|
|
Post by cjm on Jan 4, 2016 16:11:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jan 4, 2016 17:22:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jan 5, 2016 9:42:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jan 5, 2016 18:19:59 GMT
US law regarding teachers and FBInteresting from a general perspective, but apart from the dismissal aspect, it seems that considerable latitude is allowed in expression generally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jan 6, 2016 18:49:00 GMT
In the case of Chris Hart: Unless he violated some explicitly stated internal rule of Standard Bank, Standard Bank can surely have no legal problem with him based on general South African law. In that case, what can Chris legally do to ensure that he suffers no financial loss, and can he sue Standard Bank for having compromised his future earnings?
Similarly with Ms. Sparrow: As with Chris Hart, I am convinced that competent legal representation will compel any South African court to decide that her comments cannot possibly be racist. It seems that there could be financial implications for her as well - both the DA and her previous employer indicated that they will proceed with litigation. Again, once this has failed, what legal avenues are available to her to recover her legal costs pertaining to this, and her compromised future earning potential?
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jan 6, 2016 21:18:57 GMT
In the case of Chris Hart: Unless he violated some explicitly stated internal rule of Standard Bank, Standard Bank can surely have no legal problem with him based on general South African law. In that case, what can Chris legally do to ensure that he suffers no financial loss, and can he sue Standard Bank for having compromised his future earnings? Similarly with Ms. Sparrow: As with Chris Hart, I am convinced that competent legal representation will compel any South African court to decide that her comments cannot possibly be racist. It seems that there could be financial implications for her as well - both the DA and her previous employer indicated that they will proceed with litigation. Again, once this has failed, what legal avenues are available to her to recover her legal costs pertaining to this, and her compromised future earning potential? If it they are cleared, both should be able to recover ample damages. This could take years. What is so low, is the emotional stress (and financial stress) put on these people. They are up against big bucks. I am on a crusade for freedom of speech. When the media is threatened they squeal like stuck pigs but they have no regard for a person who accidentally push the send button. The point here is that most of the offending posts were most probably written in the heat of the moment. The media use FB to create news. |
|
|
|
Post by Trog on Jan 7, 2016 11:47:32 GMT
I’m more interested in the refinement of the word ‘racism’ as a legal term.
In some thread somewhere I maintained that actions, utterances, policies or legislation can only be deemed racist should they encourage or result in demonstrable physical or material harm.
I argued that you cannot possibly legislate against anything that does NOT cause physical or material harm. Because then you would have to legislate against opinions, beliefs and consequently against certain thoughts. That is, you become a criminal merely by thinking certain things. This is clearly ridiculous and (although this is precisely the mindset to be found amongst the haters of all things white) I cannot see how any court could possibly argue with that.
Maybe one could say, okay, you can think what you want, but you’re not allowed to say it. This is even more ridiculous than the previous absurdity – it is criminal to share some of my thoughts with my wife or my friend? Therefore the law would have to resort to minutely describing which of my thoughts I’m allowed to voice in which environments. This is becoming more ridiculous still.
Therefore in summary:
Legislation against anything that does NOT cause physical or material harm => Absurdity. (I deliberately stay away from the 'freedom of speech' concept, because I want to show that this argument stands entirely on its own merit, and doesn't even need to be strengthened by a 'freedom of speech' requirement. Combining it with the right to 'freedom of speech' makes it unassailable, of course, particularly when freedom of speech is qualified to speech that does not encourage or result in demonstrable physical or material harm!)
Once this has been sorted, it is clear that referring to blacks as monkeys cannot possibly be racist. And of course, it should not be. However, to sing “kill the Boer” is clearly racist indeed.
In fact, to incorrectly or maliciously accuse someone of racism is racist, since it should be easy to show that in South Africa that would cause material harm.
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jan 7, 2016 17:14:12 GMT
A.) I’m more interested in the refinement of the word ‘racism’ as a legal term. ... B.) I argued that you cannot possibly legislate against anything that does NOT cause physical or material harm. ... C. ) Maybe one could say, okay, you can think what you want, but you’re not allowed to say it. ... A. There should be material on what constitutes racism. For example, the Equality Courts (closing down for lack of interest) must have dealt with these issues before. B. I suspect that an argument here is that of self-image and confidence being damaged by name-calling. Thus we have psycological harm. C. The theory is indeed that one has freedom of thought. I have never pondered the limits of this. It seems rather obvious that one should be able to dump one's thoughts. I can imagine though that putting these thoughts in writing could provoke uproar. For example, a convinced Nazi publishes his beliefs without exhorting anyone to support him. Sort of a dumbed down version of Mein Kampf. Is any expression of a private thought not a subliminal invitation for support? Is the expression of the thought not the death of the freedom? In my view the issue of racism as waged on the media front pages touches on issues such as the use of emotive language (what are the limits of figurative language and metaphors?). A sufficiently heavy handed suffocation (and criminalization) of emotive language would have a censorship effect into far away corners such as literature and poetry. Considering that language sometimes in its very essence is considered constituted of metaphors (eg Derrida and Nietszche), one is approaching the attempted destruction of language itself here. Derrida however points out that it is impossible to excise a word. The meaning of the gap left, continues. If one wants to avoid being called a monkey, don't change the language (which is impossible according to Derrida), change your behaviour. |
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jan 8, 2016 8:08:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cjm on Jan 11, 2016 5:21:57 GMT
I know I should not listen to RSG but I need a good laugh now and then.
Last night I listened to the weekly discussion of political matters. The Sparrow thing came up. It seems that the definition of racism is not of relevance at all. One must look into one's soul. That is fine but every so often the soul wants to know what it may say and what not.
Jan-Jan Joubert babbled at length about his anger when exposed to the offending material. I got the impression that most of his ire concerned Sparrow - no matter that the black dude wanted to wipe out the white race - which borders on hate speech, i would suggest, not mere "racism".
Apparently though the offenders are all equal since satisfaction was expressed that all lost their jobs etc. No discrimination there, you see.
We are apparently in for a good dose of kragdadige legislation to eradicate the festering sore of racism from our society. The Germans, so it was mentioned, have apt rules to kill this monster. I look in my crystal ball and see that any positive comments about our tragic past are about to be criminalised. I hope this includes the Boer War and the Dingaan massacres.
In this entire charade only one voice of sanity was heard: From the black rector of the Free State, Jonathan Jansen. Now please tell me, Talk Police, whether it is racist to denigrate the comments of the white commentators and praise the black one?
|
|
