Andrew Bolt's public waaaaahh over being found guilty. Also a good discussion of what freedom of speech is, for people who don't seem to know.
Last week, after Bolty the Terrible got pantsed in court, he came out with his usual plaintive wail of his freedom of speech being under attack, and bemoaning why we can't all just get along in this wonderful, rainbow coloured, multicultural playground we all gambol in like spring lambs.
How fortunate he is to be able to devote a double page spread in Melbourne's highest circulation newspaper, while his editor runs a supportive editorial right alongside it. Don't you wish you could do the same, when you goof up?
Oh that's right, you and me aren't highly paid to push an agenda like Bolty is, I forgot.
Anyway, after that the usual hair-pulling and wailing and moaning from journos and ill-informed civilians started to permeate print and blogosphere. "Our freedom of speech is under AAAATTTTAAAAACKKK!" came the plaintive cry.
No, it's not. In fact what happened to The Dutch Dolt is actually a good thing for preserving the highest standards of free speech.
Almost everyone, when they discuss free speech, seem to have little to no idea what it involves and entails. Neither do people realise that Australia in particular has NO legally enshrined RIGHT to free speech. Harping on about the legal right to free speech in Australia is pointless. As a priniciple of a harmonious democracy, free speech is a valuable thing to uphold, but it's not just open slather to say everything and anything.
Read the linked article. The Dutch Dolt has been busy telling Australia that his 'unpopular opinions' were under attack. Do the quotes in the article look like his opinion is being attacked? No, his broad assumptions, distortions and outright lies are being attacked.
Words can be dangerous, words can wound, words can raise armies, and change a person's opinions permanently. If we are to support free speech as a principle worth upholding, then we need to use this power carefully. Free speech is not about telling lies about people you have an ideological grievance with. Free speech is not about rallying hatred and oppression. Freedom of speech came to be a popular principle to escape from under the yoke of arseholes who did those things.
The power of free speech lies in being able to give your opinions voice without fear of reprisal, sure, but NOT if you are merely indulging in blame-throwing, slut-shaming, hate-crime inciting, lying, manipulating and so on. Your free speech stops at my harm or injury and vice versa. The reason why is simple. If you claim free speech to denigrate me and call for public opprobium to be hurled upon me, with no just cause, you place my life in danger, you have heavily curtailed my right to exist. Your freedom of speech does NOT trump another's right to live with dignity, NOR does it trump another's right to free speech as well.
The court slapped the Dutch Dolt down because of one instance in an ongoing campaign of deliberate misinformation. Note his use of the terms 'professional Aborigine' and so on. If you're white, are you a 'professional caucasian' because you enjoy the social and financial benefits of living in a predominantly white country? Of course not. Such terms must be viewed with cynicism for being loaded with the racist charge they are.
And he continues to do this still, his double-paged hand-wringing, was loaded with distortions and half-truths. To curtail and occasionally reprimand the Andrew Bolts of the world is NOT to inhibit free speech, but rather to defend the heart and soul of its purpose. No-one targeted in Bolt's article got a right of reply to counter his mostly erroneous accusations. His claim of freedom to speech thus vastly trumped theirs. He got to insinuate they were grafters, conmen and swindlers by claiming an undeserved ethnic identity. He did this, as mentioned before, in Melbourne's most widely read newspaper. That's not freedom of speech, that's vilification and denigration on a grand scale. If Bolt and the Herald Sun truly believed in freedom of speech, they would have invited the accused to respond to their accuser. Of course they didn't.
To people who feel the Dutch Dolt was hard done by, don't delude yourself or sell yourself short. That court decision protected a valuable ideal. The man you feel sorry for has been well-paid for many years to lie to you and push a political agenda. While you champion his free speech, he is blindly rampaging over a right you have allowed to wither and neglect.
Finally, it may seem hypocritical that I call him the Dutch Dolt, after I've been rabbiting on about not denigrating people. Yes, it is a cheap shot. I don't truly imagine that one cheap shot against a man whose livelihood is built on cheap shots is much of a counterbalance. But, in the spirit of bringing fact back into the dialogue, I will point out that he's not Dutch, though he bangs on about his Dutch heritage enough, and how that makes him an outsider, albeit one who adjusted. After all, you've all heard of the terrible stigma and racism suffered by white Dutch immigrants in this country right?
<tumbleweed>
Well, the 'Dolt' part. Yeah okay, pretty mean of me, not very considerate. I should be more polite toward a Uni drop-out who went on to easily earn three times what I do, by lying and never researching facts, for a newspaper that is part of a media empire hell-bent on stifling, choking and destroying democracy and free, reasoned expression in this country. Mmm, yeah I should be a lot nicer to this guy.
<tumbleweed>
Don't feel sorry for old Bolty, he has you all eating out of the palm of his hand. While you weep fat miserable tears for the loss of his freedom of speech, he emboldens you to disseminate his lying, his bad research, his distrust and hatred.
By buying his line about the court decision, you have chosen to throw away the precious principle that decision has protected.
Last week, after Bolty the Terrible got pantsed in court, he came out with his usual plaintive wail of his freedom of speech being under attack, and bemoaning why we can't all just get along in this wonderful, rainbow coloured, multicultural playground we all gambol in like spring lambs.
How fortunate he is to be able to devote a double page spread in Melbourne's highest circulation newspaper, while his editor runs a supportive editorial right alongside it. Don't you wish you could do the same, when you goof up?
Oh that's right, you and me aren't highly paid to push an agenda like Bolty is, I forgot.
Anyway, after that the usual hair-pulling and wailing and moaning from journos and ill-informed civilians started to permeate print and blogosphere. "Our freedom of speech is under AAAATTTTAAAAACKKK!" came the plaintive cry.
No, it's not. In fact what happened to The Dutch Dolt is actually a good thing for preserving the highest standards of free speech.
Almost everyone, when they discuss free speech, seem to have little to no idea what it involves and entails. Neither do people realise that Australia in particular has NO legally enshrined RIGHT to free speech. Harping on about the legal right to free speech in Australia is pointless. As a priniciple of a harmonious democracy, free speech is a valuable thing to uphold, but it's not just open slather to say everything and anything.
Read the linked article. The Dutch Dolt has been busy telling Australia that his 'unpopular opinions' were under attack. Do the quotes in the article look like his opinion is being attacked? No, his broad assumptions, distortions and outright lies are being attacked.
Words can be dangerous, words can wound, words can raise armies, and change a person's opinions permanently. If we are to support free speech as a principle worth upholding, then we need to use this power carefully. Free speech is not about telling lies about people you have an ideological grievance with. Free speech is not about rallying hatred and oppression. Freedom of speech came to be a popular principle to escape from under the yoke of arseholes who did those things.
The power of free speech lies in being able to give your opinions voice without fear of reprisal, sure, but NOT if you are merely indulging in blame-throwing, slut-shaming, hate-crime inciting, lying, manipulating and so on. Your free speech stops at my harm or injury and vice versa. The reason why is simple. If you claim free speech to denigrate me and call for public opprobium to be hurled upon me, with no just cause, you place my life in danger, you have heavily curtailed my right to exist. Your freedom of speech does NOT trump another's right to live with dignity, NOR does it trump another's right to free speech as well.
The court slapped the Dutch Dolt down because of one instance in an ongoing campaign of deliberate misinformation. Note his use of the terms 'professional Aborigine' and so on. If you're white, are you a 'professional caucasian' because you enjoy the social and financial benefits of living in a predominantly white country? Of course not. Such terms must be viewed with cynicism for being loaded with the racist charge they are.
And he continues to do this still, his double-paged hand-wringing, was loaded with distortions and half-truths. To curtail and occasionally reprimand the Andrew Bolts of the world is NOT to inhibit free speech, but rather to defend the heart and soul of its purpose. No-one targeted in Bolt's article got a right of reply to counter his mostly erroneous accusations. His claim of freedom to speech thus vastly trumped theirs. He got to insinuate they were grafters, conmen and swindlers by claiming an undeserved ethnic identity. He did this, as mentioned before, in Melbourne's most widely read newspaper. That's not freedom of speech, that's vilification and denigration on a grand scale. If Bolt and the Herald Sun truly believed in freedom of speech, they would have invited the accused to respond to their accuser. Of course they didn't.
To people who feel the Dutch Dolt was hard done by, don't delude yourself or sell yourself short. That court decision protected a valuable ideal. The man you feel sorry for has been well-paid for many years to lie to you and push a political agenda. While you champion his free speech, he is blindly rampaging over a right you have allowed to wither and neglect.
Finally, it may seem hypocritical that I call him the Dutch Dolt, after I've been rabbiting on about not denigrating people. Yes, it is a cheap shot. I don't truly imagine that one cheap shot against a man whose livelihood is built on cheap shots is much of a counterbalance. But, in the spirit of bringing fact back into the dialogue, I will point out that he's not Dutch, though he bangs on about his Dutch heritage enough, and how that makes him an outsider, albeit one who adjusted. After all, you've all heard of the terrible stigma and racism suffered by white Dutch immigrants in this country right?
<tumbleweed>
Well, the 'Dolt' part. Yeah okay, pretty mean of me, not very considerate. I should be more polite toward a Uni drop-out who went on to easily earn three times what I do, by lying and never researching facts, for a newspaper that is part of a media empire hell-bent on stifling, choking and destroying democracy and free, reasoned expression in this country. Mmm, yeah I should be a lot nicer to this guy.
<tumbleweed>
Don't feel sorry for old Bolty, he has you all eating out of the palm of his hand. While you weep fat miserable tears for the loss of his freedom of speech, he emboldens you to disseminate his lying, his bad research, his distrust and hatred.
By buying his line about the court decision, you have chosen to throw away the precious principle that decision has protected.
0 comments:
Post a Comment