Petitioning Melinda Tankard Reist

Waiting For Godot said :

What MTR thinks about pornography and feminism is irrelevant. It is her attempts to muzzle her critics which is truly disturbing. The Net is the place for the robust, no-holds discussions which used to take place in the pub and over the back fence. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Many fringe groups try to use this tactic in order to stifle any dissent.
Think Scientology.
And then there’s a fringe of the homosexual lobby which has developed a well-oiled machine for suppressing opposition by attacking your advertisers, eg,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/oversensitivity-can-only-compromise-debate/story-e6frg6zo-1226000416817

Gantz said :

Why is it that in every photo I have seen published of this woman, her head is tilted?

Check it out

to the right?

MTR brought all this on herself by threatening legal action against a critic. That’s what set everybody off and resulted in all the abuse. If there is anything the online generation hate it is anybody threatening their freedom of online speech with fuddy duddy, old fashioned lawsuits.

What MTR thinks about pornography and feminism is irrelevant. It is her attempts to muzzle her critics which is truly disturbing. The Net is the place for the robust, no-holds discussions which used to take place in the pub and over the back fence. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Why is it that in every photo I have seen published of this woman, her head is tilted?

Check it out

creative_canberran said :

MTR’s gone nuts in CT: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/social-media-a-freefire-zone-for-hate/2427979.aspx?storypage=0

She derides the fact that social media lacks the filters of traditional media. What a nutter.

It really just seems to me that she preferred not to know what people thought of her. Either that or she’s severely misestimated the audience for the average political/social issues blog.

creative_canberran said :

MTR’s gone nuts in CT: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/social-media-a-freefire-zone-for-hate/2427979.aspx?storypage=0
She derides the fact that social media lacks the filters of traditional media. What a nutter.

MTR’s article is mostly a list of her conclusions without providing support for them (and strangely the CT has put up a disclaimer “…The opinions in the above article do not relate to this legal action” so I guess its purely coincidental that they’re giving her coverage.

On the other hand, Crispin Hull has at least put up (both in the CT and his own space) something coherent.

The whole story got kicked off because Dr Jennifer Wilson called out Rachel Hills on her slightly hagiographic (and fairly non-critical) piece being coincidentally in-line with Rachel’s upcoming book, and was pointing out to readers that people claiming moral authority for their opinions and criticisms should always be subject to “Spot the bias inherent in the source” and “Who\Why is this person trying to influence my understanding?” questions, none of which were present in Rachel Hills’ piece, so Dr Wilson took some of that onto herself.
(Admittedly without running it by any legal team first, which may have saved her the trouble).

But as to the actual claims made, I didn’t really hold a high opinion of MTR beforehand.
She was clearly arguing from a place I didn’t place much value on, and evangelicalism was never my flavour.
As to her recent actions, I don’t agree with them in that silencing critics rather than arguing them into submission is unstable ground indeed, and strong opponents can help make your own arguments stronger. If she was acting like an adult, maybe she would have tried to talk it out instead of threatening defamation.
But since the legal action she’s taken has given national publicity of the claims against her, increased direct scrutiny rather ceased public of scrutiny of her views, and potentially linked her own name with the defamatory allegations in the minds of the public, all at the expense of one of her legitimate academic critics, what few shreds of media respect she had earlier seems to be evaporating.

creative_canberran said :

MTR’s gone nuts in CT: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/social-media-a-freefire-zone-for-hate/2427979.aspx?storypage=0

She derides the fact that social media lacks the filters of traditional media. What a nutter.

Blag posts are not really that different from crazy people sticking hand written manifestos up on community notice boards at the local shops.

MTR’s gone nuts in CT: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/social-media-a-freefire-zone-for-hate/2427979.aspx?storypage=0

She derides the fact that social media lacks the filters of traditional media. What a nutter.

Diggety said :

Jennifer Wilson supported the defamation case against Andrew Bolt, but when she copy cats Bolt’s actions, has a cry when someone asks her to back up her facts or face legal action.

Bolt wasn’t done for defamation. Wilson didn’t accuse MTR of falsely claiming to be indigenous but otherwise the two cases are exactly comparable.

Jennifer Wilson supported the defamation case against Andrew Bolt, but when she copy cats Bolt’s actions, has a cry when someone asks her to back up her facts or face legal action.

A ‘hypocrite’ is what we call such an individual.

I hope MTR sues the t!ts off her. Either that or get them both in a ring and femi-fight it out; in the nude.