Thursday, May 15, 2003
I don't want to sound like a real wowser. But this next post may make me seem like one. (Actually, I like to think of myself as the opposite: a hepcat libertarian. Once, in an attempt to show my cred in this regard, I wrote an article espousing the rights of people to get really kinky and wee over each other if they so desired - and I wasn't taking the piss! Er, nor did I in researching the article, I hasten to add.)
So I'm all for people doing, and watching, what they wish. But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be limits. Like, earlier today I was in a public library. I saw this strange-lookin' bloke with shockin' BO on the PC next to me. He was openly downloading porn!
Of course, technically, smut surfing was not allowed there. But then neither was chatting or e-mail. People circumvent those laws all the time. So he wasn't the only one infringing library policy. (And I suppose you can be too tight-arsed about it. Cops can't enforce even one tenth of all the laws that are written. So what hope have librarians? Anyway, I said nothing. So who am I to judge?) Still, what amazed me was the guy's brazenness, and the staff's complete acceptance of it.
So, where do we draw the line? It seems like this is a bit of a curly question for the anti-censorship zealot. It's like asking if it's censorship to say you can't shout "Fire!" in a public theatre if there's no fire. That was asked heaps in days of yore, when the Seppos were framing their Bill of Rights. So, now in the no-shame noughties the question is, "Is it censorship to demand that library-goers don't download porn?"
Crikey, I dunno. But I do know one thing for sure: If the perv in question whops it out there and then and starts going for it, you're definitely within your rights to complain!
So I'm all for people doing, and watching, what they wish. But that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be limits. Like, earlier today I was in a public library. I saw this strange-lookin' bloke with shockin' BO on the PC next to me. He was openly downloading porn!
Of course, technically, smut surfing was not allowed there. But then neither was chatting or e-mail. People circumvent those laws all the time. So he wasn't the only one infringing library policy. (And I suppose you can be too tight-arsed about it. Cops can't enforce even one tenth of all the laws that are written. So what hope have librarians? Anyway, I said nothing. So who am I to judge?) Still, what amazed me was the guy's brazenness, and the staff's complete acceptance of it.
So, where do we draw the line? It seems like this is a bit of a curly question for the anti-censorship zealot. It's like asking if it's censorship to say you can't shout "Fire!" in a public theatre if there's no fire. That was asked heaps in days of yore, when the Seppos were framing their Bill of Rights. So, now in the no-shame noughties the question is, "Is it censorship to demand that library-goers don't download porn?"
Crikey, I dunno. But I do know one thing for sure: If the perv in question whops it out there and then and starts going for it, you're definitely within your rights to complain!
Tuesday, May 13, 2003
Here's a perfect example of Sydney Morning Herald "journalism". Throw some muck and simultaneously report that muck was thrown!
Succombe's final paragraph offers a template that can be tinkered with a little to sum up the relentless media campaign (now incorporating the callous exploitation of a recently deceased woman's rape allegations) against the G-G:
"It's a long time since loathsome Labor MPs and media mediocrities have been so gleeful, no doubt because they can tar the PM with the same muck that they've slapped all over the hapless Hollingworth, since they're clearly more concerned about exploiting pedophilia to denigrate their enemies than protecting the young victims of it."
Succombe's final paragraph offers a template that can be tinkered with a little to sum up the relentless media campaign (now incorporating the callous exploitation of a recently deceased woman's rape allegations) against the G-G:
"It's a long time since loathsome Labor MPs and media mediocrities have been so gleeful, no doubt because they can tar the PM with the same muck that they've slapped all over the hapless Hollingworth, since they're clearly more concerned about exploiting pedophilia to denigrate their enemies than protecting the young victims of it."
Here's a good story on comedian Dennis Miller, one of the few well-known Seppolian performers with the balls and intelligence to, er, standup for Dubya.
Here in Oz, however, there are no right-wing comedians at all. (Er, except me, of course. But I'm hardly famous. I realised that to be a success you have to be either a beaming airhead or a perpetually stoned Stalinist. So I gave up the stage for a while and took up blogging. It's a much better means of self-expression. You've got an audience who can think; you're not gonna be ripped off by the promoter; and you get to sit down while you work. Still, buggerall money in it.)
Here in Oz, however, there are no right-wing comedians at all. (Er, except me, of course. But I'm hardly famous. I realised that to be a success you have to be either a beaming airhead or a perpetually stoned Stalinist. So I gave up the stage for a while and took up blogging. It's a much better means of self-expression. You've got an audience who can think; you're not gonna be ripped off by the promoter; and you get to sit down while you work. Still, buggerall money in it.)
Another thought on the Hunt for Hollingworth: It's interesting that when Bill Heffernan abused parliamentary privelege to slime Michael Kirby not so long ago, there was a lot of fluffy-huffing about Heffernan's mollusc-like cowardice, and wuffy-puffing about Kirby's lion-like dignity in the face of such a scurrilous attack. (It was one of the few times I shared their basic sentiments, by the way.)
The hacks did go overboard, though. They really went for the Liberal senator with a vengeance. I distinctly recall one scene (on the ABC, I think) of the Heffster running down a staircase pursued by baying TV bloodhounds.
But now, in a situation which is very similar - except that the victim is one of their enemies - the fluffs continue to go the G-G with renewed vigour, while laying off that scum-sucking mud-fucker Lindsay Tanner.
But it's hardly surprising. Turds of a feather slime together, after all. (Okay, so it's a mixed metaphor, since turds ain't birds, and don't have feathers. Still, it conveys my disgust at their repulsive behaviour.)
The hacks did go overboard, though. They really went for the Liberal senator with a vengeance. I distinctly recall one scene (on the ABC, I think) of the Heffster running down a staircase pursued by baying TV bloodhounds.
But now, in a situation which is very similar - except that the victim is one of their enemies - the fluffs continue to go the G-G with renewed vigour, while laying off that scum-sucking mud-fucker Lindsay Tanner.
But it's hardly surprising. Turds of a feather slime together, after all. (Okay, so it's a mixed metaphor, since turds ain't birds, and don't have feathers. Still, it conveys my disgust at their repulsive behaviour.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)