Lauren Southern to speak in NZ

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Lauren Southern to speak in NZ

1 | ... | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26

576 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2074425 16-Aug-2018 11:31

I don't normally bother posting on anything in the ideological/political/subjective realm, but I think it's worth calling out a couple of key points about 'majority' and 'public opinion'

Rikkitic:

People ask who controls what is allowed to be said. I think the public does. I believe most people reject such views. What happened in Auckland proves that very point. Most people did not want those people to appear. A few did. A few always will. But majority public opinion just wanted them to go away. ...

In the same way that public opinion came up with a sensible response to the Canadian stirrers, it also delivered a resounding verdict on the Don Brash debacle. .... Common sense wins.

Realistically, the 'public' or majority don't give two hoots about these topics and it tends to be the media and the extreme elements on both 'sides' that make these things a big deal. Most people are going about their day just trying to get by, any thoughts or opinions on these or similar topics are created and informed by only limited information and opinion media. Most people don't have the spare time to be fully informed on every topic that might crop up, so lean towards whatever answer is most common in their social circles and 'feels' correct to them if asked.

Much like the argument about if we should have professional jurors, professional jurors won't reflect the whole breadth of society and all the people that don't really care either way.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2074428 16-Aug-2018 11:39

gehenna:

Jesus.

...played for Mexico, 2014. Had his surname (Corona) censored in the World Cup and shortened to "Jesus C." on his team kit - because some other beer company had exclusive rights. Not even the freedom to use your own name, because the answer is money.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2074429 16-Aug-2018 11:47

Fred99:

gehenna:

Jesus.

...played for Mexico, 2014. Had his surname (Corona) censored in the World Cup and shortened to "Jesus C." on his team kit - because some other beer company had exclusive rights. Not even the freedom to use your own name, because the answer is money.

Perplexing though, everyone called him Zeus ... as in "Hey, Zeus"

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2074722 17-Aug-2018 09:28

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2074752 17-Aug-2018 11:10

Ironically, Goff (Canadians) and Thomas (Brash) handed the latter to them on a plate (not so suggest anything Brash had to say was offensive).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2074783 17-Aug-2018 12:00

Ironically, terrorists also get the free publicity they seek handed to them on a plate.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2075696 19-Aug-2018 12:00

Fred99:

I'm not sure what a free figurative megaphone would be in practical terms - perhaps free use of a venue, or free air time.

Anyone with the $ can buy those things, but free access is difficult.

The loudest megaphones are perhaps social media platforms. They are free for users, but how loud depends on how many followers you have, shares, posts etc.

Media -big chunks of reporting are what's already happened on social media. You could flick out a press release which may or may not be picked up.

Mike

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2075820 19-Aug-2018 15:26

Social media is a unique problem (that once looked like an opportunity). I see Trump has attacked social media for not publishing "republican/conservative" content. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that's because his loyal friend/supporter, and fellow malicious conspiracy theory nutcase Alex Jones has been temporarily or permanently banned from social media sites - and not because Trump is really upset that FB etc have promised to filter out Russian trolls - who succeeded in getting him elected.

What now?

I'd ignore the part about a "free" megaphone. Should any publication have an obligation to print everything submitted if paid for at normal rates be that advertisement/advertorial, or "free" in the case of a news "press release" etc. ? Even "letters to the editor" always had T&C and no guarantee a letter would be published.

If you own a venue, then why should someone's supposed "freedom of speech" rights prevail over your property rights?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2075844 19-Aug-2018 16:05

I see the issue (and cartoon) as one of free speech being free in the sense that anyone has a right to say anything in public (as long as it isn't hate speech), but they don't have a right to expect anyone else to help them do it. There is no obligation on the part of authorities or private individuals to help anyone find a public podium or address a mass audience. If someone wants to get up on a box in a park and shout fascist slogans, they are entitled to do so as long as it doesn't create a public disturbance or violate standards of decency (which for some reason don't seem to include fascist slogans). But if they want to hire a hall, and no-one wants to accommodate them, they can't cry 'discrimination'. They have no right to a megaphone if no-one wants to give them one.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2076012 20-Aug-2018 09:23

Rikkitic:

But if they want to hire a hall, and no-one wants to accommodate them, they can't cry 'discrimination'.

As per an earlier post I'm not sure if that is actually true from a legal view point in NZ.

Refusing to provide a venue for a fascist event, seems to violate the same section of law as refusing to provide a venue for a gay-pride event.

Mike

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2076014 20-Aug-2018 09:27

Fred99:

If you own a venue, then why should someone's supposed "freedom of speech" rights prevail over your property rights?

Because the legal treatment of a privately owned commercial venue or business is quite different from that of a private residence.

Mike

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2076016 20-Aug-2018 09:30

I think this article is relevant and and an accurate analysis of what's gone wrong. It's written about Trump specifically, but more generally is about the rise of authoritarianism, and how social media is enabling it:

http://fredturner.stanford.edu/turner-trump-on-twitter-in-pjb-zzp/

Trump’s capture of the presidency has visibly betrayed the antiauthoritarian promise of digital media. It has also revealed a critical flaw in the thinking that underlies it. Since World War II, many Americans have imagined that totalitarian societies are by definition regimented, hyper-bureaucratized, hierarchical, and emotionally numb. The emblems of such societies are the gulag and the concentration camp. Particularly after the 1960s, we have tended to imagine free societies as just the opposite: unregimented, anti-bureaucratic, egalitarian, and suffused with feeling. The emblems of a free society today, at least on the left, are the open-air rock concert and the sit-in. We are free, we believe, when we speak our individual truths together.

Yet, anyone who sat in the mud at Woodstock knows how far from utopia a rock concert can be. And anyone who has ever had successful surgery at a hospital will respect the value of hierarchy, bureaucracy, and disinterested reason. The critique of mass society and mass media that so animated Americans during and after World War II has left us blind to the ways in which individualism itself can be summoned to serve authoritarian ends.

From an article in The Guardian referencing Fred Turner:

Trump’s capture of the presidency, says Turner, has comprehensively refuted the democratising promise of digital media. The key feature of authoritarian capture is the projection of the charismatic personality of the ruler. In an analogue era, that meant that the bodies or minds of his audience had to be brought together in one place so that he could work his hypnotic magic. Think Nuremberg rallies or regular speeches like the ones Goebbels used to transmit, via the inexpensive radio receivers he dispensed and also by loudspeakers in public places.

Although Trump has used mini-Nuremberg-style rallies to great effect, he displays most ingenuity in using Twitter to project his charisma. Turner highlights two aspects of this. The first is the way he uses the medium to project his personality: the daft, tempestuous tweets that so infuriate liberals are taken by followers as a sign of his authenticity as a person. He’s “just being himself” – so unlike conventional politicians – and so claims the right to their attention and political support. The second significant aspect is that his tweets come as part of a follower’s twitterstream, interspersed with tweets from friends and a range of other sources. In that way, Trump uses the medium “to insert himself into the company of a user’s chosen conversation partners”, much as Franklin Roosevelt used his “fireside” radio chats during his presidency.

Turner’s analysis of Trump’s ascendancy is as depressing as it is acute. He concludes that “authoritarian charisma is not medium-dependent. Nor are authentic individuality, the intimate social sphere, or flexible collaborative networks necessarily enemies of totalitarianism.” And it’s not clear what, if anything, can be done to improve things.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#2076040 20-Aug-2018 10:02

MikeAqua:

Fred99:

If you own a venue, then why should someone's supposed "freedom of speech" rights prevail over your property rights?

Because the legal treatment of a privately owned commercial venue or business is quite different from that of a private residence.

I can't see why that should make the difference you seem to be basing a breach of "freedom of speech" argument on.

There are even investment companies who have an entire business model based on "ethical" investment, they'll refuse to invest in cigarette companies, companies with poor environment records, casinos, arms manufacturers etc etc. Those companies that they refuse to deal with are all presumably acting entirely within the law - so the decision to discriminate against them is surely and entirely ethical/political.

It's not just "investment" companies either, a friend of mine (overseas) is a management consultant, they very openly state that they'll not deal with much the same list of companies as ethical investment companies. That seems to be winning them more business than they're losing - many client companies seem to like the idea of working with consultants who take such a political position. (OTOH consultants who work as spin doctors for unethical companies also seem to have a ready market - I don't know if they'd be prepared to work for an environmental or anti land mine organisation - it might be bad for business)

I can't see the difference between that - and refusing to hire out a hall to a pair of fascists. If it was my hall, I wouldn't hire it out to fascists - it could be bad for business to be associated with scum. I'd choose not to help them and show them the exit door.

The issue that I can see is that in another thread on a slightly different subject in this forum, there was general consensus (with the exception of some who appeared to be theistic "believers") that it was not okay to refuse to supply a wedding cake for a gay wedding.

"What's the difference?" is perhaps a valid question, that was discrimination based on what people are, (as opposed to what they think) and arguably in breach of existing law. Or is it a question of morality and I'm simply tolerant of people for what they are, but my entire argument is based on the obvious - that I hate fascists with a vengeance?

I'm aware of the paradox and the problems it causes - and absence of an easy answer.

MikeAqua

7785 posts

Uber Geek

#2076069 20-Aug-2018 10:27

Fred99:

MikeAqua:

Fred99:

If you own a venue, then why should someone's supposed "freedom of speech" rights prevail over your property rights?

Because the legal treatment of a privately owned commercial venue or business is quite different from that of a private residence.

I can't see why that should make the difference you seem to be basing a breach of "freedom of speech" argument on.

Sorry, I wasn't thinking of freedom of speech but of prohibition of discrimination under the Human Rights Act.

Freedom of speech derives from the Bill of Rights Act (and other rights).

I don't see the relevance of your ethical investment examples. That is an investment company choosing where to buy, not who to sell to.

If the same investment firm refused to take investments from people of a particular sex, age, sexuality, religion, political belief ... then I think they would be breaching the HRA.

I don't think the law provides a venue owner with an exemption based on ethics - if someone bothered to take a case, such a venue owner would probably loose.

Mike

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2076085 20-Aug-2018 10:48

MikeAqua:

As per an earlier post I'm not sure if that is actually true from a legal view point in NZ.

Refusing to provide a venue for a fascist event, seems to violate the same section of law as refusing to provide a venue for a gay-pride event.

Not a lawyer so can't argue this in legal terms, but I believe the law specifically bans certain forms of discrimination (based on race, sex, etc.) but not the rest (fascism, etc.)

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26