What is freedom of speech?
Looks like qut hold some culpability, the mechanism is in place for issues like this to be reconciled without having to take the matter to court, which it should be.
Hako writes "Think you have me confused with someone else angry ant"
You have you confused with someone else.... bahahahaha
TF states that there are 'the mechanism is in place for issues like this to be reconciled'. Clearly not. If you read the total story and how it unfolded, The Human Rights Commission is itself possibly culpable.
"Looks like some were unable to get to the story. It has been going on for a few months. Had got QUT involved. Try - http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/qut-student-faces-200000-bill..."
There has to be much much more to that story? How can the students be taken to court for complaining in the manner they have?
The students should be able to take the school to court for being treated unequally and unfairly based on race.
Imagine if it was the other way around and it was reserved for non indigenous students and indigenous students were rejected and then taken to court for complaining about being treated unfairly.
Treating anyone differently based on race is racist and does not help or heal the wounds of the past or create unity, it only creates or prolongs segregation and division and fuels fear and hate.
Yep, Indo, this one does look like a 'WTF' ! Now it seems we have the Human Rights Commission paying for the most expensive QC to help defend it. (Public money, btw). This is where the twist is …
A possible example where 18c has failed.
Quiet news day out there in conspiracy land is it?
ID and TB read the article, the bit where it says QUT should have informed the students earlier so that the reconciliation process could be put in place. TB the mechanism is CLEARLY there, is it not? Written into the legislation. The mechanism is in place, it should have been used, it wasn't because QUT didn't allow the process, this forces the legislation to the court process and the ridiculous claims and costs.
Floyd... "Caro's arrow" should be a blast tonight lol...... But see, 18c was not needed...... Teflon Eddie and his wingnut mates have been publicly shamed..... It also has put domestic violence on the front page.... Therein lies the joy of "giving them enough rope"........
You're not referring to that crud whereby a few journalists rubbished another journalist behind their back and it was made into a public furphy because the journalist that was mutually despised had a vagina are you ?
Domestic violence has what to do with that private conversation amongst peers ?
Please explain how that conversation could be considered private in any way.
Oh right...it was on a radio station correct ?
Ok it wasn't private .
Does that change anything at all ?
So they talked shit about someone, a peer in their industry they didn't like , reckon that's a unique occurrence ?
Who gives a fuck if it was a female ?
Someone with a barrow to push, that's who.
TF, if the 'mechanisms is clearly there' then why did not the Human Rights Commission follow them. They are also part of this, an important one at that. That is also part the legal claims. This particular case has been going on for a while hence you may not be fully informed.
Regardless, it is fair example of how 18c has possibly failed.
Why would there ever be a Blacks only computer room at a university in 2016 Australia ?
Massive storm in a tea cup Sheepster, Carlo gave plenty to Hird and Dank during that fiasco using her privileged position as journalist to whack them as often as she liked with immunity. Really only stopped after ASDA threatened the AFL with legal action if they didn't stop "leaking" to the press.
Odd she likes mixing it and dishing it out like the men but feigns offence when a bozo like McGuire shoots his mouth off.
I also noted the irony of never having anything published by The Age remotely critical of their award winning journalist during the time she was going Hird by the throat with lets just say "inside" information.
Deleted Blowin...better off not going down that path.
Don't understand Udo .
Could you please explain .
Udo - I specifically referred to "Blacks only " as an provocative invocation of apartheid era segregation.
Which is where any form of segregation belongs - in the regrettable past.
Fully disagree, Floyd..... Eddies comments were disgusting as was me old mates Frawleys (being a saints man)...... Yes, Caro just like Barret, David King, Robbo etc push the envelope in journalism.... That's what journos do.... But none of them have used "jokes" about physical violence towards fellow peers..... Ed will play the victim now, just as he did with his ape comments....
But hail free speech....... He's getting theridicule he deserves...
Geez Sheepy I still remember her articles going the Hird family and the strident assertions of guilt and calls for sackings before and during the ASDA investigation and then during the AFL investigation etc etc ..... she also has a long history of calling for Eddie's sacking on each issue he puts his foot in his mouth as also with Brayshaw, two intellectual lightweights in a sport were intelligence generally hinders advancement. Fair to say while some think she is a award winning journalist most in the industry would have an alternate view of all journalists not just Caro.
Now, it should also be said context and nuance is very important in language so on one level I agree with you but Eddie and his radio mates are mostly a pack dimwits that no-one should take seriously so its all bluster ........ hey sheepy, compare the AFL's response here defending a journalist to how they were silent in the Adam Goodes case ......... just like that UK issue we discussed last week ---- one person's murderer is another's terrorist.
Blowin I disagree 18C has to stay people can say what they wish without the need to defame an individual to get their point across. Sticks and Stones is one thing public humiliation it not right and is where a line has to be drawn on free speech.
Sheeodog voicing an opinion or observation on religion is fine in the context you put and no one is prevented from saying "that christianity is "islam lite"..... It's abhorrent.... It's probably more insideous than Islam, though I find both religions equally absurd......".
Floyd, with the greatest respect, you are factually incorrect on the "Eddies sacking" issue...... Firstly he offered his resignation, but the Collingwood board rejected it re Adam Goodes.... I personally agreed with Wilson at the time.. He should've been sacked....
In regards to the AFL's response at the time, here it is;
Yes, the new ceo could've handled things a bit better..... As could Demetriou.... But perhaps if Ed would just keep his fat fly trap closed, they could concentrate on fixing the draw, you know, footy stuff.....
Now...... hird.......... If Hird hadn't wheeled his wife into the story, Wilson would have had nothing to talk about.... Hird made his wife part of the story..... That was his choice. It was her choice to treat it as a reality tv situation..... Wilson wrote accordingly.
Wilsons not a bad football reporter even though i am hardly her biggest fan. She's thrown a few off side with opinions that don't suit the TripleM Footy Show boys club but Eddie, Spud and Brayshaw were really fucking dumb to have an on air conversation and not expect it to be scrutinised.
@TB it mentions in the article you posted why the mediation didn't happen. Do you reckon this fella Zac listens to Eddie McGuire? Some of the things he posted to this girl are a bit off, I wonder where in his cultural upbringing he was exposed to such cheery banter.
I reckon it's sexist to even bring the persons gender into it .
Not sure where you people have worked, but these comments would not raise a single eyebrow at many places I've spent my working days.
In fact I'd consider this completely unremarkable banter.
Would you be outraged if the boys at your work joked about another in this manner ?
If not why would it be any different for this mob.
Unprofessional maybe - or maybe not as they are actually in the entertainment business ( that's all AFL is ) - but you don't appear to be decrying their lack of professionalism .
And to equate this with domestic violence.....utterly fucking ridiculous .
Unless you're stupid enough to believe they were genuinely going to drown this person.
PS. Wharfjunkie - Pretty sure 18c doesn't specify humiliate of offend in public, it can be in private. Even so , who cares - have you ever been publicly humiliated ?
I have and hated it, doesn't mean I want the prick arrested.
Drowned maybe, but not arrested.
Well, blowin, they WEREN"T sitting around a smoko break having a private laugh.... They were on MMM footy, with kids listening.... 10 yo boys..... Do you make the same jokes with your mates in front of kids? About holding women under water and bombing them?
Do you discus explicit sex in front of kids? You are free to do so, but I'd be free to tell you to pull your head in......
So, yeah...... I think the comments were pathetic.... Not even funny..... There shouldn't be a law prohibiting it..... As we see, the public is sorting it out.....
Joking on a public radio about killing someone is one thing but call someone a 'racist homocidal maniac' online is three years jail.
Fuck you're a drama queen sheepy
More quality input from Goofyfoot.....
Just saw on tv Holden re assessing sponsorship of Collingwood...... Seems only troglodytes like goofy cant see the issue.....
I agree with you Sheepdog, you've pretty much nailed it.
It's astonishing to hear others implying that as long as it's said behind closed doors, in private, it's ok. Wake up fukwits, that's the whole problem, that's where all this shit gathers momentum then becomes "ok" when said in public.
Take all this private "talk" a step further, as long I beat my wife behind closed doors, it's ok, I'm not doing it in public. Sounds dramatic but unfortunately it's all to very real.
Fucking dinosaurs. Come join the real world. Very soon hopefully.
"@TB it mentions in the article you posted why the mediation didn't happen. Do you reckon this fella Zac listens to Eddie McGuire? Some of the things he posted to this girl are a bit off, I wonder where in his cultural upbringing he was exposed to such cheery banter.
Let me see if I'm understanding this regarding what's what in this thread:
Behind closed doors in the 'men's shed'* amongst the like-minded: OK?
But not online or in a wider public context? And definitely not directly to the 'other' you're 'bantering' about?
So where's Eddie and Danny and Bolty and Farrokh Sekaleshfar and Feizel Chothia fit into this?
*or 'boy's club' or even 'women's group' (though not much evidence of that on here)
Who's Eddie ... Maybe find out what 18c actually states.
Who's Eddie? Really? Who are you? Bob Katter?
Do YOU know what 18 C n D entails?
Anyway, with the wider discussion that is happening on here, I ask again:
Behind closed doors in the 'men's shed'* amongst the like-minded, 'banter' is OK?
So where's Eddie and Danny and Bolty and Farrokh Sekaleshfar and Feizel Chothia fit into all this?
X Files anyone?
when it comes to Eddies comments in the past about Goodes it is without doubt easy for the public to punish him. these are simple cases because Eddy is joking. as such he will quickly back down when he realizes his public image is being tainted. it is his livelihood and he wont risk that. but what about cases like Bolt? he has a bunch of like minded followers. so how do we trust that public discourse will effectively pull him up. will it? im not saying that free speech doesn't effectively move debate forward, it does, but if we don't have laws in certain circumstances what is stopping the likes of Bolt continuing on? does he grow in size and stature because of it. similarly, its always good if we can debate the two muslim gents. but debating doesn't stop them from walking away and preaching their ideas that afternoon. who is listening? and what impact is it having on them? the devil is always in the detail of course. in some circumstances im convinced that laws are needed. but the laws need only deal with the most drastic of cases. we don't want to pulling the rule book out ever time someone has a brain fart or pushes the boundaries. but when the comments are grossly inconsistent (e.g, capital punishment for homosexuals) with how we view ourselves as a nation and what we want to be, then I'm not comfortable relying on public discourse solely.
SB, you obviously have not read the articles regarding the QUT case. Or it's relevance to the Human Rights Commission and of course 18c.
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C
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.
Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:
(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or
(b) is done in a public place; or
(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.
(3) In this section:
"public place " 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.
"PS. Wharfjunkie - Pretty sure 18c doesn't specify humiliate of offend in public, it can be in private. Even so , who cares - have you ever been publicly humiliated ?
Drowned maybe, but not arrested."
Nobody has the right to publicly humiliate people in public but someone calling someone an ABO or Black Cunt in the street probably wouldn't result in anything. A public display towards an individual at a Rally, Speech, Radio or TV broadcast etc deserves to be punishable in some way it's not a matter of sticks and stones mate people cannot abuse people as they see fit.
So you have Agent Scully?
What's this thread called again?
Freedom of speech.
It's not all about 18 C - The RACIAL discrimination act. Is it?
It's been widened out.
The Islamists vs homosexuality. True blue patriots vs Islam. Eddie & the boys vs Caroline Wilson. The Internet numpties vs women (though the chiro (?!) nut was vilifying Nova Peris on racial grounds as well). Then there's Bolt vs the indigenous green/labor alliance muslim world.
Oh, and some fellow commenters here against reason itself.
I think the power relation is an interesting factor. Bolt's voice on air, online and syndicated and legitimated on every Murdoch platform ain't Tony having a beer down the pub or in the men's shed, or even in the virtual Swellnet 'men's shed' having a beer.
And yes, even taking into account 18 C n D, and their provisions regarding RACIAL discrimination, aren't there degrees of culpability and responsibility here?
Who wins and loses when certain protections are dissolved or upheld?
Shats...... If "1" on the scale of free speech is eg- North Korea, and "10" is an absolute unadultered free for all where even the most shocking disgusting pov can be aired, and with Australia say sliding in at "6", where would you put yourself?...... Yes.. A banal useless question..... But hell, that's modern life lol
Seems to me people are getting so p.c. and precious these days they have completely lost any sense of humor, some people are desperate to be the victim. Its funny to hear people outraged at some light hearted banter then go on to call people with differing views troglodytes , morons, pathetic etc. The good old Aussie spirit of giving back as good as you get is at risk of disappearing up our own dates. Its not what you say but how you say it, but some people will never get it. Cheers princesses.
Why is it not an offence to publicly humiliate someone by saying they are fat , ugly ignorant , stupid or without reason ?
You may claim ignorance or obesity is a choice and therefore not a factor as this law is protecting people from being discrinated on intrinsic factors.
But you could also claim that religion is as much a choice as obesity, or more so if all environmental considerations were taken not account ie a person that may have a religious upbringing is exposed to a lesser causative effect than someone who's highly fattening meals and unhealthy lifestyle were dictated by an irresponsible parent.
So it's cool to label myself unreasonable and maybe stupid, even if that's how I was raised and the opinions I have are opinions I've been brought up to believe as unquestionable ?
But if it were religion there'd be no slandering on here, as there usually isn't .
Sounds like you enjoy your freedom of speech being spoonfed.
Zero thought required.
Did I offend anyone ?
Exactly old dog.
Even worse than people wanting to appear as victims, is the people that are emphatically supporting victims that they've never met and are often purely theoretical .
Similar to Sheepdogs desperate plea to think of the kids that were listening to Eddie talk his dribble.
And to extrapolate further , I think the victim empathy was actually intended for the future wives that might have become victims of domestic abuse from the same boys as grown men that learned to mistreat and batter their women though the "casual violence "of dismissive humour on broadcast radio.
there is no law surrounding humiliating/offending someone on account of their religion as far as im aware, provided you are not discriminating against them. religious discrimination seems to be covered under the general human rights act. two separate threads running here: those of discrimination and offending/humiliate....not to be confused I think.
Did the woman end up taking action against Eddie?
Eddie McGuire is the whinging bitch, who sues someone for calling them a, " hopelessly conflicted tabloid muckraker"
Eddie McGuire: The prolific but sensitive Herald Sun columnist and multi-media personality sued The Age over a column that called him a “hopelessly conflicted tabloid muckraker”. The Age settled a few months back and Eddie is telling people he had a big win. He also threatened to sue footy commentator Stephen Rowe of Adelaide 5AA who falsely alleged the Pies had bribed an umpire in a bid to clear Nathan Buckley of a striking charge. Rowe and the station later apologised as part of an out-of-court settlement with the club. Eddie also bared his litigious teeth against “stupid” comments by former SA footballer and 5AA commentator Graham Cornes. “He (Cornes) has to be just a little bit careful starting to make further insinuations about the Collingwood Football Club or me as a person or Channel Nine as a broadcaster because these baseless allegations are not going to be tolerated,” McGuire said. [As Dennis Commetti would say, “ominous signs”.]
Old dog..... "Seems to me people are getting so p.c. and precious these days they have completely lost any sense of humor, some people are desperate to be the victim. Its funny to hear people outraged at some light hearted banter then go on to call people with differing views troglodytes , morons, pathetic etc. The good old Aussie spirit of giving back as good as you get is at risk of disappearing up our own dates. Its not what you say but how you say it, but some people will never get it. Cheers princesses."
Well, first point.... The "sense of humour light hearted banter" bit...... Thing thing about humour? It's meant to be funny..... That's the key to a good joke..... Now, I've listened to the MMM convo several times... It's about as funny as gastro......
Second point..... There's a thing called "common sense"...... Now you might hink that "good old Aussie spirit of giving back as good as you get is at risk of disappearing up our own dates"...... Well I actually think that that "common sense and decency" is far more endangered..... If one wants to publicly crack jokes on a city radio station about holding a woman under water, if you think it's funny, knock yourself out..... That sort of shit would not have been tolerated on radio in 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970...... Perhaps the era of wankerism, 1975 onwards, something like this may have been ok.... In fact, i don't even think Paul Hogan would've cracked a joke about holding a woman underwater...... Even Ted Bullpit on Kingswood Country showed respect to women..... Mind you he didn't like that Italian guy lol......
I thought Malcon Turnbull spelt it out quite well, along the lines of "not all disrespectful comments against women results in violence against women, but all violence against women starts with disrespectful comments"......
Great to see the community at large getting behind this issue. It's simply no longer ok to disrespect women wether you think it's just a joke or not. As Sheepdog said, jokes are supposed to be funny. If these comments were directed at your wife, daughter or sister etc would you still think it was fun & games?!?
You are right Rabbit we should line up all the comedians and put them to death for all the violence they have perpertrated against women.
I can't believe how sexist some of you guys are. Women should be treated as our equals not as a weaker sex.
I think you will find if people are violent against others ( men and women ) then it is how they are brought up. Not from comments or from a joke. Man, people need to take responsibility for their own action.
If I bash my wife can I blame Eddie Macguire for his joke the other day?
Get real you idiots.
"If these comments were directed at your wife, daughter or sister etc would you still think it was fun & games?!?"
So what, if its your husband, son or brother its alright ???