wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,947
- Reactions
- 13,236
Meanwhile, the actual victim involved in this kerfuffle has come out strongly in favour of X.
How many readers remember back to May 2020 when George Floyd was killed in police custody in Minneapolis?
There were minutes-long videos of this event, all confronting and violent. These videos no doubt played a part in having one of the police officers involved convicted of murder for Floyd’s death. And all of us could watch these videos on social media online and make up our own minds.
What readers will not recall is any push to have the videos removed from all the main online platforms. That’s because none of the great and good – no eSafety Commissioner nor anyone else – ever pushed for this sort of censorship of the online content.
So confronting violence, indeed an actual filmed killing, and still no push to remove the content. Because it was true content. And presumably it was also because many believed people could be left to decide for themselves what that content indicated. Oh, and by the way, one of the direct effects of this Floyd video was months and months of violent riots across many US cities. But the long-term benefits of free speech and open access to the truth trumped all such considerations.
People raise their fists as they march during an event in remembrance of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Now, put that to one side for a moment and turn to the current fight between Elon Musk and the Albanese government (supported by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant) over the latter’s desire that X remove the video of the stabbing of the bishop in the Assyrian church in Sydney.
The commissioner and the government, and even sections of the Coalition, want the video taken down under threat of severe financial penalties. They want censorship of this video. Thus far the owner of X, Elon Musk, is saying no.
I agree with Musk. Here’s why.
First off, all talk of this video being misinformation or disinformation is nonsense if not deliberate misdirection. In simple terms, misinformation is the jargony word for information that is believed to be false and inaccurate, together with a further calculation that it is likely to cause harm if the wider public has access to it.
Disinformation is all that plus the further allegation that the falsity is deliberate. You could just say “that is factually wrong” for the first and “it is a lie” for the second. But censorship works better under the aegis of jargon and bureaucratese so people aren’t wholly sure what is being alleged. So the first point to make here is that the Assyrian church video is not conveying false information. (In fact, the bishop himself opposes the removal of the video on the grounds of free speech).
It is patently true information, just as the George Floyd video was. We watchers might draw differing conclusions from it. But there is no falsity about it; nor is anyone alleging it was staged or fake. So when Anthony Albanese describes the video in terms of “misinformation”, he is extending that term to include true information. The eSafety Commissioner and the PM, and even Dutton, want to remove online content that is true and accurate. Again, it’s hard to say that in clear terms so they resort to obfuscation and the language of “misinformation”.
Now of course there can be instances when a cost-benefit analysis leads us to conclude that true information should be withheld from the wider public.
I can certainly think of things, true things, that I would nevertheless take down from the internet – a recipe for making biological weapons out of things you’d find in your kitchen; the names of active undercover police agents who have infiltrated crime syndicates; and so on.
This video, however, does not come close to any of those. It looks a lot like the case of the George Floyd video. The difference here is that the government doesn’t like the truth the video is conveying. With the Floyd videos it did. There seem to be favoured and disfavoured groups. Heck, it’s not even the case that the Assyrian church video will lead to anything like the months and months of destructive riots we saw in the US after the Floyd videos.
Nor is there any plausibility to comparing this church video to pedophilia or the sort of obscenity I would support being removed as online content. What those who support the removal of true and publicly important content from the online platforms need to tell us is why the harms so massively outweigh the public’s right to know that censorship is warranted.
With my examples of biological weapons and police undercover agents, it’s pretty easy to do that. With this video, given all the other online violent true content from the Sydney Opera House to many BLM incidents that no one censors, Musk is right. It should stay online.
Here’s another factor. We have just lived through 2½ years of the greatest inroads on our civil liberties in perhaps two centuries. The government and public health caste labelled all sorts of dissenting views as misinformation, yet those views proved to be true. Think of where the virus came from; whether vaccines stopped the contracting and transmission of the disease; the effectiveness of masks; the long-term costs of school closures; the effects on our economy; the list goes on.
Yet these were nevertheless labelled misinformation and attempts were made to silence those who spoke these things. Then there was the voice. The official fact-checkers labelled all sorts of claims by the No case to be wrong when, in my professional view as a constitutional lawyer, none was. Not one. It really was virtually one-way fact-checking, too.
In a liberal democracy you should be incredibly wary to censor anything as what will prove to be true is hard to know at the time. But when it comes to what you know already to be patently true, you should have to meet an incredibly high standard before doing so. And it should be a standard that is neutral between political points of view. Neither is the case here so I’m with Musk on this one.
And, as a conservative, I also think it’s a bad political mistake for some in the Libs to be throwing their lot in with the censors and those who downplay the benefits of free speech.
James Allan is Garrick Professor of Law at the University of Queensland.
It's not difficult today to find to the still image of the Saigon street excution... Try and find the NBC news reel footage of that event that show the moments after the 38 slug enters the Vietcongs temple the expantion of which macerates his brian and due to pressure with held within by his skull skin a fountian of pulverised gore exiting the entry wound ejects the best part of three feet into the air above his decending body as it crumples to pathment... And if you can get hold of it pop it into your twitter feed so Kindergardern /primary school kiddies can learn some history...I was halfway through in my first decade when I viewed it Noth'n like a bit of motion picture 'snuff' for the young'ns, they need to see it. .... If only there was some action footage of the four shot and killed at Kent State.Why does the Albanese government (supported by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant) want a true event censored and hidden?
Imagine if the horrific photos from the Vietnam war were censored because a government wanted to control the public narrative for their own agenda. https://www.aussiestockforums.com/t...ter-a-free-speech-platform.37002/post-1276408
It's not difficult today to find to the still image of the Saigon street excution... Try and find the NBC news reel footage of that event that show the moments after the 38 slug enters the Vietcongs temple the expantion of which macerates his brian and due to pressure with held within by his skull skin a fountian of pulverised gore exiting the entry wound ejects the best part of three feet into the air above his decending body as it crumples to pathment... And if you can get hold of it pop it into your twitter feed so Kindergardern /primary school kiddies can learn some history...I was halfway through in my first decade when I viewed it Noth'n like a bit of motion picture 'snuff' for the young'ns, they need to see it. .... If only there was some action footage of the four shot and killed at Kent State.
How familar are you with the snaps of Vietcong being dropped alive from Huey's into the junhgle as an 'incentive' to pals still on bored being questioned, just one of a few easily viewed at the HoChiMin City war memorial ... don't think they got wide circulation in the press at the time or much now.
The last of remnants of the US fled in 75, seven long years after that excution photo: A few short months after Tet of 68, Nixon was instructing Kissinger the to sabotage the Paris peace talks leading to the unnecessary deaths of 25,000 US service men a million Indo Chineese and birth defects that make thilimide victums look like olympic athletes. My view is yor're over-egging the importance of one photo.
The Pentagon learn't from Vietnam... Inbedded Journalists, Julian Assange tried to help push against it, now he rots; The IDF the Isreali Defence, just shoot'm on sight..... Oh' no control of the narrative there....
Is there a video where we can watch the bashing?Where’s the eSafety Commission stand in regards to the confronting photos of Ninnete Simons, the poor women who was bashed senseless and her husband tied up.
Are those photos as damaging to society as the stabbing of a priest?
Is there a video where we can watch the bashing?
Seeing the after effects is not as good as seeing the action.So you are saying that photos are fine, video bad.
Seeing the after effects is not as good as seeing the action.
Get my jollies. See someone's Mum physically get bashed. Watch the blows see the crunch.
Otherwise it's not free speech.
Going to restrict my free speech? Better ask Musk to set up a register to restrict users.Mental health and free speech are two very different things.
People like yourself exhibiting signs of mental illness don’t get the luxury of free speech that everyone else has.
I'm sure if there was it actually wouldn't be as bad as the pictures, the pictures show the aftermath of the assault when the swelling and bruising arrives, when domeone is getting the bejedzus beaten out of them there is a lot of noise but not a lot of visual damage, much like a video game.Is there a video where we can watch the bashing?
No, to be truthful. Sort of avoid it.I'm sure if there was it actually wouldn't be as bad as the pictures, the pictures show the aftermath of the assault when the swelling and bruising arrives, when domeone is getting the bejedzus beaten out of them there is a lot of noise but not a lot of visual damage, much like a video game.
I guess you haven't seen someone badly bashed ?
From what I've heard 15 year old boys and girls are posting up their own version of fight club on you youtube.Going to restrict my free speech? Better ask Musk to set up a register to restrict users.
At least the 15 year old boys in high school can still watch it. How are they going to understand the problem if they don't see the reality?
Going to restrict my free speech? Better ask Musk to set up a register to restrict users.
At least the 15 year old boys in high school can still watch it. How are they going to understand the problem if they don't see the reality?
Completely irrelevant.
Do the boys beat up the girls?From what I've heard 15 year old boys and girls are posting up their own version of fight club on you youtube.
You obviously live in a lovely area, surrounded by lovely people, most don't they can't afford it.
Where we appear to be heading, trust me you wont be able to avoid it, it will come to find you eventually.No, to be truthful. Sort of avoid it.
Oh well, maybe I am being a worry wort. Free speech and all that.
Let’s call it for what it is: Islamist terrorism
Just consider these two facts side-by-side.
At the University of Sydney, young children, perhaps seven to 10 years old, were chanting “Israel is a terrorist state” and calling for intifada against Israel.
It’s true the word intifada can have various shades of meanings, but in the context of Israel it normally means the waves of Palestinian protest and violence against Israelis. Some such protests can be regarded as legitimate. But explicitly, undeniably, clearly, without any ambiguity, intifada also included savage, murderous acts of deliberate terrorism in which innocent people, including many children, were deliberately killed.
In the same week, NSW Police presented a fact sheet to a court showing that a group of teenagers they arrested, some of them not 10 years older than the children chanting the slogans of hate at Sydney University, had a plan to get weapons and kill Australian Jews.
One event didn’t cause the other. But Albanese government ministers avoided condemning the wicked exploitation of children. The Albanese government has been grossly, morally and politically negligent in failing to make a serious effort to combat the wave of hateful anti-Semitism sweeping across our universities and many other parts of our community.
The Albanese government can have its views about the Middle East, but it has an absolute duty to provide for the security and safety of Australian citizens. Its failure, root and branch, in season and out, to condemn the shocking anti-Semitism displayed every day is a grave mistake – morally, politically and in terms of national security.
A related development last week was the call by a group of peak Islamic bodies for the term “religiously motivated violence” to be removed from Australian counter-terrorist legislation and from all official government references to terrorism.
The initial decision of the NSW Police and ASIO to label the alleged knife attack on Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel in Sydney’s southwest an act of terrorism was also widely criticised by Muslim leaders.
In their subsequent statement, the peak Islamic bodies also criticised ASIO director-general Mike Burgess for using the term “religiously motivated Sunni violent extremism”.
The Islamic peak bodies are wrong to make the general call and wrong in their specific criticisms of Burgess. With the Albanese government now apparently permanently out to lunch on national security, it was left to NSW Premier Chris Minns as usual to express common sense and moral decency. He rejected the call by the Islamic peak bodies and said: “We need to confront religious extremism.”
Minns deserves a kind of Victoria Cross for political leadership for this simple and straightforward statement. He didn’t take refuge in a bureaucratic dodge, like saying police needed to declare an incident a terrorist incident to activate certain investigative powers.
That’s true, but it avoids the issue of principle. Islamist terrorism is religiously motivated. That is not to defame Islam. The overwhelming majority of Muslims in Australia are law-abiding citizens. Most Muslims in the world are moderate in their outlook.
But the idea that Islamist terrorism is not related at all to particular interpretations of Islam is plainly absurd. The Albanese government is now in such a ludicrous psychological straitjacket that it cannot speak against anti-Semitism without also denouncing Islamophobia. In fact, within Australia there is not the slightest comparison between the two.
The Islamic minority in Australia stands at nearly a million people. It is extremely effective politically and already has secured a high degree of mealy-mouthed equivocation by our institutional and political leaders that doesn’t serve us well in any way.
Far from sly dog-whistling, most of our political leaders have been careful and solicitous of Muslim sensitivities in their discourse on terrorism. Former prime minister Tony Abbott always referred to Islamic State by the Arabic acronymic term Daesh. He did this solely to avoid saying the word Islamic when referring to the Islamic State group.
Malcolm Turnbull, who was always at pains not to demonise Islam, nonetheless frequently referred to “Islamist terrorism”. After one foiled attack, Turnbull declared: “Islamist terror is a global challenge that affects us all.”
Islamist terror is the right term and I wish all our authorities had stuck with it. Islamism is distinctly different from Islam. Islamism is an ideology that seeks to impose a particular, very conservative, interpretation of Islam as the guiding philosophy, and basic law, of the state. Naturally Islamists oppose secularists and pluralists.
However, Islamism isn’t necessarily violent. You can propose an Islamist government program at an election, without any violence. The world’s major terror groups, ISIS, the Taliban, al-Qa’ida, Hezbollah, Hamas are all explicitly Islamist. But they also add the practice and belief in terrorist attacks to achieve their aims.
There is a philosophy, Catholic integralism, that similarly argues that the state should be explicitly subservient to Catholic teaching. None of its tiny number of adherents proposes violence to achieve its aims.
I have the greatest admiration for the head of ASIO, Burgess. But in 2021 he actually announced that he was moving away from terms such as Islamist terror and embracing instead the more neutral term “religiously motivated violent extremism”. When a particular attack, group or threat comes from a Sunni Islamist group he sometimes adds the word Sunni.
Much as I admire Burgess, I think this was a very serious mistake. The Islamic peak groups are demanding now that under no circumstances can any security agency or government minister ever use any word that has any derivation of Islam when referring to terrorists and further demanding that they not even use the word “religious” as in religiously motivated terrorism.
This is because, they say, Islam is opposed to terrorism.
Leave aside the hundreds of thousands of people, in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and elsewhere, who actively support Islamist terror groups, from the Muslim Brotherhood through all the groups listed above. As I say, this is a small minority of Muslims. But it’s absurd to claim no connection with Islam at all.
I’ve never heard any serious objection to the term “Catholic pedophile priests” when describing those monstrous priests, surely the tiniest minority of Catholics you can imagine, who, against all Catholic teaching, abused children. Identifying a white supremacist group doesn’t imply most whites are racial supremacists.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell’s hero Winston Smith claims the ultimate freedom is to say that two plus two is four. Every day British politicians recite the mantra that Islam is a religion of peace. These many pronouncements haven’t stopped terrorism. There is no good policy that proceeds from a refusal to tell the truth. Islamist terror is Islamist terror.
Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel speaks at the Wakeley church on April 28
Rhanda Abd-Elfattah
We I saw my dad bash my mums teeth out when I was about 8, bit he never bashed my sisters, I copped it a lot until I was about 20 and bashed the $hit out of him.Do the boys beat up the girls?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?