National on free speech

127 comments on “National on free speech ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tane 1

   15 October 2007 at 11:58 am

   Quick, someone tell National’s Free Speech Coalition – http://www.killthebill.org.nz
2. mardypants 2

   15 October 2007 at 12:03 pm

   Priceless.
3. amk 3

   15 October 2007 at 12:21 pm

   Is the email factualy inaccurate?
4. Insolent Prick 4

   15 October 2007 at 12:33 pm

   And in a delicious irony, the standard deletes my comment noting that the email doesn’t offend the Standard’s free speech at all, but merely tells the standard to stop stealing other people’s intellectual property.
5. Susan Deare 5

   15 October 2007 at 12:35 pm

   It sounds desperate and petty. John Key really can’t handle criticism. He needs to harden up and stop being such a cry-baby.
6. Tane 6

   15 October 2007 at 12:37 pm

   IP, your comment has not been deleted. We don’t do that round these parts. Are you sure you entered the captcha properly?
7. Robinsod 7

   15 October 2007 at 12:44 pm

   IP – what’s with the whining and the paranoia. As far as I know no comments are ever deleted here (though the captcha can be a bit buggy). Why don’t you just post again rather than whinging? And on that note has anyone else here noticed how the right is increasingly playing the victim card lately? What a bunch of bloody whingers – they should get over their “left’s to blame” grievance culture and take some personal responsibility I say.
8. all_your_base 8

   15 October 2007 at 12:47 pm

   IP – we/I haven’t as far as I know, manually deleted any comments from any user. Nor are comments being filtered by any means. The most likely explanation is that you mistyped the captcha.
9. Icky Stinky 9

   15 October 2007 at 12:57 pm

   It’s all because Key’s so lovely. He doesn’t want his good looks defiled.

   Over at our place we’re still waiting the call. Hopefully one of the Tory Boy dweebs will check out kiwiblogblog’s Gallery page. It’s full to the brim of doctored satirical UNAUTHORISED images of Mr Key…and Mr English…and their mouthpiece, the self-appointed champion of free speech in New Zealand, Mr Farrar. If I can just direct my comments out to the Standard’s (now obvious) Tory Readership, I would just like to issue my own little wero:

   “Bring it on, you humourless turds”.

   By the way, good luck with the petition.
10. Bryce Edwards 10

    15 October 2007 at 1:03 pm

    Who are Francis Till, Jason Ede, Rhiannon White?

    It looks like they work for National MPs in Parliament. But shouldn’t this be a extra-parliamentary issues for the Party HQ?

    Bryce
    http://www.liberation.org.nz
11. Robinsod 11

    15 October 2007 at 1:09 pm

    Damn Bryce you’re right. Does this mean National has been using parliamentary staff to work on issues related to its political image? It’s bad enough they want to attack the Standard’s freedom of speech but it seems they’re willing to use my taxes to do it. Corrupt!
12. insider 12

    15 October 2007 at 1:19 pm

    Didn’t Helen Clark complain about her image being misused on a National party site and that got changed?
13. Tane 13

    15 October 2007 at 1:22 pm

    If you’re talking about the “Lesbian Darth Vader” image I think that was more a case of National deciding to pull it to avoid further embarrassment. It’s a hard job keeping the Dad4Justice wing of the party under wraps.
14. Your Mom 14

    15 October 2007 at 1:23 pm

    You do realise that Helen Clark and Phil Goff have said the exact same thing about the Iraq war, that it was over, except they said it not long after the war had started…

    You are actually breaching copyright laws with that image by the way, it has nothing to do with free speech.
15. roger nome 15

    15 October 2007 at 1:24 pm

    “IP, your comment has not been deleted. We don’t do that round these parts. Are you sure you entered the captcha properly?”

    Nope – there seem to be plenty on the right around these parts that have problems passing the spam test. Poor little prick.
16. chris 16

    15 October 2007 at 1:25 pm

    So it seems to be okay for blubber and co to use photo shopped images but an unauthorised use of an image of the jandal, well what can you say, Priceless!.
17. insider 17

    15 October 2007 at 1:25 pm

    I’d add tgat I think the nats have set themselves up for mocking with such an email, unless it is an official photo owned by the Nats in which case you may have a copyright issue.
18. Tane 18

    15 October 2007 at 1:26 pm

    except they said it not long after the war had started.

    I think that’s kind of the point, Mom. This has been covered at length here – have a look through the archives.
19. Robinsod 19

    15 October 2007 at 1:30 pm

    Your Mum – Firstly is that you Bevan? and secondly copyright law expressly allows the use of an image for satirical or commentary purposes. Thirdly – are you still trying that old “they said it too” line?? Try reading this and you’ll understand why it never managed to fly: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=376
20. roger nome 20

    15 October 2007 at 1:39 pm

    Robinsod’s correct of course. Use of copyrighted materials for satirical (“parody” I think is the word that’s used in the legislation( purposes is legally allowed. I checked it out with several lawyers when using “culture jamming” in a campaign I was involved in.
21. Robinsod 21

    15 October 2007 at 1:45 pm

    Perhaps they will sue – I notice the pic’s still up at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/iraq_apology/ I wonder if Key’s lawyers (paid by us!) will sign when they next visit?
22. Sam Dixon 22

    15 October 2007 at 1:55 pm

    This is pretty serious, a poltiical party trying to intimidate poltiical activists.

    Threats from the Leader of the Opposition’s office what’s next, lawyers? men in black suits?

    National hasn’t got a legal leg to stand on, of course, that’s why they don’t list any. They’re just trying to scare you, which is a reprehensible attack on your free speech.

    This is entirely fair usage of the pubiclaly avaiable image of a public figure in relation to his public role. You do not need Key’s permission to use this image.
23. Nih 23

    15 October 2007 at 2:00 pm

    Cracker! Now go to the papers.
24. Nih 24

    15 October 2007 at 2:07 pm

    It is indeed fair use.

    I bet we’ll see some sort of apology for this in a very short space of time or it’ll become one of those things that hangs over them during the election.
25. amk 25

    15 October 2007 at 2:13 pm

    This is pretty serious, a poltiical party trying to intimidate poltiical activists

    Sam, wake up and hear youself say this aloud. Then think about the EFB.
26. Seamonkey Madness 26

    15 October 2007 at 2:21 pm

    “This is pretty serious, a poltiical party trying to intimidate poltiical activists.”

    That’s a bit rich!
27. Nih 27

    15 October 2007 at 2:24 pm

    The EFB is a bill designed to stop National’s extreme minority of rich ultra-conservatives over-representing themselves.

    Therefore the EFB supports freedom of speech in a broader sense. This is the only definition of freedom of speech. There is no such thing as “freedom of speech for a minority”. That’s when it stops being freedom of speech.

    Respect the majority you fascist bastards.
28. Sam Dixon 28

    15 October 2007 at 2:25 pm

    You guys must have them riled up if they’re trying to find any angle to even slightly weaken one minor aspect of what The Standard is doing. I mean, its not like Francis till was on The Standard, saw the link to the petition and said ‘hey! they can’t use that pic’ and shot off an email. That’s not the way political organisations work, certianly not a Leader’s office of a major party..

    They will noitced the rise and rise of The Standard over the last few weeks (no doubt Farrar has had a sit down with them to dicuss internet strategy), they have been aware of the petition, senior staff would have got together, presumably with at least Key’s knowledge, and said ‘hmm, we don’t want this getting out of hand, how do we shut them down?’, and this is what they came up with. It seems unlikely to me that Key wouldn’t have made been aware of something so unusual going out of his office.

    Pretty weak and ill-thought out really. But it shows’ their nautre: if you can’t win the argument try and initimdate the opposition.
29. amk 29

    15 October 2007 at 2:30 pm

    Therefore the EFB supports freedom of speech in a broader sense

    Except the Human Rights Commission, Law Society, Teachers, Greenies, hard-core Tories, plenty of [former?] Labour supporters, Employers, Activists, Environmental groups, trade associations and thousands of NZers disagree.

    So it’s utter nonsense to moan about a poltiical party trying to intimidate poltiical activists when one supports the EFB.
30. Nih 30

    15 October 2007 at 2:31 pm

    no doubt Farrar has had a sit down with them to dicuss internet strategy

    That’s laughable. Don’t give him credit for being anything other than a follower. National will never have a serious interest in him.
31. Nih 31

    15 October 2007 at 2:33 pm

    Hey Sam, just a thought: install Firefox with with the British dictionary, then look for red underlines before you post. It’ll really clean up your typos.
32. Nih 32

    15 October 2007 at 2:37 pm

    Except the Human Rights Commission, Law Society, Teachers, Greenies, hard-core Tories, plenty of [former?] Labour supporters, Employers, Activists, Environmental groups, trade associations and thousands of NZers disagree.

    So that’s completely not a result of party politicking?

    Where it actually isn’t, the main complaint is the bill is complicated. If a simpler version shows up, which it no doubt will, it will gain the support of most of the groups you just mentioned.

    So it’s utter nonsense to moan about a poltiical party trying to intimidate poltiical activists when one supports the EFB.

    You might not be able to deal with more than one issue in your head at once but the rest of us certainly can.

    However continue to whine incessantly while the world moves on around you. Under National rule classic non-contributors like you would sink.
33. Tane 33

    15 October 2007 at 2:38 pm

    amk, for most of those groups you’re conflating minor criticisms of the bill with a call for its outright rejection. Get your facts straight bro. And it’s a red herring: John Key’s office is trying to intimidate his critics. Do you support their actions or not?
34. Margaret 34

    15 October 2007 at 2:44 pm

    So if The Standard has to remove John Key’s image then does that mean the National party red/blue billboard’s in 2005, prominently featuring Helen Clark, were similarly illegal?
35. Seamonkey Madness 35

    15 October 2007 at 3:01 pm

    “But it shows’ their nautre[sic]: if you can’t win the argument try and initimdate[sic] the opposition.”

    Now are you talking about Helen and her threats of investigating National MPs lives orrrrrrrrrrrrrr something else?

    Madam SPEAKER: I accept the point made by the Leader of the House, but I think that in this instance the quote did not meet the test of being unparliamentary. So I ask the Prime Minister to answer the question.
    Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: For obvious reasons, I seldom agree with Fran O’Sullivan. My job is to act in relation to Cabinet responsibility issues, not to initiate investigations into the actions of members of Parliament. However, if members opposite want to tempt me, there is always the possibility of investigations into Nick Smith’s contempt of court, Gerry Brownlee’s act of assault, or whether Mr Groser still uses cannabis.

    Nice effort there Helen. An ‘A’ for Intimidation. No need to win the argument here!
36. amk 36

    15 October 2007 at 3:02 pm

    Guys, you’re kidding yourselves that most concerns with the bill are minor. I’ve trawled through 100’s of the written submissions and the sentiment is very strongly weighted on the ‘major concerns’ end of the scale. For me, two of the very significant submissions concluded thus:

    The Law Society:
    It’s very rare for the society to come to the view that a bill is bad and should not proceed further. But the Electoral Finance Bill is one such bill

    The Human Right Commission:
    A human rights approach to democratic government requires genuine participation. Genuine participation, in turn, requires an informed electorate. By limiting freedom of expression and creating a complex regulatory framework in the way it does, the Electoral Finance Bill unduly limits the rights of all New Zealanders to participate in the electoral process. The Commission therefore considers that the Bill is inherently flawed and should be withdrawn.

    A pretty significant call for outright rejection by those who are experts.

    Tane: back on topic, I think Key is entitled to ask that altered images of him be removed. I understand that Clark has done so in the past and good on her. She allows some altered images to stay in circulation of course – that pledge card image springs to mind.
37. Tane 37

    15 October 2007 at 3:10 pm

    SM: I’ve seen that quote over a few right-wing blog sites and it’s not getting any more credible. When you read it in context, it’s clear Clark is saying that as PM she does not initiate investigations into the conduct of individual MPs, and that National are the last people who should want it to be otherwise.

    amk: Yes, the HRC and the Law Society called for it to be scrapped (though this has been covered elsewhere http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=232). The others have made criticisms here and there but largely supported the intent of the bill. You were being disingenuous to imply that they had said otherwise.

    And as for Key, he’d know very well you’re allowed to use images for the purpose of political satire. It’s not like the National Party don’t have lawyers. This was a calculated attempt to shut down criticism, which is ironic from a party that pretends to stand for free speech. Or is it only free speech when it suits their interests?
38. Robinsod 38

    15 October 2007 at 3:11 pm

    Um guys as far as I know this isn’t about the EFB – it’s about John Key and his image consultants using taxpayer money to try to bully some activists out of running their website. If you do want to debate the EFB I suggest you wait until someone posts an EFB thread here or you can go over to http://www.killthebill.org.nz and join the lively debate that’s going on there.
39. Seamonkey Madness 39

    15 October 2007 at 3:18 pm

    Tane,

    Bullshit and you know it.
40. amk 40

    15 October 2007 at 3:19 pm

    Tane,

    not disingenuous at all.

    most of the submission i’ve read are from people or groups who are horrified at what Labour is trying to hide from ordinary NZers.

    so when the LC and HRC say that is should be scrapped then… it should be scrapped. period.

    you and I are are obviously not going to reach anything approaching consensus on the subject of free speech.
41. chris 41

    15 October 2007 at 3:21 pm

    SM, Nick Smith’s contempt of court saw a front bencher with a conviction,Gerry Brownlee’s alleged act of assault almost landed another front bencher in the courts and Mr Groser admitted to the use of a controlled substance. Shakey ground.
42. Seamonkey Madness 42

    15 October 2007 at 3:27 pm

    Two words: prima facie.

    And another two words: pledge card.

    Philip Feild is only being investigated because he broke the Golden Rule: don’t take screen-time away from Helen.
43. Benodic 43

    15 October 2007 at 3:32 pm

    Hey Seamonkey, you’re trying your best to disrupt the thread from John Key’s attempt to intimidate his critics. Why might that be?
44. Seamonkey Madness 44

    15 October 2007 at 3:36 pm

    No, just trying to show Labour up for what it is.

    H….
    Come on now, you lefties can spit it out.
    Hyyyy…
    Hyyyypp-p-p-p….
    One more go!
    H-h-h-hypocritical.

    Well done! Here’s a gold star!!!

    If you honestly think that Labour doesn’t partake in intimidating it’s opposition…
45. Nih 45

    15 October 2007 at 3:42 pm

    He’s degenerated into a dad4justice style forum-seizure.
46. Benodic 46

    15 October 2007 at 3:47 pm

    Seamonkey, shouldn’t that be Liar-bour? Or is it the Labia Party now? I forget which one.
47. Whaleoil 47

    15 October 2007 at 3:48 pm

    Uhmmmm…not so much about free speech but property rights.

    You have neglected to tell everyone that neither National nor John Key own the image. It is in fact owned by the Dominion Post.

    You could use any image that is freely available and still have your little hissy fit without breaching anyones property rights. But oh no…you have to make a big fuss over nothing when as usual it is you guys who are breaching the laws of two countries to try to prove your non-point.

    Either pull your heads in (unlikely) or cough up to the DomPost for the rights to use the image.
48. amk 48

    15 October 2007 at 3:49 pm

    Nih, all_your_base opined “So National’s all for freedom of speech – but only when it suits them” and SMM is pointing out what he considers to be hypocracy. Hardly forum-seizure. Just debate & comment. That’s what this is all about isn’t it? Or must commenters here tow the party line?
49. Tane 49

    15 October 2007 at 3:54 pm

    Whale,

    As has been explained, the image is being used for the purposes of political satire which means neither John Key nor the Dom Post have a case against us, despite the attempts at intimidation from Key’s office.

    And while you’re here, how’s it going? You still photoshopping the heads of 15 year boys onto gay porn? How’s that working out for you?
50. Margaret 50

    15 October 2007 at 3:58 pm

    If the issue is that The Standard have used an image that the Dom has copyright on without their consent then why is the email from National parliamentary staff, not the editor (or lawyer or whatever) of the Dom?
51. Sonny Thomas 51

    15 October 2007 at 4:00 pm

    Hahaha! Fantastic! What a bunch of sad sacks!
52. Seamonkey Madness 52

    15 October 2007 at 4:03 pm

    Nih and others,

    I take pride in the fact that I don’t ramble and ramble and ramble and ramble with double spacing in between my commas. I don’t revert to rumours about sexuality and the influence that it plays in policital leanings and the decision-making process. I don’t grasp insane ideas out of thin air and make ill-thought attacks on blogs – left-wing/Labour or otherwise.

    I am an ordinary Joe Bloggs (funny that an old generic nickname now has a pertinent use!), who sees/hears/reads something one the radio/television/newspaper/internet from whom he deems a reasonable enough source to contain a majority of factual reference. I then mull on those ideas, cultivate my own from them, and then chuck them onto various NZ blogosphere outlets.

    D4J is an (some would say) unlucky father who has radical ideas, types before he thinks and it would seem has uncontrollable Tourettes. I would like to think I am a world apart from him.

    And to placate Roger Nome, I rank slightly to the right and slightly authoritarian on the political-compass test.

    Thank you for the succinct, reasoned reply amk.
53. Nih 53

    15 October 2007 at 4:20 pm

    Let me simplify the situation for you: D4J is an unredeemable moron and anyone who thinks it’s funny or smart to post in his manner joins him in that particular hole.

    Attempt to be adults, gentlemen and raise the bar on the quality of your forum discussions and you may find your time here more productive than you have been.
54. amk 54

    15 October 2007 at 4:30 pm

    Attempt to be adults, gentlemen and raise the bar on the quality of your forum discussions

    Excellent advice Nih. Remind Tane of that when he re-reads his post And while you’re here, how’s it going? You still photoshopping the heads of 15 year boys onto gay porn? How’s that working out for you?
55. Seamonkey Madness 55

    15 October 2007 at 4:41 pm

    You don’t want me to say the ‘H’ word again do you?
    =)
56. Robinsod 56

    15 October 2007 at 4:43 pm

    Yeah but amk – that’s exactly what Whale did ( http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=1306
    ). I’ve noticed you righties seem to think any time someone calls you on what you say or do it’s whinged about as part of a smear campaign. Have you lot ever just considered that if you don’t say or do repugnant things there’ll be nothing to call you on? Take some personal responsibility ffs.
57. The Sprout 57

    15 October 2007 at 4:50 pm

    that really is pathetic. oh how they do hate their over-endowed sense of entitlement to be challenged.
    here’s me and beany’s take on it complete with counter-examples http://thesproutandthebean.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/shut-up-or-else/
58. Whaleoil 58

    15 October 2007 at 4:50 pm

    REpugnant things like steal someones Intellectual Property.

    I don’t know who your lawyer is, but it is probably the same putz threatening to sue me for photoshopping poor wee James’ face in which case I don’t think your “defence” of satire is going to get you very far.
59. Tane 59

    15 October 2007 at 4:54 pm

    Whale, did I read correctly that you’re being sued for your disgraceful attack on James Sleep?
60. Sam Dixon 60

    15 October 2007 at 4:54 pm

    Nih – now I’m sad cause you’ve brought attention to my dyslexia.

    Nah, don’t worry, its just I’m a crap typist, and lazy too.

    See those morons on the old KB arguing over whether the Police raids are Labour clamping down on political opponents (cue EFB reference, as if any of them have read it) or whether the ‘para-militaries’ were themselves a secret Labour military-force that the Police have shut down. Hilarious. Must be a run on tinfoil at the supermarket today.
61. Seamonkey Madness 61

    15 October 2007 at 5:03 pm

    “Must be a run on tinfoil at the supermarket today.”

    I hear that. =)

    What is the terrorist organisation called? Te Qaeda?
62. Whaleoil 62

    15 October 2007 at 5:11 pm

    No you read incorrectly, James called a mate and said he was TRYING to sue me…..and I better pull my head in….named Charles Chauvel….so who is the party trying to threaten people huh?????

    I of course laughed like hell. Bloody funny that it is you guys spreading the image around.

    With friends like you who needs enemies.
63. Robinsod 63

    15 October 2007 at 5:18 pm

    So ah Whale, have you sold any of those tee-shirts yet? Oh, and how’s that weight problem going?
64. Tane 64

    15 October 2007 at 5:21 pm

    Whale, let’s get this straight. You photoshopped the head of a 15 year old boy onto gay porn. He got upset and said he was going to take legal action against you. How does this show the ‘Labour Party’ threatening your free speech? You should be thankful you don’t have the Department of Internal Affairs breathing down your neck.
65. Sam Dixon 65

    15 October 2007 at 5:22 pm

    I like the tinfoil meme, both left and right throwing it at each other like monkeys at the zoo.
66. Nih 66

    15 October 2007 at 5:23 pm

    Excellent advice Nih. Remind Tane of that when he re-reads his post and while you’re here, how’s it going? You still photoshopping the heads of 15 year boys onto gay porn? How’s that working out for you?

    I have an easy answer for you. I don’t photoshop heads of boys onto porn.

    I see you juveniles have no hope of joining the adult community.
67. mardypants 67

    15 October 2007 at 5:39 pm

    This thread brilliantly reflects the current schism within the blogosphere – humourous reasoned argument contrasted with vituperative abuse on the other. What was it that Ralston said about these kinds of discussions?
68. Sam Dixon 68

    15 October 2007 at 5:41 pm

    Whale – ‘with friends like you who needs enemies’ – um, they are your political enemies chubbs.
69. Margaret 69

    15 October 2007 at 5:50 pm

    mardypants said “humourous reasoned argument contrasted with vituperative abuse on the other.”

    Yes, I was rather disappointed that my points, made minus any abusive tendencies, were somewhat overlooked by other debaters.

    Ah well, such is life.
70. Whaleoil 70

    15 October 2007 at 6:06 pm

    Yeah right, I is is hardly “gay porn” to show a photo of a male in boxers, shit if that is gay porn then so are the Dan Carter ads for underwear.

    The weight “problem” is fine Robinson, added 5 kilos in muscle since last weigh in. You can catch up with me this week if you want, I’ll be in Wellington if you want to stop by for a drink.
71. Tane 71

    15 October 2007 at 6:39 pm

    Whale, stop trying to spin your way out of your repugnant behaviour. The guy’s clearly doing more than sitting there in his boxers. And you stuck a 15 year old boy’s head on his body.

    And that’s not all you’ve been doing. What on earth possessed you to make these?

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2046

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=8660
72. Icky Stinky 72

    15 October 2007 at 6:49 pm

    Hey, Whaleoil, was it hard getting Miramax’s approval to use the Kill Bill imagery on your site?
73. r0b 73

    15 October 2007 at 5:57 pm

    “Yes, I was rather disappointed that my points, made minus any abusive tendencies, were somewhat overlooked by other debaters.”

    Sometimes when people don’t respond, it is because they can’t respond. Carry on making good points calmly I say!
74. Robinsod 74

    15 October 2007 at 7:08 pm

    Whale – I’d love to have a drink with you. Just let me know when and where and I’ll be there.
75. Susan Deare 75

    15 October 2007 at 7:09 pm

    Whaleoil – that is fucking sick shit. You’ve got serious serious issues if you think it’s funny to photoshop a fricken 15 year old kid on a image of a guy in his boxers with his hands down his pants. Sick sick sick. And incredibly immoral.

    That’s the kind of thing you should bloody well be taken to trial for. And don’t try and tell me there’s nothing wrong with a fat middle aged man with children putting up an image like that.
76. Leftie 76

    15 October 2007 at 7:19 pm

    Whaleoil
    Those altered images of our elected leader are something I would expect from a teenager. Not to mention disrespectful.
77. amk 77

    15 October 2007 at 7:31 pm

    I love this…. Nil plays all sanctimonious about raising the standard (lol) of posting here and then defends slagging off Whale.

    That most agree his posting is/was distasteful is not the issue. The issue is that the cowardly folks here insist on one standard for others and adopt another for themselves. Pathetic!

    Come on folks, lift your game.
78. amk 78

    15 October 2007 at 7:33 pm

    Apologies, that should have been Nih
79. Thomas 79

    15 October 2007 at 7:34 pm

    Just looked at the aforementioned images Leftie.
    I have three teenagers and all of them have more integrity
    then Mr Blubber None of them would be so disrespectful.
    I am appalled
80. Robinsod 80

    15 October 2007 at 7:40 pm

    amk – what do you mean the cowardly folks here insist on one standard for others and adopt another for themselves ? Please explain further.
81. Whaleoil 81

    15 October 2007 at 7:50 pm

    sanctimonious lefties…..

    For one i didn’t do the Britney/Clark image. Sure I posted it so what?
    The Suckling image doesn’t even use Clarks face, I mean come on, they had the PM on television tonight and she looked nothing like that. If you can show me a real picture of clark that looks like that then I’ll eat my hat.
    that leaves the picture of a guy scratching his balls, hardly “gay porn” but if that’s what rocks your world then good for you.

    Anyway how was I to know James was 25, he had a blogger account, you have to be 18 for one of those so hey, if he hadn’t broken the rules and then gone all mental all over everyones blogs….well he wouldn’t have been a target. Tough shit for him, its a real world out there not some namby pamby cotton wool world. Harden up softies.
82. Robinsod 82

    15 October 2007 at 7:52 pm

    Whale. Time. Place.
83. amk 83

    15 October 2007 at 7:55 pm

    Robinsod, sure. Earlier in this thread .

    nih said: Attempt to be adults, gentlemen and raise the bar on the quality of your forum discussions

    amk responded: Excellent advice Nih. Remind Tane of that when he re-reads his post: “And while you’re here, how’s it going? You still photoshopping the heads of 15 year boys onto gay porn? How’s that working out for you?”

    nil responded: “amk, I have an easy answer for you. I don’t photoshop heads of boys onto porn. I see you juveniles have no hope of joining the adult community”

    So Nil quite correctly implores us to improve the quality of our posts (ie be objective, rather than subjective in attacking the poster) and then proceeds to justify attacking Whale (the subject) because he/she thought what he did was objectionable. Which BTW I agree it is. but that’s not the issue.

    Play the ball, not the player. Same rules for both sides sounds both fair and reasonable I would have thought.

    As simple, “I’m sorry, that was wrong” would do. But that might require some humility and I don’t see much of that around this site.
84. Santa Claus 84

    15 October 2007 at 7:58 pm

    Heh, I saw one Tiny’s multudinous links to thestupid over at KB and thought I’d take a look into the cesspit.

    Well, my my isn’t it a pile of self fellating lefties over here then, getting all worked up over ‘gay porn’. I would have thought that supporters of homosexual liberation would be happy to see such images on mainstream web sites. Goodness, anyone would think the asssteemed authors of this blog had joined the US born-again christian clique (wee website linked above – and don’t go looking for the pictures now boyz)

    Sweet (wet) dreams to Tiny, Nil, and co

    SC
85. Icky Stinky 85

    15 October 2007 at 8:01 pm

    Yeah, Whale, back to my question…was it difficult getting Miramax’s approval to use the Kill Bill imagery.
86. Tane 86

    15 October 2007 at 8:04 pm

    thestupid?! Ha! You’re a genius Santa! That’s even funnier than the other ones your mates over at KB came up with… what were they? Oh that’s right, The Average and The (low) Standard. Honestly, that’s some pure comedy gold mate.

    You know what’s even funnier? Your website’s called Americans for Truth about Homosexuality. Yep, I think even DPF would be ashamed to be associated with the likes of you.
87. the bean 87

    15 October 2007 at 8:16 pm

    “So Nil quite correctly implores us to improve the quality of our posts (ie be objective, rather than subjective in attacking the poster) and then proceeds to justify attacking Whale (the subject) because he/she thought what he did was objectionable. Which BTW I agree it is. but that’s not the issue.

    Play the ball, not the player. Same rules for both sides sounds both fair and reasonable I would have thought”

    hmmm well objectivly…whaleoil is one sick fuck for getting his thrills from his little photoshop extravaganza. that ball is sad, shrivled up and pathetic…who ever is playing it is related to satan
88. Robinsod 88

    15 October 2007 at 8:21 pm

    amk – I think both Tane and Nih are pretty much pointing out that Whale does not behave in a way that deserves respect and thus will be shown none. Can you tell me how your use of the term “cowardly folks” adds to the debate or are you just slinging shit from beneath the cover of self-righteousness?

    Oh and Santa – you’re obviously gay. Please for your own sake and for the sake of the gay men you beat up and revile out of frustration get to grips with it. It’s the 21st century man. It’s ok to be queer.

    Whale – Time. Place.
89. Santa Claus 89

    15 October 2007 at 8:24 pm

    Geez Tiny, I wasn’t trying to be funny, just factual. I think the American religious right is about as credible and sensible as Bishop Brian. I was merely pointing out that y’all are gay-bashing. I guess it makes a change from church-bashing

    Still I would guess from your reply that you boyz are anti-christian, right? It must really bunch your panties to see Helen off greasing palms at Ratana every year eh?

    SC
90. amk 90

    15 October 2007 at 8:29 pm

    play the ball not the player. if you start justifying slagging off a person, for whatever reason, then it’s all down hill.

    still, it’s your blog guys. if you want Left politics to be seen as low and backstabbing then just continue as you are.
91. chance 91

    15 October 2007 at 8:29 pm

    Fans of the government that tried to ban satirical images of politicians taking refuge in satire to defend their nicked image, how delicious. Is it even satire? It’s certainly not funny, was it trying to be?
92. Robinsod 92

    15 October 2007 at 8:31 pm

    Hey santa – you made your stupid joke an said your goodnights now fuck off. Oh and it’s not about a gay image you dick it’s about the cyberbullying of a fifteen year old boy by a middle aged man. Sorry if a general disgust with that seems out of order to you. But seeing as it is you can just fuck off (did I already say that?)
93. amk 93

    15 October 2007 at 8:42 pm

    .said your goodnights now fuck off. but seeing as it is you can just fuck off

    It’s a warm welcoming environment here isn’t it.
94. Nih 94

    15 October 2007 at 8:42 pm

    It must be tedious to post only to get ignored.
95. Benodic 95

    15 October 2007 at 8:48 pm

    Chance – according to my dictionary satire is “holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn”. Sounds fair to me. And I don’t think anyone here is calling for a satire ban in Parliament. I do know both National and Labour supported it. What’s your point, or are you just a troll?
96. Robinsod 96

    15 October 2007 at 8:50 pm

    amk – I’ve never claimed to be warm or welcoming nor have I claimed to be elevating teh standard of debate. My rule of thumb is if there’s rational debate I’ll be polite and if some cunt comes in with shit like Well, my my isn’t it a pile of self fellating lefties over here then then I’ll tell them to fuck off. It’s pretty simple bro – you act like a dick you get treated like one. Or should we defer to wankers ? And you never told me how your use of “cowardly folks” enhanced this debate. Care to now?
97. Seamonkey Madness 97

    15 October 2007 at 8:55 pm

    So back to the topic at hand: do you believe it is okay to respect an author’s or photographer’s copyright? (if “hypothetically” your ‘political satire’ argument doesn’t stand up)

    If not, why not??
98. Santa Claus 98

    15 October 2007 at 8:55 pm

    Geez Robespierre, if it’s so awful, how come (ho ho ho) you posted a link to it in this comments thread? That just re-victimization man! Shame on you!

    Play the balls, not the man, old boy!
99. Robinsod 99

    15 October 2007 at 9:05 pm

    Santa – I put it there to shame Whale. Because the problem with you righties is you’ve got no sense of personal responsibility and if you’re not confronted with your own filth you can’t seem to believe you are in the wrong. I made a judgment that repeating that image would do more to shame Whale (and perhaps stop him and his ilk from repeat offenses) than it would to harm James. I stand by that – it’s called accounting for one’s own actions. You should try it some time. Oh and what’s with the whole santa theme anyway? Do you think it’s funny?
100. Pascal's bookie 100

     15 October 2007 at 9:12 pm

     amk, you might want to pause and think a little. Please. I’m being nice. You accuse people of playing the man, not the ball and issue what I am sure are heart felt pleas for comity but at the same time you ignore much of what has been written.

     The attacks on whaleoil that you claim are against the man, are in fact against the mans disgusting, juvenile and frankly creepy photoshop “gags” (gags that I am sure would be an embarrassment to his lardships father).

     Any attack on whale in that context is in no way ad hominum, they are attacks on the discourse he is promoting through the use of those gaggs. You can in any robust debate legitimatly say nasty things about someone if those nasty things are the conclusion of your argument. Using nasty things as a premiss in your argument is what is dodgy, but no-one here is doing that with regard to whaleoil. The argument is:

     Look at what whaeloil is doing.

     It’s disgusting.

     Waleoil is doing disgusting shit.

     Therefore: Whaleoil is a disgusting shitbag, whose site makes Labour voters out of every National leaning swing voter that is made aware of the filthy nature of the on-line right in NZ.

     Geddit?
101. Santa Claus 101

     15 October 2007 at 9:25 pm

     Heh, if the great white whale was shamed, he could easily remove the picture from his web server, along with the referencing blog post.

     Still, I’m sure you and your buddies have it saved to your hard (ho ho ho) drive in case it is ever needed again, right? right? (or should that be left left)

     Keep up the terror Robespierre
102. Benodic 102

     15 October 2007 at 9:46 pm

     That’s the point Santa. Whale is utterly shameless. He’s an abomination of a man who can’t see it even when it’s thrust in his face. In many ways, he’s much like Dad4Justice.
103. amk 103

     16 October 2007 at 8:55 am

     Pascal bookie – thanks for a reasoned reply. Whale made quite a valid point “Uhmmmm.not so much about free speech but property rights.You have neglected to tell everyone that neither National nor John Key own the image. It is in fact owned by the Dominion Post.”. He was immediately attacked.

     From your post above am I to assume that anyone who does something you find disagreeable, nay disgusting, is thereafter consigned to the trash can and deemed incapable of saying anything of value, or, that anything they say is an opportunity to attack previous unrelated actions?
104. amk 104

     16 October 2007 at 8:56 am

     grrr html close tags!
105. sonic 105

     16 October 2007 at 9:00 am

     I’d like to compliment the guys here at the standard for such excellent work,

     I’d also like to personally thank Mr Whale Oil for this excellent link

     http://www.flickr.com/photos/nznationalparty/

     Hours and hours of fun Whaley, I bet your chums at the National party are chuffed to bits for you disseminating that site.
106. Whaleoil 106

     16 October 2007 at 9:00 am

     Being called shameless, wow I’ll take that as a compliment from you guys.

     Robinchicken how about you name the place and time, I don’t know any cheap places in wellington that would accept your kind, but I am happy to go to a place of your choice.

     I must say though that you guys seem obsessed with homosexuals ina 12 year old kind of way. I mean you think a picture of a guy scratching his nuts in boxer shorts is gay porn and delight in trolling my blog calling me of all things gay and fat and blubber. Real kindy kinda stuff. But hey if that’s what gets you going fine by me, I’ll not complain.

     Your righteous indignation is so touching.
107. Whaleoil 107

     16 October 2007 at 9:04 am

     Oh and still waiting for that apology Tane and Robinson, not expecting it though because that would mean you have to admit you were wrong.

     Jordan and I may not like each other online but I have never attacked his sexual preferences.

     Go on try something for the first time, admit you were wrong and apologise.
108. sonic 108

     16 October 2007 at 9:21 am

     Oh and Mr Oil

     Do you have copyright on that image, or did you just steal it off the internet.
109. ak 109

     16 October 2007 at 10:16 am

     Good God. Unbelieveable. A blind man could see that a line has definitely been crossed here. And this is the son of a prominent National party figure? burt and co: have a good hard look at the company you keep – and do something about it. If there are not repercussions from this I’ll be very surprised.
110. Robinsod 110

     16 October 2007 at 3:21 pm

     Whale – like I said on your blog – I’m sorry I can’t distinguish one bigot from another. As for meeting you? It was pointed out to me that you’d just use it as an opportunity to out me and as I’ve had several serious physical threats made against me by your loony rightwing mates that’s probably not a good idea. Which is a shame as a few lefty folk wanted to video the meeting for youtube posterity…
111. Nih 111

     16 October 2007 at 3:31 pm

     So, who is Whaleoil’s dad?
112. Pascal's bookie 112

     16 October 2007 at 4:02 pm

     Amk
     “From your post above am I to assume that anyone who does something you find disagreeable, nay disgusting, is thereafter consigned to the trash can and deemed incapable of saying anything of value, or, that anything they say is an opportunity to attack previous unrelated actions?”

     No. It’s all covered in my post. It’s the bit about conclusion vs premiss.

     In your example of what you claim is the woeful treatment handed out to wailywhaley, you forgot to include his snark in your quote from him. This kind of colours the argument a little. Also you neglected to include the actual attacks made against him. Indeed there were attacks, the first one at the end coming in the very next comment. However the first half of that comment replies to whaleoils point.

     The “attack”, as you would have it, is a reference to the fact that, (and I’m astounded that you failed to pick up on this rather subtle point), whaleoil himself uses images he does not own in photoshop gags!! quelle horreur, pass the smelling salts, etc.

     Do you think, with your highly tuned hypocracy meter that this has any relevance to his comment?

     Seeing you are so very concerned about the quality of debate and the standard of the Standard, how about you address the issue raised directly by the post.

     Do you think it’s ok for Key’s tax payer staff to be shooting off legally dubious requests for bloggers to shut the fuck up?
113. Benodic 113

     16 October 2007 at 4:02 pm

     John Slater, former National party president, so I understand. Whale posted a picture of his dad with GW Bush a while back.
114. Nih 114

     16 October 2007 at 4:13 pm

     John Slater, former National party president, so I understand. Whale posted a picture of his dad with GW Bush a while back.

     I hate to ask, but was it photoshopped?
115. Whaleoil 115

     16 October 2007 at 6:54 pm

     [chicken sounds]Pussy, then again i suppose 12 year olds aren’t allowed in pubs. Perhaps we could have lunch at Maccas’s, bring yo mammy or your union thug mates, the more the merrier, if that would suit.[/chicken sounds]
116. National Insider 116

     16 October 2007 at 7:04 pm

     You’d think given all the bad press given to Bill English’s son recently, that the son of a National MP would be a little more careful with their choice of pictures and language.

     Sigh…..
117. National Insider 117

     16 October 2007 at 7:11 pm

     Oops just saw the other posts, and that wasn’t quite right. Got my John Carter and my John Slater confused.

     Anyway, yep it’s true. What an embarrassment.
118. Andrew 118

     21 October 2007 at 12:08 am

     Unfortunately for Key – he is a public figure. There isnt a lot he can do about people using pictures of him anymore.
119. bradv8 119

     6 July 2008 at 12:08 pm

     all gay pinko commi labour party supporters are pissed off how high national is in the opinion polls,we are going win this election , and yes we will give tax cuts and save new zealand from political correctness,as a country we need to reform the labour market bring in a work place flexibility act ,get the government out of the economy leave the balance to the magic of the market get back on track 9 years of labour has been a disaster, asset sales are good they bring much needed investment and expertise just look at telecom electricity reforms. privitsation of acc will bring in competition greater profits.to control inflation we need unemployment to keep inflation under control.we will get money for tax cuts by cutting kiwi saver.and other welfare new zealand stand on your own two feet.

     [lprent: That aroused my troll killing instincts. However it was just a lack of capitals, punctuation, typos and appalling sentence structure. I really can’t ban someone for having bad written english despite what Billy and the ‘sod think.]

Links to post

1. KiwiBlogBlog: posted on 15 October 2007 at 12:27 pm
2. Nih’s Blog » National employing underhanded tactics to suppress free speech: posted on 15 October 2007 at 2:19 pm
3. Shut up or else « Thesproutandthebean: posted on 15 October 2007 at 4:44 pm
4. “His” likeness « Thesproutandthebean: posted on 16 October 2007 at 7:51 pm
5. Weak watchdog scores own goal « KiwiBlogBlog: posted on 29 October 2007 at 12:18 pm
6. DPF, QC? 2 « KiwiBlogBlog: posted on 12 December 2007 at 1:25 pm
7. Bullies at The Standard 2.01: posted on 13 July 2008 at 4:37 pm
8. National’s long history of intimidation « The Standard: posted on 16 May 2017 at 3:06 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS