Whale Oil has run a series of posts over the past months attacking and criticising ISIS and Muslims and refugees from the Middle East etc.
And they are also a member of the Online Media Standards Authority.
A post by Cameron Slater suggesting generally,ambiguously to “The only solution is to kill them before the kill us” – see Slater: “The only solution is to kill them…” – has kicked up a fuss on social media which led to Action Station starting a petition to the Human Rights Commission and promoting “Stand Up To Bullies and Hate Speech”.
Naturesong posted this comment at The Standard (and repeated here)
I am not accusing anyone of bullying.
I am not suggesting that hate speech laws or in fact any using any legal means to silence him or his blog.The point I’ve obviously not articulated well enough, is that the blog WO is a member of OMSA.
As a member the blog agrees to a minimum set of standards.
I’m suggesting that the blog be held to them.It’s a personal responsibility argument.
Also:
The Online Media Standards Authority is the self-regulatory body of which WO blog is a member.
Which is correct and brings up a good point.
Whale Oil is listed as a member of OMSA here.
And OMSA has a Code of Standards (for Online News and Current Affairs Content):
Introduction
The objective of the Code is to set out agreed standards for the publication of news and current affairs content published on the websites of OMSA members.
Freedom of speech and social responsibility underpin this Code the application of which operates within the principles of Natural Justice.
The Code operates in an online context – its application will always take account of the nature of the internet, which provides a forum for free speech, robust debate, multiplicity of views and user control.
It’s good to see freedom of speech rated as important, along with the balance of social responsibility.
Under Part C – Social Responsibilities:
Standard 5 Responsible content
Publishers should ensure news and current affairs content:
- is responsible;
- is not presented in such a way as to cause panic, or unwarranted alarm or undue distress; and
- does not deceive.
It’s debatable whether the Whale Oil post complies with those points.
Under Guidelines: 5d. Where sponsorship, gift or financial inducement is received for content published it should be declared. – this is something Whale Oil may (or may not) breach but it may be difficult to prove. But this is a different issue.
Standard 6 Discrimination and Denigration
Publishers of news and current affairs content should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the New Zealand community on account of gender, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status, or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.
Guideline
6a. This standard is not intended to prevent the publication of material that is:
- factual, or
- the expression of genuinely held opinion, or
- the reporting of legitimate humour, drama or satire.
Slater’s comment “The only solution is to kill them before the kill us” is presented more as fact than opinion although it is presumably an opinion.
It’s not humour, drama or satire.
But it’s possible a case could be made that Whale Oil, either through this one post or through a series of posts because they may “encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the New Zealand community on account of gender, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status, or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief”.
If you think it’s worth complaining here’s the OMSA Complaint Form which states:
Any person or an organisation within New Zealand can complain about any news and current affairs material published online by our members, which they consider breaches the Code of Standards.
A complaint must be lodged within 14 days of the content first being posted on the publisher’s website.
Seems like a more appropriate approach then the petition to the Human Rights Commission, if anyone thought that Slater’s post or posts that promote anti-Muslim feelings justified it.