|
Post by angra on Jan 21, 2013 3:58:35 GMT 10
MoC - I'm led to think of one of the greatest American musicals, West Side Story, which was originally about Irish Catholic vs Jewish gangs, and only later into development was set amongst Chicanos. Now that's another one of those words like Latinos which really has no meaning outside a particular time and place in the US. Many of the old-time New York gangs were Jewish. But we don't seem inclined to use 'Jew' in the same sense as 'Latino' - although many did in the '20's and '30's. Just pointing out some hypocrisy here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish-American_organized_crime
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 21, 2013 9:49:05 GMT 10
WT??! blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_laws_against_free_speech_protected_the_cheat_armstrong/Here’s a warning that just the threat of legal action can stifle free speech - and true speech - if the laws are too strict:IT MAY have taken him 13 years, but today British sports journalist and author David Walsh got the confession he thought would never come.
... The chief sports writer for Britain’s The Sunday Times has relentlessly pursued Armstrong over his use of banned substances since the American cyclist won his first Tour de France and at that time, and for the next decade, was a lone voice in that claim against the man who was a cycling god to most.
... Armstrong sued The Sunday Times and in 2006 the newspaper settled the case for more than $500,000 after spending more than $1 million in legal fees.
They quite rightly now want the money back - with interest. Laws to temper free speech tend to cause far more harm than good, in my opinion. Take even the rise of the Nazis. The true problem was not that they were free to publish their vile propaganda, but that others were not free to damn it. *grabs head to stop it from spinning* Firstly ... NAZIs? Where'd THAT come from? Why the godwin? Who are these NAZIs? And unless I'm mistaken, I'm pretty sure that the laws in that case were defamation laws. The one restriction on speech that the right seems to heartily approve of (except when the person making the threat is somebody they don't like, of course). Is bolta really saying that he thinks defamation laws should go? Is he saying anything?
|
|
|
Post by angra on Jan 21, 2013 10:24:08 GMT 10
Bolt got his knickers in a twist last year when a climate denialist group called the Galileo Movement listed him as one of their advisers, but only after discovering that they also held Monktonesque views about a world cabal of Zionist bankers attempting to control the world. He issued them with a stern letter and demanded they take his name off their web site.
Will he now be consistent and distance himself from the Q society, if he bothers to investigate their anti-Muslim views and hateful proposals, many of which are far more extreme than those of the Galileo Movement?
I think not.
And MoC, re your last post, remember Bolt is the one that has threatened defamation action against his critics on several occasions.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 21, 2013 10:56:18 GMT 10
Hmm, angra - re threats, could we actually _prove_ that? I know what I think, but that's quite different to what I could prove.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Jan 21, 2013 11:02:39 GMT 10
MoC - well I know personally of one such threat, concerning complaints made to the press council about his infamous "Greens burning bodies for energy" article. I was one of five.
For some reason they sent News Ltd's and Bolts responses to each complainant back to all of us, with real names and addresses. One response contained a definite threat of legal action unless the complainant withdrew, which they did. (It wasn't me BTW).
You might remember it from PP. I posted the response I received, and threw away the others, as it was a gross invasion of privacy.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Jan 21, 2013 11:58:48 GMT 10
And there's this (and a lot more like it) dug up from the sunken depths of PP.
"Last year I contacted the Australian Press Council requesting their help with corrections to 6 articles on the Andrew Bolt Blog that were hurting some people.
The Herald and Weekly Times (Bolt’s employer) voluntarily removed 5 articles in February but Bolt dug in with the 6th article where I queried the accuracy, fairness and balance of the way he portrayed Prof Robert Manne….
Bolt reacted by launching a personal attack on me with this false accusation:
Mr Barrow is in my opinion a vexatious litigant in many fora over a long time. Mr Barrow is in my opinion a man who seeks not to promote debate but to close it down."
Coldsnacks
|
|
jules
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by jules on Jan 21, 2013 13:33:35 GMT 10
Hi, this is admin Jules, stuck in melbourne (again), to steal a phrase from an obscure Australian songwriter. My other computer got fried back at home, so i'm using this log in till I get back (hopefully by the weekend0 or remember my original password and the email address I used when setting up the site. Anyway ... Bolt has an article at his blog: Horror: two adults have sex for years So as far as I can tell unexpectedly initiating sex with someone who has never done it before is rape. The person doesn't have time or knowledge to consent. Can you imagine someone saying "I'm sorry officer/your honour, I din't rape her, i just fucked her when she wasn't expecting it." WTF Especially when they fell powerless to stop it. If the sex was consensual as far as I can tell then the idea of stopping it wouldn't be an issue. So Bolt is an apologist for rape now? It certainly seems that way to me. What a scumbag. I think this one definitely needs to go to the press council, but not till I get back to NSW.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Jan 21, 2013 13:43:04 GMT 10
Compare and contrast.
Bolts treatment of Assange, and Bolts excuses for Knowles.
Jules - go for it.
Being an apologist for a Priest's sexual assault of a disabled girl? You might just nail him.
Christ!
(And hell I'm getting all fucked by the apostrophe police. When does it denote possessive? Bolt's, Bolts' or Bolts?)
|
|
|
Post by angra on Jan 21, 2013 13:54:45 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by angra on Jan 21, 2013 16:47:21 GMT 10
LOL - "I can’t believe how brainless and punitive this country has suddenly become. Take this response to a TV host’s opinion that breastfeeding mothers should be a little discreet when breastfeeding in public, given how some people felt about bared breasts in a public area."
Well extreme Methodists and the Plymouth Brethren maybe.
So complaints against someone opposing freedom to breastfeed are now the suppression of free speech?
So the Bolta is now the Breasta.
He's never been to PNG, where bras are called 'banis bilon susu' (breast fences) and are notable by their absence. And has he been to Bondi recently? Or watched a late night TV show?
I nearly soiled myself reading this!
|
|
jules
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by jules on Jan 21, 2013 18:21:56 GMT 10
It was Dan's former band mate, Stewie, (James Stewart) from Warner Brothers/Overnight Jones and even earlier.
I got to Melbourne the night of Dan and Al (McInnes)'s annual reunion show but didn't know it was on till a few days later. Bastard!!!!! 1
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 21, 2013 19:30:44 GMT 10
"I can’t believe how brainless and punitive this country has suddenly become"
My gripe with that thread is that it's all built on an assumption that could be very easily refuted.
"David Koch’s comment is now illegal? He is banned by law from expressing his opinion?"
Well, no. The answer is no. He's NOT banned by law from expressing his opinion, at least about breast-feeding. He might be constrained against _discriminating_ against a breast-feeding woman, but expressing an opinion on the telly? No. That's not illegal.
So I guess that's about it, then. Not much more to say.
Oh, I see that I'm wrong. There's lots to say, even when there's no point to any of it.
So ... on the weekend we learned that being disagreed with (by elites!) is being "punished", and now we're all punitive and mad because of a law ... that doesn't exist.
He's the Herald-Sun Hanrahan.
But I've noticed something ... being oppressed appears to pay well.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Jan 21, 2013 19:32:54 GMT 10
" Did you know it was illegal to say you’d rather not see mothers breastfeeding their babies in, say, a restaurant? What other innocent comment might now land you in court? Once it was enough to simple disagree with someone. To argue back. Now the first instinct of the activist is to win a debate by calling in the speech police to shut down dissent. Now the Gillard Government wants new laws that may make it illegal for you even to express your religious or political views at work. " This is so full of stupid it's not worth commentating on. From breasts to police, to laws, to 'freedom!" The Speech Police - pioneered by whom I wonder? I think News has some form here. Here's one - www.theage.com.au/national/habib-wins-defamation-case-against-news-ltd-20100317-qcua.html
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 21, 2013 19:34:13 GMT 10
julesI decided that I just didn't know enough about that case to form an opinion. I doubt if bolt does either, but that's a different matter. I wonder if he'd be upset if a psychiatrist was disbarred for similar conduct with a vulnerable patient.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Jan 21, 2013 19:36:17 GMT 10
Is it possible to have a long, extravagant holiday of travel and sightseeing and actually come back more bonkers than you were when you left?
Just hypothetically.
|
|