The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Liberating the media from law's bondage > Comments

Liberating the media from law's bondage : Comments

By Vishal Mangalwadi, published 6/10/2011

The Eatock nine would have done better to take their cue from Mother Theresa.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
These words do call for contemplation and I look forward to Dr Mangalwadi's visit to Australia later this week to see what else his words will stir up!

Certainly it's a good thing that libel cases are pretty rare in Australia but one certainly feels heavily restricted when one has an opinion that might not quite fit in with the mould.

It's appropriate that some questions were being asked by Bolt and, instead of taking him to court over them, why not have a rational discussion to have clarified if he was in the wrong?

Let's learn to CONVERSE people!!
Posted by Sydney Thinker, Thursday, 6 October 2011 9:45:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part of the problem is that you will never ask for forgiveness when you believe that you are the victim. Claiming victim status has some validity however in this country it is used to make money and justify every evil under the sun. It will be interesting to see if anyone takes the WA Police Commissioner to court for stating the fact that over 60 per cent of certain crimes are committed by a people group who make up 3 per cent or less of the population. The saying of sorry by Mr Rudd certainly has not changed or reversed the behaviour of those committing crime.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 6 October 2011 10:11:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I don’t really connect with the references to the US ‘First Awakening’ as that history is not within my expertise, I DO connect with our right to freedom of speech in Australia which seems to be lost at every turn.

Why should we fear legislators when we speak up or make an observation which is clearly NOT hate-speech?

AND, if like in Mother Teresa’s case, it IS hateful, why can’t we be GROWN UP ENOUGH to have a chat about it? Or to learn the value of turning the other cheek?
Posted by Sash, Thursday, 6 October 2011 10:13:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Vishal Mangalwadi's viewpoint on each subject always impresses me. He is sure to give foundational support for his view from a biblical perspective as well as reveal certain truths about other viewpoints. It always makes for an interesting and thought provoking lecture or article.
His books have been very educational and timely on many subjects and I look forward to seeing more. As an American, I congratulate the Australians who wish to protect their freedom of speech.

Germaine
Posted by Germaine, Thursday, 6 October 2011 10:47:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mangalwadi's article is really just a dressed up way of saying that the victims of racial vilification should cop it and say nothing.

It sounds spiritual. But, in substance it is meaningless.
Posted by David Jennings, Thursday, 6 October 2011 10:55:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting points! Without a Grace Awakening, we are doomed to perpetual bitter infighting.
Posted by Verbose Philosopher, Thursday, 6 October 2011 11:20:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David Jennings can't be serious! Forgiveness is not inactivity! It sets the basis for a renewed relationship; it keeps the door open to reconciliation; it offers mercy instead of hard justice; it responds with love instead of hate. And best of all, God's reality is glimpsed.
Posted by The Ox, Thursday, 6 October 2011 1:27:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am serious. No matter how sweetly expressed the sentiments are you need to look at what concrete result will be for the person who suffers the wrong. Forgiveness is not a choice that we can make on the behalf of others. It is up to the person who has been hurt to decide whether to forgive or not.

Talking sweetly and saying all the 'right' things whilst taking away other people's basic rights is not liberation. It is oppression (with sanctimony chucked in).
Posted by David Jennings, Thursday, 6 October 2011 1:31:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We all deserve the right to freedom of speech.

However, such freedom comes with responsibility, legal and moral.

I have the freedom to drive my car anywhere around Australia, however that doesn't mean I can drive it in a manner outside the law, or ram into groups of people because I dislike the look of them.

The same is with speech. Say what you like, but expect repercussions. If you're telling porkies about someone, especially from a platform such as Bolt's, or if you're vilifying or discriminating against a group without reasonable grounds... You are breeching your responsibility. Your right to free speech does not overarch the rights of others to live peacefully among society.

And should we all act like Mother Teresa? Sure, we'd like to. But we shouldn't be letting people get away for doing the wrong thing by others. Jesus may have turned the other cheek, but he also stepped in to stop the injustice of a woman being stoned to death.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 6 October 2011 2:28:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TrashcanMan

'But we shouldn't be letting people get away for doing the wrong thing by others. Jesus may have turned the other cheek, but he also stepped in to stop the injustice of a woman being stoned to death.'

Actually TrashcanMan Jesus was showing that His mercy triumps over judgement. The woman deserved like every sinner to die along with the man she had a fling with. God's mercy allowed her to live not because it was the wrong thing according to the law for her to die. He also illustrated how we are lawbreakers by challenging her accusers to throw the first stone if they were without sin. All sinners deserve to die like you and me however God's mercy offers forgiveness through Christ.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 6 October 2011 2:37:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting "was it possible for them to ask: What can we, Aboriginal Australians, learn from Bolt?"

Their response was based on ego and the expectation that "we are entitled!"

To this or that or something else .. but fundamentally, this is the age of the entitled ones, and everyone lines up for this once they have been coached that there is something in it for them, or that they might lose something if they don't.

It's interesting too that that the people who feel so entitled and so aggrieved by others, all too often exhibit the same behavior.

Didn't someone recently compare fornicating with a horse to be less offensive than another person .. for disagreeing with them>

Didn't someone else who "thought" his tweet was private (uh huh sure he did wink wink) make the allusion that the opposition leader is a pedophile? This person's reputation is destroyed now as on objective player.

If the distressed ones did not make such a big deal of this, it would have vanished of into historical vagueness, with all the other prattlings of like minded irritants of the left and right .. thankfully Bolt doesn't twitter, the left's instant reaction to the world around them.

So the aggrieved have brought this to the fore, brought it and themselves into the light, we will forever now be exposed to their faults, not their virtues .. gee, thanks, I think.

So could they learn from Bolt, sure, they could have, however the kneejerk "over-entitled" reaction of the left to any conservative prod .. they believe they MUST behave in the exact opposite manner, usually to their own detriment. (amusingly)

Of course, learning from experience appears to be something they are not good at, they demand wisdom in the same way they demand attention .. because they are "entitled" to it. PhDs for everyone!
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 6 October 2011 3:24:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for this contemplative piece and welcome to Australia. The Bolt case has indeed conflated something that would have simply disappeared had not the nine people claiming racial identity as Australian aboriginals, identified in Bolt's articles, sought to use a law not used for 16 years to cover the hurt, offence and humiliation the Bolt articles engendered.

If I were one of the nine I think I might have felt ashamed before I felt offended. The intention of the articles was not to offend and in polite circles it is bad manners to take offence when no offence was intended. The articles were to highlight that in this country there are those who claim a particular racial identity because in choosing that racial identity there are benefits, baubles and beads to be had. And as it turns out none of the nine denied receiving those benefits, baubles and beads even though it meant more disadvantaged others of the same racial identity were thereby denied them.

Perhaps therein lay the humiliation and the shame of Bolt's message-so the messanger had to be shot down by a mean-spirited law which does nothing to promote unity or understanding and certainly not forgiveness.
Posted by Dr Bartolo's ward, Thursday, 6 October 2011 6:11:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christopher Hitchens was horrified to learn Mother Teresa espoused suffering - suffering in death and suffering poverty.

Dr Mangalwadi emphasises that - "Jesus suffered so much. We must share in his sufferings."

It wasn't "the amazing grace displayed by the Sisters of Charity [that] liberated Hitchens to pursue his journalism", it was his realisation that M. Teresa espoused and fostered suffering.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 6 October 2011 6:23:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner,

That is an interpretation introduced by the church to justify it's own atrocities such as the Spanish inquisition etc. It this sort of misinterpretation that sees Muslims blowing themselves up in the name of Allah. Most Muslims see such actions as abhorrent, just as most thinking Christians would see your interpretation as abhorrent.

Jesus was pointing out the injustice of the event.

Similarly, he was speaking out against racism on the story of the good Samaritan.

Yet here you are, trying to protect the right of people to racially insult people
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 6 October 2011 9:04:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TrashcanMan wrote:

>>Yet here you are, trying to protect the right of people to racially insult people>>

As one who has been "racially insulted" - repeatedly on this forum as it happens - I defend the right of people to "racially insult" me. (Pardon the split infinitive).
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 6 October 2011 9:13:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With all due respect Steven, I believe that is a personal choice of yours. You know you can tolerate that sort of abuse, and so can I.

But I do find it difficult to defend the 'right' of people to abuse anyone they like, whether that abuse is directed to race or sexual orientation or whatever.

Likewise, while I really do believe in freedom of speech, I will NOT defend the likes of Bolt. That would make me physically ill.

I won't attack him, but I sure as hell won't defend him either.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 6 October 2011 9:33:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy wrote:

>>Likewise, while I really do believe in freedom of speech, I will NOT defend the likes of Bolt. That would make me physically ill.>>

You do not have to defend him. You merely have to defend his right to express his views which are BTW inseparable from your right to express your views.

What makes this case so obnoxious is that I would have thought the Eatock 9 had a good case under the ordinary law of libel. Bolt's comments amount to an accusation of fraud. Why bring the racial element into it at all?

The only reason I can think that they did not go the libel route is that they feared they would not be able to make their case. Now why do you think that is Bugsy?

It is easy to defend the right of someone to say things you find unobjectionable. If you really believe in free speech you need to be prepared to defend the right of people to say things you consider vile.

I am no fan of Bolt's. But if he is silenced will I be next? Will you?

To quote Niemoller:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 6 October 2011 9:50:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steve, I agree. I don't think this was a case of racial discrimination. Clearly, based on the judgement, it would have succeeded as a defamation case, which makes more sense in my mind. However Andrew Bolt does, it can't be denied, write some pretty racially inflammatory stuff on a regular basis, so the suit still fits (pardon the pun)

Where I disagree is that freedom of speech should entitle anyone, let alone the mainstream media, to racially vilify or racially abuse others without repercussion.

It's illegal to physically bash someone for obvious reasons, it causes harm.

However, emotional or psychological abuse, denigration etc can cause much more harm, long term, than can a few punches to the head. Especially for young people growing up and trying to fit in.

The effect of such vilification is even more pronounced when it comes from the mainstream media, of which Andrew Bolt is a prominent representative in Melbourne. How can kids feel good about themselves when the TV and newspapers are saying bad things about them and their families?

The plaintiffs took the course they did to make a point about the like of Andrew Bolt; they could have made some good coin had they gone down the defamation road.

The problem with your quote from Niemoller, in my opinion, is that Bolt, Alan Jones etc speak for "them", not the communist, the unionist, the jew or even you.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 6 October 2011 10:14:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes TrashcanMan and Steven,

The reason it makes me physically ill to even think about defending Bolt in any way, is that I certainly suspect that he would be one of those coming for me...
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 6 October 2011 10:35:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy wrote:

>>The reason it makes me physically ill to even think about defending Bolt in any way, is that I certainly suspect that he would be one of those coming for me...>>

And the communists would have come for Niemoller and for me.

Defending free speech means defending the rights of people like Sheikh Hilaly who is quoted as saying:

>>"The Jews' struggle with humanity is as old as history itself; the present continuing struggle with the Islam nation is a natural continuation of the Jews' enmity towards the human race as a whole. Judaism controls the world by...secret movements …The Jews try to control the world through sex, then sexual perversion, then the promotion of espionage, treason, and economic hoarding.">>

It means defending the rights of Muslims to preach:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews
(killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The
stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me,
come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of
tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the
Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).

TrashcanMan wrote:

>>However, emotional or psychological abuse, denigration etc can cause much more harm, long term, than can a few punches to the head. Especially for young people growing up and trying to fit in.>>

Once we go down the road of allowing people’s hurt feelings to become a reason to restrict speech then free speech will be dead. Well-funded grievance-mongering lobby groups will employ lawyers to silence critics – a practice known as lawfare.

There are no free lunches. Trade-offs are inevitable. Part of the price you pay for living in a free society is that you have to see and hear stuff that offends you.

And some people are very easily offended. Among the easiest to offend are my fellow Jews and Muslims. Both have well funded lobby groups able to employ really smart, and expensive, lawyers. Don’t give them an opening
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 6 October 2011 11:11:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Cronulla riots, a perfect example of healthy freedom of speech from responsible media contributing to a better world
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 6 October 2011 11:17:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I read with great interest Dr. Mangalwadi's column "Liberating the Media from Law's Bondage." To think that "freedom of speech" could be so easily infringed, especially in a great country like Australia, is frightening. I should be thankful that it could not happen here in the United States, right?

But it does! In fact, only a few minutes before I read Dr. Mangalwadi's piece I read an article written by Mark Hemmingway that posted on October 4 on The Weekly Standard's website. It shows that the problem not only exists here, but is very likely much worse, for the intimidation of CBS News investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson related to the growing "Fast and Furious" scandal would appear to be more severe. Worse yet, it looks as if management at CBS in on-board with this injustice. Worst of all, it is reported to come directly from both the White House and the Justice Department. This is deeply disturbing and calls to mind the Fascism of Mussolini's Italy in the 1930s.

Read the article at this link . . .

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbs-news-reporter-says-white-house-screamed-swore-her-over-fast-and-furious_595011.html
Posted by JA Motter, Friday, 7 October 2011 1:34:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From the story linked to above:"In between the yelling that I received from Justice Department yesterday, the spokeswoman--who would not put anything in writing, I was asking for her explanation so there would be clarity and no confusion later over what had been said, she wouldn't put anything in writing"

I've encountered this sort of "screaming" and lack of willingness to commit things to print from women functionaries before. It's the standard mode of operation of the CSA and I've also encountered it in other women in government jobs when they don't like the questions being asked. I've been hung up on by women working for the Brisbane City Council for asking for advice on how to submit a plumbing application. I got interrupted to be told "hire a plumber", before the "clunk". When I rang back I simply asked to be transferred to a supervisor, who was quite helpful, but I didn't mention the previous call.

It also ties in quite well with the data that shows most bullying complaints are received from women about women.
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 7 October 2011 5:33:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugsy,

TrashcanMan

Incitement to violence, NARROWLY DEFINED, is not the same as comment.

I would say that, in the Cronulla case, there was clear incitement to violence. There could and should have been prosecutions under such laws just as the Eatock 9 could have pursued Bolt for defamation.

Therefore your comments about Cronulla are besides the point.

What you all seem to be forgetting is how easy it would be to INTIMIDATE small publications (like Online Opinion) using laws that make it an offence to cause offence.

It takes an expensive lawyer to defend yourself against an expensive lawyer. Many small publications (like Online Opinion) cannot afford to defend themselves. They would have to fold or exercise strict censorship.

Just to be clear, based on comments I have seen about Jews on Online Opinion I could probably make life very difficult for Graham. All I would have to do is write a letter to the Anti Defamation League in Australia with some choice quotes from certain posters and Graham would be in a world of legal pain.

Now I am not going to do anything of the sort. But how does Graham know that somebody else won't?

Do you really want to give the "easily offended" that sort of power?
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 7 October 2011 7:57:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am a pommie bastard. Now how can I use the Racial Discrimination Act to publicise my hurt and sensitivities everytime someone uses that term?
Posted by The Realist, Saturday, 8 October 2011 11:02:26 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy