I'm not saying that's how it should be. I'm saying that's how it's always been.

You tell me - apart from blogging - how your average yobo or blowhard is going to get published in anything remotely mainstream. I'm just being realistic. You know how it works. It's even difficult for a savvy articulate person to get their letter published in any of the major newspapers, let alone having an article accepted or a book published!

Ooh, that's precious, Poirot :)

I'm not writing about what actually is the case in a capitalist society, with such uneven class dominance over the news media, I'm suggesting that all and sundry, including my brothers and sisters out in the Western Suburbs, have the RIGHT to speak their minds, as much as anybody else, even, dare I say it, ther exalted intellects of the inner-city. No matter how trivial, inappropriate or half-@rsed it may sound.

I'm also suggesting that even in a perfect, presumably democratic and socialist society, every person has the right to express their opinions, and therefore in the media as well - that, pace Finkelstein, nobody should have to pass some intellectual test before they can express their opinion.

Probably what I'm edging towards is a view that a fully free and open democracy, one that might even be compatible with versions of socialism, is a society wherein all [non-inciteful] views are expressable: dumb-@rse and intelligent, tolerant and intolerant, provided they don't incite violence.

The upshot of such an open expression of views would be that media which promoted idiocy, lies and intolerance would, one would hope, be dumped and ignored by a reasonably intelligent populace, although it should be as free as any other entity to express itself any way it likes within those parameters.

Media which allowed morons like Allen Jones to spew opinions which incited violence would, in those cases, lose their markets pretty quickly, one would hope. In that sense, Allen Jones represents the case of someone who has crossed that boundary between free expression and incitement, with his idiotic repetition about stuffing people into chaff bags. For spelling out that boundary between fair expression and sheer stupidity, he should be thanked.

But only through gritted teeth. What a pillock.

Cheers,

Joe

What's precious, Joe?

You seem to have taken on the role here as a self-appointed spokesman for the man in the street. You also seem to implicitly suggest that I'm elitist because I can string a few words together.

What makes you think that I believe that ordinary battlers should be denied a voice? I've said nothing of the sort, merely noting that even in a liberated democracy, the people with money and influence still call the shots on who does and who does not get to share their views in the mainstream media.

I'm fascinated at your apparent clause, whereby you judge that the likes of Alan Jones is guilty of "...crossing that boundary between expression and incitement..." Who judges what is idiocy, lies and intolerance? Who judges where that boundary begins? Should there be controls over such breaches? If not, why do you think the populace would ignore rhetoric designed to ignite passions? They're more likely, IMO, to feel the outrage and adrenalin and go with it.

Bon soir Poirot,

Permit me, but description is not destiny:

"Yobbos aren't usually into writing social commentary. For some reason they're just not into it."

"You tell me - apart from blogging - how your average yobo or blowhard is going to get published in anything remotely mainstream. I'm just being realistic."

Sometimes I forget that the role of powerless progressives is to describe and complain about the world, not to change it :)

But you may well be - forgive me if I'm wrong - deliberately obfuscating here, confusing intolerance and stupidity (which we are entitled to engage in) with incitement:

".... the likes of Alan Jones is guilty of "...crossing that boundary between expression and incitement..." Who judges what is idiocy, lies and intolerance? Who judges where that boundary begins? Should there be controls over such breaches?"

"Idiocy, lies and intolerance" are all [just] permissible under freedom of expression, so why should there be Finkelstein's controls over them - the boundary is between these and incitement.

Incitement to commit violent acts, as Jones encouraged with his stupid talk about chaff bags, over and over, is another matter.

But you shade into elitism - forgive me for suggesting it - when you continue:

"If not, why do you think the populace would ignore rhetoric designed to ignite passions? They're more likely, IMO, to feel the outrage and adrenalin and go with it."

"Ignite passions" ? Enough to get passionately involved ? Or do you mean to "feel the outrage' and go beyond that ? To be incited to violence ?

But what ? Shouldn't be exposed to a difference of opinion: after all, they're such puppets, they're bound to be swept away by "passions" ?

Or are you agreeing with me, that Jones' comments went beyond any right to freedom of expression and represented incitement to violence ? That incitement to violence goes beyond the limits of freedom of expression ?

And that pretty much all is permitted up to that point ? Even by the media ? Even by the yobbos ?

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,



So it seems that freedom of expression is a nebulous and subjective entity. It is subject to limitation as in "incitement to violence" So you are saying that any media personality can fuel intolerance with idiocy and lies and that is perfectly fine. However, although s/he is permitted to prime his audience in this way it's acceptable under freedom of expression. So all the precursors are excused even though they may lead to violence if the spark is lit?

As if you're the only bloke who ever passed the time of day with a yobbo. You really like to treat your opponents as elite are$holes, don't you. But it's a tactic you employ so you can dollop your usual patronising rhetoric in their lap.

"Sometimes I forget that the role of powerless progressives is to complain about the world, not to change it:)"

(I love the way you tack the insulting smiley face on the end, but I s'pose that's your style

Lexi,

I take your last couple of posts to indicate that you have gained some insight into the potential abuse of this "government board"

I have only the quote the example of FWA which is supposed to mediate disputes between the unions and employers, and monitor the workings of the trade unions. Gillard stacked the FWA almost exclusively with ex union bosses. This has resulted in the unions getting almost everything they want in negotiations, and Crooks like Thomson and Williamson being shielded for years whilst they pillaged the union funds.