dreamer_easy | Lawsy gets away with it

Quote: The article in question:It said the comments were "unlikely to have incited or perpetuated hatred against or vilified any person or homosexual identifying people as a group, on the basis of their sexual preference".

Odd. I really don't see how it doesn't. It kind of seems to me that the broadcaster was vilifying Mr. Cresley based only on his sexual preference with his remarks. Doesn't that incite and perpetuate hatred? I mean, he obviously wasn't doing it in a friendly manner....

There's probably a precise and legal definition of 'vilified.' Casual insults don't cut it - even on national radio.

I suppose. :/

What does, out of curiosity, if anyone knows? I'm in the states, and for the past year or so there's been a huge furor at the Federal Communications Commission about what can be said on the radio, or television for that matter. Unfortunately, the fines tend to center around their ideas for moral decency a whole lot more than actual messages of hate. It's amazing the kind of thing that can be said on the radio here about blacks, gays, or arabs, but Gods forbid we allow Janet Jackson's covered nipple out on the air. Different in Au?

I don't know. I think we're a bit tighter, a bit jumpier about all sorts of racial/cultural vilification - slagging someone off by race on the footy field can get you kicked out of your team, for example. But there's also the sense that this is overreaction, and I suspect we might end up heading your way.

I mean, in this case, I tend to agree with the decision - yes, it was offensive, yes, it was uncalled for, yes, the station should have dealt with the complaint earlier, yes, Laws should be disciplined - but I'm not convinced it was vilification. It was a casual insult. Not good behaviour, but not illegal.

The Commercial Radio Australia Web site has the latest Codes of Practice downloadable as a PDF file. The word "vilify" is used a lot, but isn't defined, allowing a huge amount of wiggle room - presumably the ACMA thought Laws' remarks weren't sufficiently insulting to breach the code, and probably also took his partial contrition into account.

very sad.

Don't be misled by the lowlights mentioned in the news item - Laws had quite a bit to say. However, the ADB rep quoted in that link makes it clear how tough the legal standard is for vilification - perhaps the ACMA have a similar, if apparently undefined, standard in mind.

Oh.

I guess it's also odd for me, because we don't have the word "vilify" a lot in law here, instead this would be a matter of slander, or in print it would be libel. Vilify seems sort of overly broad term to me, as is obviously the point, as you say, as it offers a good amount of wiggle room. Of course, if it was considered libelous in our system, that would be more a matter for civil court. Same in Au?

Oh, that's interesting - the issue for the ACMA or the ADB are whether Laws vilified gays as a group, rather than whether he slandered Carson Kressley as an individual. I think the gentleman in question would have to bring a suit, whereas any member of the public can complain to the ACMA, and any gay Australian can complain to the ADB.

Not quite on-topic but - breakfast radio announcers on 973fm yesterday were discussing Heath Ledger's role in Brokeback Mountain (he plays a gay cowboy) and were making comments like "Can you say Yee-hah with a lisp?" I emailed the station to query their behaviour and received an apology of sorts, which pointed out that the item was meant to be humorous. Well, yeah, but does that make it okay?

I've never heard of this Laws guy before, but that's just insane. Do people really still think like that? I also find his need for men to 'judge' women quite disturbing.

Vilify, in Australian law, is kind of like the American concept of a hate crime. (I'm assuming you're in the USA?). It's something like inciting hatred or ridicule against a group of people, like a specific ethnic group, or women, or gay men.

There was a recent case where a Christian pastor was found guilty of vilification because several of his seminars basically said that Muslims were all suicide bombers and such.

I read legal judgements a lot (although I'm no lawyer), and it seems to me that vilification is decided on a case by case basis... that there are guidelines, but there's also a certain amount of subjectivity.

If you're interested, I can try and dig up a few links to vilification cases...

I would also have pointed out that as "Yee-hah" contains neither "s" nor "r", lisping is not really an issue. I would then have asked them if they can eat corn with no teeth...

I see. Ok, then I would have to say that I wouldn't consider what either the broadcaster said, or the pastor in your case, was a "hate crime," as I understand it. How about freedom of speech in Au, would these things not be covered?
Yep, I'm in the USA. I was curious about the differences in the law. Here, the government couldn't stop a person from saying either of those things, but an individual could sue another individual in civil court for slander. On the other hand, a government agency in control of the air waves, in my case the FCC, can fine the company responsible for an individual for irresponsible statements made over the air. This is usually more for violation of decency codes though, then "hate talk."

And presuming that the airwaves are governed by the state in Au as it is in the US, they can fine the individual, or his company, for irresponsible statements over the air? Or does it work differently? Is it considered a crime?

Technically, in Australia we don't have constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

Doesn't mean we can't ever say anything nasty about anyone. It just means that we have a little less freedom to be nasty than the Americans do.

I see. What sort of punishment would a person incur, for instance, if it was judged that they had vilified or incited hatred upon a group of people?

Depends. Most likely a fine, and a public apology.

F'rinstance, in the case of the Islamic Council of Victoria vs. Catch the Fire Ministries, Catch the Fire were ordered to print very large, prominent apologies in the local newspaper, and publish the apology on their website.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2005/1159.html

I think it would be extremely rare that you'd go to prison for vilification or hatred.

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing!

I was curious myself, so did some rummaging.

Over at the Australian Communications and Media Authority site, I found a recent decision which explained their powers:

Having found that a breach of a code has occurred, ACMA can request an informal undertaking from a licensee that certain steps will be taken to ensure no future breach of a particular code provision occurs. A wide range of possible undertakings could be requested.

ACMA may also decide to impose an additional condition on a licence. Additional licence conditions may be geared to corrective action in respect of a breach, or reducing the likelihood of future breaches.

The scope for a licence condition is very broad. Compliance with the code itself could be made a licence condition.

The imposition of a licence condition invokes some of ACMA’s stronger powers of sanction. Failure to comply with a licence condition allows ACMA to issue a notice directing compliance with the condition. Failure to comply with a notice means ACMA can suspend or cancel a licence, or refer the matter to the DPP for prosecution and possible imposition of a fine by the Federal Court.

Now again this is a separate thing from a complaint to the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board. Their page on Vilification - Your Rights gives an overview (and the definition). In NSW, vilification is illegal, and the news item mentioned that the case has been taken to the ADT, meaning that Lawsy could face a fine. I hope they kick his amug arse.

Lawsy gets away with it

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject