welcome to the legal system G-man old son. Amazing. The rich routinely use the legal system to silence and intimidate, its institutionalised and accepted. Poor old blackfellas and muslims are never gunna get the same privileges, obviously.

Nobody is talking about this as an issue accept the right of the coalition. And maybe G-man and a bunch of Murdoch columnists of course. Its an ideological stalking horse. Out of touch big time.

You think people aren't going to use 18c to silence opinions they don't like because 2 cases failed? Nonsense. There were 71 cases lodged last year alone.

As for the time, money and stress, eh yes really. People are being put through legal proceedings (at huge cost and stress) because of nonsensical legislation that allows people to take others to court for uttering words. What's amazing is you seem to think the legal system should be tailored to suit affirmative action goals. You and the vast army of social justice warriors that want to silence all opinions that you don't like because it makes you feel upset inside. Such childish petulance has no place in adult matters like the legal system, sorry snowflake, it is you that is out of touch.

 

[Brodders17]

As you you know brodders i am not the brightest poster but i cannot work out your second sentence

in this case it is not your intelligence that has failed you. sorry, i missed a 't'.

i still dont think anyone has ever been able to explain what people can't say at present that they should be able to.

 

[tigersnake]

You think people aren't going to use 18c to silence opinions they don't like because 2 cases failed? Nonsense. There were 71 cases lodged last year alone.

As for the time, money and stress, eh yes really. People are being put through legal proceedings (at huge cost and stress) because of nonsensical legislation that allows people to take others to court for uttering words. What's amazing is you seem to think the legal system should be tailored to suit affirmative action goals. You and the vast army of social justice warriors that want to silence all opinions that you don't like because it makes you feel upset inside. Such childish petulance has no place in adult matters like the legal system, sorry snowflake, it is you that is out of touch.

nah the coalition is out of touch. I mix in a lot of different circles, and I have never once heard, at a barbie, at smoko, at lunch, footy or cricket game, anywhere, I've never heard anyone say 'geez snake, that 18c is a bit rough, I can't villifiy blacks the way I used to'. Not once. What is this childish petulance exactly?

as for 'what's amazing...' there is nothing amazing about it. The legal system does not occur in a vacuum. It reflects the values of society. There will be laws you agree with and I disagree with and vice versa, but statute law in particular, by definition, is tailored to suit societal values. Those values might mean women can't be discriminated against, or it might mean directors of companies can't be sued, etc etc.

 

[Giardiasis]

nah the coalition is out of touch. I mix in a lot of different circles, and I have never once heard, at a barbie, at smoko, at lunch, footy or cricket game, anywhere, I've never heard anyone say 'geez snake, that 18c is a bit rough, I can't villifiy blacks the way I used to'. Not once.

Cool, so no one will miss it being removed then.

What is this childish petulance exactly?

Here's some good examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUhc3Kv4ieE

 

[tigersnake]

Cool, so no one will miss it being removed then.

You're regularly accosted by people railing against 18c G-man? Actually don't answer that, it wouldn't surprise me if you are 8-

Its not about that for me, its that our government is obsessed with lowering the threshold of what constitutes racism and bullying. That's where their priorities lie. Forget the environment, forget infrastructure, forget employment, they are really focussed on making it easier to insult black and brown people. Its pathetic.

 

[Midsy]

You're regularly accosted by people railing against 18c G-man? Actually don't answer that, it wouldn't surprise me if you are 8-

Its not about that for me, its that our government is obsessed with lowering the threshold of what constitutes racism and bullying. That's where their priorities lie. Forget the environment, forget infrastructure, forget employment, they are really focussed on making it easier to insult black and brown people. Its pathetic.

Are they just realising they can't tell someone when they're supposed to be offended?

What offends you, may not offend me, and trying to implement a law that defines an 'offensive line' is impossible.

 

[tigersnake]

Are they just realising they can't tell someone when they're supposed to be offended?

What offends you, may not offend me, and trying to implement a law that defines an 'offensive line' is impossible.

crap. By the same logic, what is assault to you, may not be assault to me. what is the 'assault line', the 'negligence line'? This is why we have judges.

Impossible? So then nigger, coon and boong aren't over the line? Because its impossible to tell right?

 

[Giardiasis]

crap. By the same logic, what is assault to you, may not be assault to me. what is the 'assault line', the 'negligence line'? This is why we have judges.

Impossible? So then nigger, coon and boong aren't over the line? Because its impossible to tell right?

Physical damage is far easier to demonstrate then hurt feelings, and laws that ban physical harm are freedom enhancing while 18c certainly is not. 18c sets a precedent that will then be used to justify further curtailment to what is acceptable to say. Perhaps criticising affirmative action will become illegal because it will hurt the feelings of some snowflake at melbourne uni. People should be free to say whatever they want on their own property.

Stop the sticks and stones, deal with the words like an adult.

 

[tigersnake]

Straw man G-man. So Nigger is all well and good?

And what about the priorities of government? Nobody really cares except the far right and the misguided G-Man. Its manufactured outrage. So much time and resources wasted. Again, pathetic.

On the slippery slope thing, well, yes and no. People said giving the vote to women was a slippery slope, next thing they'll want to wear pants, drive cars, join mens clubs, have equal pay etc etc. On the other hand, we have rigid checks and balances built in that weed out actual stupid litigation, as opposed to what you think is stupid litigation.

 

[Giardiasis]

Straw man G-man. So Nigger is all well and good?

And what about the priorities of government? Nobody really cares except the far right and the misguided G-Man. Its manufactured outrage. So much time and resources wasted. Again, pathetic.

On the slippery slope thing, well, yes and no. People said giving the vote to women was a slippery slope, next thing they'll want to wear pants, drive cars, join mens clubs, have equal pay etc etc. On the other hand, we have rigid checks and balances built in that weed out actual stupid litigation, as opposed to what you think is stupid litigation.

Someone can say Nigger in a totally benign context, yet someone could take offence where none was intended, and then 18c is there is waste everyone's time and money. So basically people will not be allowed to say certain words through fear that someone will take them to court. How utterly preposterous. This then hurts the process of weeding out bad ideas that freedom of speech provides, and doesn't allow people to act morally because government mandated behaviour is forced upon them. Only the misguided don't consider such things, all they care about is hurt feelings. Pathetic.

If these checks and balances worked like you suggest they work, then 18c would never have been created in the first place. Unfortunately misguided people have significant political influence that hurts us all.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

...
Its not about that for me, its that our government is obsessed with lowering the threshold of what constitutes racism and bullying. That's where their priorities lie. Forget the environment, forget infrastructure, forget employment, they are really focussed on making it easier to insult black and brown people. Its pathetic.

I agree that they use 18c as a distraction and the talk TV/Radio wankfest falls for it every time.

But I don't think it should be the business of government to police "offence" or "insult". People are supposed to be able to deal with this stuff. Involving lawyers in the minutiae of daily life is one of the things that annoys me about modern democracy. I think government should be involved only in "discrimination". To me that means actual impediments in a persons ability to access work or services because of their ethnicity, skin colour etc. I accept that there is a cross-over where racism/bigotry strays into work or education or policing and could result in discrimination. That is the place for legal recourse. Offence/insult is not necessarily discrimination.

 

[tigersnake]

Someone can say Nigger in a totally benign context, yet someone could take offence where none was intended, and then 18c is there is waste everyone's time and money. So basically people will not be allowed to say certain words through fear that someone will take them to court. How utterly preposterous. This then hurts the process of weeding out bad ideas that freedom of speech provides, and doesn't allow people to act morally because government mandated behaviour is forced upon them. Only the misguided don't consider such things, all they care about is hurt feelings. Pathetic.

If these checks and balances worked like you suggest they work, then 18c would never have been created in the first place. Unfortunately misguided people have significant political influence that hurts us all.

Jumping at shadows.

 

[tigersnake]

I agree that they use 18c as a distraction and the talk TV/Radio wankfest falls for it every time.

But I don't think it should be the business of government to police "offence" or "insult". People are supposed to be able to deal with this stuff. Involving lawyers in the minutiae of daily life is one of the things that annoys me about modern democracy. I think government should be involved only in "discrimination". To me that means actual impediments in a persons ability to access work or services because of their ethnicity, skin colour etc. I accept that there is a cross-over where racism/bigotry strays into work or education or policing and could result in discrimination. That is the place for legal recourse. Offence/insult is not necessarily discrimination.

Barking up the wrong tree. Logically, 'people are supposed to be able to deal with this stuff' could apply to any aspect of the law. And people should be able to have recourse to the law only in work or education? You're overthinking it, and buying into the Murdoch, far right hype. But, that is your right.

edit. I'm in agreement with Barnaby Joyce on this issue, whooda thunk that?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/barnaby-joyce-breaks-with-cabinet-solidarity-to-blast-liberal-party-over-fringe-extremities-20170322-gv3owq.html

I heard another soundbite from BJ on the radio this morning, 'the people who feel strongly about it talk about it a lot, all 4 of them'.