Confined to a wheelchair and wearing a pith helmet and an American flag fashioned into a nappy, shouting obscenities at the justices of the United States Supreme Court, pornographer Larry Flynt was a massively flawed hero for the cause of free speech.

Sandilands: back on air on Monday.

This morally bankrupt hillbilly was famously sued for defamation by the Reverend Jerry Falwell, who in a fake advertisement for Campari published by Flynt’s Hustler magazine recalled how he lost his virginity by sleeping with his own mother in an outside toilet on the family pig farm.

It’s hard to imagine a more egregious slur. Nor a more unbelievable one, which is one of the reasons Flynt ultimately won his defamation battle, reinforcing the free speech protections afforded by the First Amendment.

“If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me then it will protect all of you, cause I’m the worst,” Flynt said of his victory.

Kyle Sandilands is also a scumbag. But a hero he ain’t. The key difference between Flynt and Sandilands is self-awareness. Flynt knows he’s morally bereft, and revels in his status as a putrid stain on the tapestry of humankind. Sandilands thinks he’s hard done-by, misunderstood, that he’s a credible and intelligent entertainer who keeps getting a raw deal from his detractors in the press. Flynt is candid about his willingness to degrade women, albeit women who consent to their own degradation. Sandilands has lashed out at female journalists as bimbos, fat bitches, and then waxed indignant about how he’s been unfairly painted as a misogynist.

One of the most interesting interviews Andrew Denton ever did was with Sandilands - not because of anything it unearthed but because it unearthed nothing, other than the sight of the commendably non-judgmental Denton clearly struggling to suppress his disdain for his subject.

As someone who shares that disdain, I still struggle with the seemingly dominant chorus of voices calling for Sandilands to be silenced forever, or to have his future broadcasts monitored and vetted by a government body, probably a turbo-charged version of the Australian Communications and Media Authority, where bureaucrats could sit in a room with an urn and a whiteboard examining Kyle’s content against a checklist going to race, gender, religion and sexuality.

The thing that’s amazed me about the Sandilands scandal is how it’s exposed the rich seam of censoriousness on Australia’s liberal-left, where people who benefit from the freedom of expression we enjoy in this country have found themselves arguing it should no longer be extended to a card-carrying halfwit in Kyle.

There are two issues at play with the hideous rape exchange which he and his sidekick Jackie O - deservingly derided by Helen Razer as the Uncle Tom of feminism - put to air on Austereo’s commercial FM network last month.

The first goes to possible criminality, the second to taste.

Given that the age of consent in NSW is 16 - and the girl interviewed on Austereo was 14, and ended up revealing on radio (while strapped to a lie detector, for God’s sake) that she’d been raped when she was 12 - there may be an argument for a carefully-considered legislative prohibition on the media questioning any child about matters of sex or sexuality.

And it would have to be carefully considered, to ensure it did not stymie credible and important coverage of child protection cases which expose government failure or criminality by parents or community leaders. 

But the broader criticism of Sandilands - of the “oh, he’s done it again” variety - is framed around nothing other than his track record of consistently shabby, low-rent, offensiveness, where he’s called people “mongs”, used foul language, insulted women.

And it’s here where so many people have blithely argued that he should either be censored, or shut down forever.

Our website The Punch copped a degree of criticism for publishing Kyle’s “defence” of his actions. The criticism took us by surprise. When the rape exchange occurred, we’d led our site with a piece bagging Sandilands and inviting discussion as to whether he should be taken off air, and hundreds and hundreds of readers jumped on the site and gleefully kicked the bloke half to death.

Many asked - “what the hell was he thinking?” - which perhaps afforded him a faculty which was overly-generous, but a fair question all the same. When we tracked Sandilands down and asked him to do just that - write a piece explaining what the hell he was thinking, or if he was even thinking at all - a number of readers attacked us for running it.

Bizarre, as the publication of the piece was a powerful demonstration of Denton’s Enough Rope principle, where we gave him several lengths of the stuff and he proceeded to hang himself.

The killer line in his nonsensical defence was where he said that the mother of the girl was worried about her sexual habits and wanted to find out what she was up to.
Indeed. Who needs DOCS when you’ve got Kyle, Jackie O and a polygraph machine?

If Sandilands thought the piece would get him off the hook he was sadly deluded as within minutes the website was groaning under the weight of reader comments which, summarised, said: what an ignorant bastard.

It was a strong demonstration of how genuinely lucky we are to live in an open society. But that week, in a sheepish appearance on the ABC’s Q and A program, I was challenged again by someone in the audience about our apparently audacious decision to run his piece. And there was a general “hear hear” when Simon Sheikh from Get-Up suggested on the panel that perhaps it was time to give ACMA more powers to act against this kind of content.

These casual suggestions invite the question - what kind of powers?

Do we set up the Department of Satire, Decorum and Human Dignity, and submit all material intended for publication or broadcast in advance to make sure no-one will be slighted or aggrieved?

Should the new seven-second delay introduced by Austereo be extended to seven days, or probably seven weeks, so that the department can sign off on the content? 

Everyone from Chris Lilley to the now-defunct Chaser to everyone who writes a column for a newspaper or a website, or posts comments on a website, could have their work cut out, and possibly, cut up.

The reaction to the publication of Sandilands piece shows that unfettered public discussion is one of the best things we’ve got going for us as a country.

I’m glad that he’s back on air on Monday, and look forward to not tuning in. Hopefully others will do the same, rather than let government do their thinking for them.

76 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Aleg says:

      06:08am | 15/08/09

      “Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.”  ~Voltaire

    • RT says:

      06:46am | 15/08/09

      C’mon Penbo, hasn’t The Punch milked this Kyle story enough already? I reckon his ratings will go pretty well, and you’re doing something to help them. BTW any slandering of Jerry Falwell can’t be all bad.

    • Sam de Brito says:

      08:49am | 15/08/09

      You wasted that posting it on a Saturday. Shoulda been front page of the Tele.

    • Rob says:

      08:53am | 15/08/09

      Bravo!

    • Elliott says:

      09:03am | 15/08/09

      I don’t know that people were so much outraged at Punch publishing Kyle’s defence, rather that it read like a sanistised media release that added nothing of value (vile or otherwise) to the conversation.

    • Marty says:

      10:03am | 15/08/09

      No matter what.He is and will always be a TOOL…...........

    • Lucy Carter says:

      11:09am | 15/08/09

      Could not agree with you more.  Censoring him will only make him a matyr to the idiots who still listen to him. Allowing him to continue blathering, and disgust his audience one member at a time is far more effective method to get him off the air.

    • Mark says:

      12:34pm | 15/08/09

      What’s out of kilter these days I think, is the right of free speech and the moral obligation in its use. What’s evident is that as a result of the apparent decline in the idea of morals, the only check in unrestrained vileness is the law.
      So it has now become a challenge to see how far one can go before the law is broken- and it seems to be a wonderful tool to titillate an audience.

    • davido says:

      12:35pm | 15/08/09

      I will defend free speech. BUT that doesnt mean this pair (everyone forgets the other drongo) should be on the air.

    • Mike says:

      06:27pm | 15/08/09

      If I was to approach a 14yo girl on the bus, and ask her whether she was sexually active or not, I would be in a world of hurt. I believe that this , the questions about a minors sexual activity in a public forum, was inexcusable, as was the mothers part in the scenario. I don’t listen to the K and JO show, but do find this particular affair very sordid. A public forum is not the place for a mother to question her 14yo daughter about her sexual activity. Shame on her. Now if she was 18 and agreeable to the exchange…..  shades of Larry Flynt.

    • Csyclops says:

      08:17pm | 15/08/09

      Agreed Penbo - ‘Tis overly generous not only to presume he has that faculty & uses it, but also to provide the following link: “THE KYLE SCANDAL: Special Punch section.” Such aggrandisement is not warranted as, if perchance Kyle reads, duly visits thepunch.com.au & sees the link, he may yet think others in this sphere see him as ‘special.’ As for his return Monday to the booth…..I gleefully share an anticipation of his slow but sure demise for purely statistical reasons.

    • Andrew says:

      08:43pm | 15/08/09

      Everybody supports free speech just as long as its not about them, politics,religion or sex, and of course don’t mention the war! The biggest problem with most journalism is that journalists dont always report all the facts. They report an event story based on their own values and help shape public opinion.  Whether that story is entirely factual or not is another matter.

    • pious cant says:

      11:35pm | 15/08/09

      On balance, I liked your article David.

      Just one question really. Why, in constructing an otherwise sound argument, did you feel the need to poke the rib of ‘Australia’s liberal-left’?

      It’s not the liberal left who engage in an almost daily campaign to snuff out Australia’s chance of achieving its own bill of rights. A bill of rights that would enshrine and enlarge the right of all Australians great and small to espouse their views without undue burden by the state.

      In any case, you put forward your own petit model for censorship; ie ’ there may be an argument for a carefully-considered legislative prohibition on the media questioning any child about matters of sex or sexuality.’ How are you going to implement that one, let alone get the ‘carefully-considered’ drafting right? Aren’t you also guilty of attempting to account for taste?

      If you haven’t already, then (re)read The Land of Plenty by Mark Davis. After the first few pages you’ll fast realise that Australia does not enjoy or promote or condone or appreciate ‘unfettered public discussion’. Rather, the Liberal-right have often tried to curtail such freedoms in the name of absolute control.

    • Kyle is a Legend says:

      12:26am | 16/08/09

      and yet the girl lied…

    • Stevo says:

      12:37am | 16/08/09

      Hate to say it but you’re right. We silence this clown and his skirted stooge by firing him,  banning them, we make him the hero of free speech..
      *shudder*
      I mean this guy is the fat, ignorant git’s fat ignorant git.
      We don’t like him or that goose Jackie -O answer is -Boycott Austereo,
      All their stations and boycott all their advertisers and let the advertisers know WHY you are boycotting them.
      Do this by a few thousand ,.. hell even a few hundred nationwide.
      Then watch the proverbial hit the fan and coat the boardroom chocolate..
      Kyle’s career would be over so fast his next and final chauffeur driven trips would be to the divorce lawyers and centrelink.

    • Matt says:

      12:46am | 16/08/09

      Nice job Penbo, could not have said it better myself.

    • Peter (BL) says:

      01:10am | 16/08/09

      What a load of rubbish. It’s got nothing to do with free speech. If I try to get my voice heard via most forms of media I get absolutely no-where. Why? Because I represent the honest, self respecting majority. This isn’t an issue about free speech, it’s an issue about corporate entities exploiting the controversial for ratings. I am not a fan of Kyle, infact I stopped watching Australian Idol the year they stooped so low as to employ him. It must be noted that he is fulfilling a roll offered by Austereo. It’s irresponsible corporate greed within the medium coupled with a complete lack of ethics and accountability that is the problem. It’s not going to change, we’ll continue to make them rich. Qantas, Optus and many more will continue to sponsor them. It says a lot about big business.

    • Dan says:

      03:26am | 16/08/09

      First of all, I don’t think that Larry Flynt is morally bankrupt in the slightest (I think he alot more morals than many of his critics) but that’s beside the point. The issue, for me, comes down to consent and age. If a 14 year old girl is too young to feature in a Hustler magazine, then she’s too young to be asked about her sex life whilst connected to a lie detector on national radio.

      This whole issue about freedom of speech is nonsense, as we do NOT have absolute freedom of speech. We can not racially abuse, yell fire in a crowded theatre and, we should not be able to interrogate 14 year-olds about their sex lives (the rape issue is a red herring) on national radio. It’s not about morality, as morality is ultimately subjective, and it’s not about freedom of speech; Sandilands is not a martyr, and if we believe it is about freedom of speech, then maybe we should ask the girl whether she consented to being subjected to his freedom of speech, for that is the real issue; consent.

    • Bengeck says:

      03:32am | 16/08/09

      I May Detest what you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it.

      I forget who said it but i have always remembered it.

    • Jonathan says:

      09:29am | 16/08/09

      Penbo, I have to agree with Peter (BL):  this whole thing is not about freedom of speech.  You’ve missed the point.  I think we’ve all moved on from the “Kyle is a twat” thing.
      The point is and always has been about a 14 year old girl being questioned about sex,  That was wrong, damaging, stupid and reprehensible. 
      Still, if Kyle disappeared from all media tomorrow I wouldn’t even notice.  I’ve been avoiding him for years.

    • Bob says:

      10:47am | 16/08/09

      “I May Detest what you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it.”

      I think a more correct translation is “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” It’s another quote of Voltaire. And it’s ironic how much the ideas of the Radical Enlightenment ended up being used to persecute people, especially those of Rousseau. 

      The right of free speech gets flogged to death in the media, particularly on the Internet, where speech is pretty much all it can engage in. But there are other rights too, such as the right of the vulnerable to be protected from exploitation. And it is where these rights conflict that public debate does, and should, begin.

      I hate censorship. It is an article of faith for me that sooner or later the better part of our nature will win through and humanity will stumble forward in a generally upward trend, even though it frequently seems the other way, and that the media in particular seems determined to avoid it.

      In this conflict, I see no justification to pull them off air just because they offend the sensibilities of even a majority of people, if that is indeed the case. More so, that boundaries need to be enforced as to how far they can go in the quest for entertainment.

      The offence in question is that they facilitated the exploitation of a minor by her own mother. The truth or otherwise of the rape claim is incidental. Kyle and Jackie are part producers of the show and determine the content. They are not just actors mouthing words written by others. For that they deserve to be censured, but not censored.

      I am happy to ignore them, and hope that others will do likewise in increasing numbers, but that is for them to chose. And for those who have missed the point and used it as a vehicle to vent their “I hate Kyle” sentiments, I certainly hope you have had your fill. It’s your right to complain as loudly and as often as forums such as this give opportunity.

      But it will be a sad day when some jack-booted authority just pulls them off the air because the public is presumed too stupid or tasteless to choose for themselves.

    • me says:

      11:34am | 16/08/09

      What an excellent and well written piece and I agree with all of it.

    • Meredith says:

      12:46pm | 16/08/09

      “goes to possible criminality, the second to taste”
      while others in this sad litany of poor choices may stare into possible criminality, the Kyle question is surely one of taste. 

      ‘Freedom of Speech’, yes and also ‘Free to choose’.
      I hope the question will of freedom will be solved in the economics domain with the market/ audience tuning out.  As suggested many times above, people will choose with their feet/ ears / eyes and starve Kyle of the public oxygen he craves.

    • Bob says:

      12:47pm | 16/08/09

      In the interests of accuracy, the quote attributed to Voltaire is actually: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” And was made by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in an essay where she paraphrases his sentiments as expressed in his “Essay on Tolerance”. So it’s related to him, but not actually said by him.  Learn something new every day. (I wonder who said that?...)

    • Paul says:

      03:07pm | 16/08/09

      how about a public list of all the companies that are willing to spend money to support that idiot, and fund his multi million dollar lifestyle through advertising.  They are willing to do that fine.  Give me that list though and i can guarantee that I for one will never spend a single cent at any of the companies ever again.

      AusStereo support him because he’s popular.  Popularity brings advertising.  Hit the advertisers where it hurts, on the bottom line, and it might bring things under control.

    • Greg says:

      04:48pm | 16/08/09

      Fantastic piece and agree that it should be front page instead of online where many will miss it.

      Having discussed this topic with many people in the last few weeks, our question is: -

      Why isn’t Jackie O copping any of the grief about what content their show broadcasts?

    • Some Dude says:

      05:05pm | 16/08/09

      Kyle should go a step further and now do a deal with 9 or 7 to host his own fresh music show to directly take on Idol.

    • snoop says:

      05:05pm | 16/08/09

      The tragedy is the listenership enjoys their prurient,senseless and lavtorial show

    • Sal says:

      05:18pm | 16/08/09

      Only when victims of the sex industry (consider your definition of ‘full consent’ when women in the industry enter at average age 14 and most often come from backgrounds of extreme social dysfunction and economic vulnerability) and victims of sexual violence, particularly minors, are given equal airtime to Flynt, Sandilands, and others who use their power to perpetuate inequality and marginalisation, will I feel Penberthy’s warm fuzzies for such examples of a win for freedom of speech.

    • ella fitzgerald says:

      05:20pm | 16/08/09

      vote with your ears people!

    • Wil says:

      06:32pm | 16/08/09

      this article is based on the US constitution . . . . tell me . . where in the Australian constitution does it say anything about free speech???

      This is NOT journalism.

    • shevska says:

      07:25pm | 16/08/09

      Sandilands back on air ‘a win for free speech’?  Disappointed in you Penbo.  An impressionable youth market needs quality… and gets fed crap.  And you’re pleased about it? 
      You think it’s ok to keep dumbing down the 2DayFM demographic, because they’re dumb enough to be listening to ‘this shocking drongo’ anyway?  All in the name of free speech?  Sounds about as wise as having G.W. Bush as the leader of the USA. 
      Wisdom is discerning what’s rubbish and what’s not - not promoting and encouraging prolification of bile. 
      We’re talking about sex questions to vulnerable minors, for entertainment. Enforced by a ‘guardian’ on national radio.  And you encourage Sandilands to be on air in the name of free speech. 
      We need more people who have the balls to speak up and show public leadership about the amount of CRAP there is in FM radio and commercial TV programming - not kowtow to brainwashing crap in the name of ‘free speech’.
      You’re a journalist Penbo - aren’t you meant to be a stallion of the Fifth Estate?  So get up and gallop.

    • regina says:

      07:45pm | 16/08/09

      oh yes, that denton interview with sandilands was a cracker, and rather revealing about the what lies behind the public face of the man, i.e. nothing.

      http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s2022643.htm

      i’d hate to see more restrictions on free speech in this country, but if acma is licensing broadcasters according to an agreed code of practice, then the least it can do is consider if the code has been breached, and if it has, take proper action against the station, including suspending its licence.

      now regulating matters of taste is clearly a little tricky so, as others have suggested, it would seem the best solution would be to hit the station where it hurts - stop listening, and the advertisers will magically fall away.

    • Christopher says:

      07:52pm | 16/08/09

      This idiot should not be allowed back on radio, he is a disgrace to the Australian people. Given the position he has in the media, you would think that he would present him self properly but instead he is an offensive outrage.

      Australia was founded on morality and sound religious beliefs, what has happened to our dignity and self respect? How could we allow such a person to carry on in such a manner? And to think that future generations are being influence by him is sickening!

      Let us not forget why he was kicked off the radio in the first place, for taking advantage of a sick child

      Shame on the media, they should definitely reconsider their position on this sick destitute.

    • Gray bags says:

      08:02pm | 16/08/09

      Penby, 100% agreed.
      Yes, I do not like him. Yes, I think he is over rated.
      But yes… If he gets cut down now, it goes against all elements of freedom of speech that our society espouses.
      Let ratings and sponsors decide.

    • Smee Again says:

      08:35pm | 16/08/09

      It’s a question of exploitation of any individual for the sake of ratings, it’s like a drug the higher the ratings the more you want the further you push the limits to keep your audience listening or watching. Of course history tells us that once you push to far the end is near as the audience switches off. There is no difference between what Kyle &J.O did and tonight’s (Sunday) Blitz show on channel 9 - They took a Family of a single dad and four kids whose mother died of cancer and made them relive the entire experience for the camera’s. Sure they got a new backyard new furniture LCD TV’s and a holiday but in the end they were exploited for the tragedy that they had suffered. I’m sure if Mum had run off with the postie channel 9 wouldn’t have come knocking, because that wouldn’t engage you the audience and make you cry and thank God how lucky you are. Just like Kyle’s audience who listen to the Lie Detector and thank god it’s not them. All of us slow down when we drive pass an accident, all of us take a peak at the misfortunes of others some days it’s a Ferrari smashed in a letterbox and we laugh, other days it’s a bus load of kids smashed into a truck and we become distraught. It’s who we are as people and those who make Radio and TV and even websites know it and use it against us, our only defense is to change the station, and if enough of us do and don’t take that peak then no legislation or watch dog is needed we the people win.

    • Mark says:

      09:12pm | 16/08/09

      the next time some cop asks me why i was talking to an underage girl about her sexual experiences ill remember to say “remember freedom of speech”.

    • Mark II says:

      09:21pm | 16/08/09

      I love how everyone raves on about freedom of speech. We live in Australia, not the US. The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech.

      The stunt wasn’t used to express a point or opinion. It was a sensational ratings grab and that is all. Freedom of speech should be used to expression an opinion or belief. Harassing minors about their sex lives has no place in the media.

      It’s very similar to The Chasers antics this year. Hidden behind this idea of free speech, they harassed infirmed children. What was the point? I have spoken with people who suggested that it’s edgy and that they push comedy to the limit. I’m ok with that, but only when it’s funny. There’s no comedic value to it.

      I find it surprising that the State/Federal governments haven’t made to much noise about this. They had a lot to say about censorship of artists (Bill Henson etc), is this agreement from the authorities that there is no artistic value to radio, and thus little comment is required.

      Although this sounds one sided, I do believe in freedom of speech, I just don’t believe it should be used as a shield by people who use it to spout nonsense that has no artistic or educational value. We live in a country that bans video games and movies because of because of violent and/or questionable content.  These are fictional devices used created for entertainment. There are no real life victims at the end of these entertainment sources, argue the same for the children involved in the Chaser and Kyle and Jackie-O stunts.

      The Kyle and Jackie-O show are right up there NW magazine and E! in contributing to the dumbing down of this country.

    • Scott says:

      11:02pm | 16/08/09

      I’m insulted that Larry Flint has been compared to Kyle. Kyle doesn’t fight for freedom of speech or any human right, in fact I’d imagine Kyle’s done very little for anyone other then himself.

    • Ray says:

      11:09pm | 16/08/09

      David, you can put a lipstick on a pig, but a pig it remains. I hardly think it’s a “win for free speech” as you try very hard to convince readers. I’m not enraged in the slightest that you’ve penned this, but I guess anyone is similarly free to defend the tastefulness of “Dance Your Ass Off” ...

    • Bundy says:

      11:25pm | 16/08/09

      Pembo - how many straw men do you need?  Why tag the “liberal left” as the common crier of censorship?  I don’t remember too many right wing types coming out in support of free speech for “Big Brother” over its time on TV.

      But ultimately this has nothing to do with free speech.  We are not censoring an opinion in this case, or trying to suppress some critic of the status quo - we are talking about a pair of overpaid muppets, who take advantage of the poor judgement and problems of their non-intellectual audience for nothing more than ratings and advertising dollars.

      Giving ACMA more powers does not necessarily mean having the smite all entertainment, but perhaps wielding enough of a stick in terms of fines and removal from broadcast.  At least some sort of persuasion to make either the broadcasters, or the producers or their management at least apply more thought to what they do.  If I doubt it would be enough to stop Kyle’s ego though.

    • Aussieroos says:

      11:28pm | 16/08/09

      I believe in freedom of speech but I also think Kyle is the biggest tool in Australia and should not be part of any TV, Radio or media services… why publish something from that tool here? Kyle must be good friends with news corp.. traditional media, what can we expect from it, right?

    • Anthony says:

      11:51pm | 16/08/09

      The only people whining about Kyle, and this goes for you too, Punch, are the liberal panty-wetters that don’t have a single bone of strength in their bodies. Those of us who enjoy his show (in the tens of thousands, compared to the pitiful 200+ complaints the ACMA received from people who don’t even listen to him) find it enjoyable, interesting, and humorous. To you, the world must be wrapped in bubble wrap, everyone must be mollycoddled, treated with the softest kid gloves, because woe that they should open their eyes and realise the world is a harsh place. Woe that they should build up some coping skills and emotional maturity for the situations they will have to face later on.

      These same mollycoddling nation-weakeners think that they have a god? given right to tell everyone else how to live, what is funny, what is not, what is appropriate, and what is not. Sorry, no. You get to speak as to what is funny to YOU. Just as I don’t need anyone telling me doing certain things with my wife is wrong, I don’t need anyone telling me that Sandilands is not funny. He is. That’s why his show ranks one of the best in morning radio for the slot he runs in. That’s why he makes a lot of money doing what he does. So you don’t like him? No worries, exercise your right to NOT LISTEN. No-one is twisting your arm and saying “You have to listen to this”. If you don’t like it, don’t listen. That simple. Now, you can have all the OPINIONS in the world you like, that’s your prerogative, but stop acting like they are anything more than opinions. They certainly don’t stretch to facts in the larger reality the rest of us live in.

      Take your self-righteous moralizing and jam it up your arse. This self loathing, over protective, self righteous, weak paradigm you espouse is everything that is wrong with western nations, no wonder we’re becoming a nation of whingers. Go take a lesson from Uncle Choppa.

    • Anthony says:

      11:56pm | 16/08/09

      Csyclop:

      Embedding multiple polysyllabic words in a single sentence outside the constraints of genuine academic endeavor is countenanced as the overt manifestation of an underlying condition of immaturity and insecurity.

    • IHA says:

      12:02am | 17/08/09

      Cant wait to have you back on the air Kyle - you were missed and its a shame that you had to go off in the first place - all because of an incompetent mother and too many PC people.

    • stumpy says:

      01:25am | 17/08/09

      The quote attributed to Voltaire has a profound message that should not be squandered on a droob such as kyle. Australia, does not have a bill of rights, thank Dog, and we certainly do not need one, but the incessant carping for more regulation and petty law is an invitation for disaster, as the megalomaniacs in government will happily enact more legislation if they are invited to so do. Australia is already one of the most over regulated countries in the western democracies and certainly do not need more regulation. For twits such as Kyle, let the individual use the ‘John Laws finger’ when ever he appears on the radio, a soon as he comes on the air, change stations, he wont be here for long when the advertisers realise they are wasting their money, and that can be done without idiotic regulation.

    • Ben says:

      01:37am | 17/08/09

      Mark II, you really have no clue. Neither do others that wish to restrict free speech, except for what they consider educational and/or artistic. You simply can’t believe in freedom of speech if you wish to restrict it in ANY way. Restricted speech is NOT free speech. Even the most unpopular speech should not be forcibly censored. It should be up to the individual to decide (excercising their freedom of choice) whether they wish to accept or refuse the speech, thus censoring it appropriately for themselves and no one else. Those that wish to accept should have every right to do so. Unpopular speech is speech nonetheless, and should always be protected by the very idea of freedom of speech.
      The situation with Kyle and Jackie O is absolutely a freedom of speech issue because those that pushed for the show to be taken off the air made it a freedom of speech issue, as those people sought to censor free speech. Free speech can NOT be censored for it is no longer free speech if it is.
      I find Kyle Sandilands a pathetic personality, and absolutely do not listen to his show, however, I will not take away the right of others to listen to his show.

    • Dan says:

      03:55am | 17/08/09

      I am an avid believer in free speech and capitalism, but if a radio station wants to remove someone because it is bad for their image and ratings this is NOT an attack on free speech. On the contrary, it is an act of capitalism and free speech. People do not want to hear him and the company that owns the airspace has every right to do what they want. If it is a true free market and the majority think he is a scumbag, he will be out of a job and quickly forgotten. Personally, I think he is just a product of what many people want to listen to, and you can only blame yourselves for listening to him. I have never listened to the guy and didn’t even know who he was until this drama maybe you all should be more selective too.

    • Todd says:

      06:04am | 17/08/09

      There is a line between freedom of speech and harrassment. He crossed it. Nuff said.

    • Naomi says:

      07:12am | 17/08/09

      I too look forward to not tuning in. I have to wonder though, those who do tune in - are they any better than Kyle & Jackie O?

    • groucho says:

      07:59am | 17/08/09

      Yawn. Boycott. Boycott broadcast bulldust..

    • Jonathan says:

      08:00am | 17/08/09

      Cheap sensationalism, Penbo. 
      You know as well as I do that this isn’t about free speech.  I’d be more than happy to be rid of Sandilands, but this wasn’t about him being a dick on the radio:  it’s about the radio station (meaning k & JO, the management and sundry) allowing a 14 year old girl to be questioned about her sex life.
      Time to find another axe to grind, this one is down to nub.

    • Lisa says:

      08:12am | 17/08/09

      Well said.

    • RJ says:

      08:15am | 17/08/09

      It’s a shame to waste valuable air waves on this peanut. Unfortunately he limits the choices we have for listening to something worthwhile.

    • mark says:

      08:30am | 17/08/09

      when you’re too lazy and uncreative to think of anything else to write, write about sandiland, guaranteed to provide a response.

    • Jim says:

      08:32am | 17/08/09

      I will defend Kyle Sandilands’ right to free speech when he exposes corrupt and criminal activity, or even when he takes the mickey out of someone famous. But he uses his radio program to humiliate defenceless and vulnerable young girls. Explain to me again how he is the victim.

    • Anthony says:

      09:28am | 17/08/09

      I also think it’s damned ironic that the pressure and assault that Sandilands has been under is approximately ten times worse than anything the girl in question experienced on his show yet apparently it’s okay to be rude, abusive, derogatory, harassing, insulting, and to malign and denigrate someone you don’t agree with and their family - if they are an adult.

      Rubbish. That’s just purely hypocritical.

      Just as people so vehemently support free speech even if it isn’t a right by Australian law, so long as it’s convenient to them, yet don’t afford the same to people they don’t like or disagree with. “You can say what you like, so long as I agree with it”. Bloody whining hypocrites.

      Then there is the “If you like Sandilands, you must be a morally corrupt degenerate unworthy of society” line as expoused by people like Naomi - sorry Naomi, some of us just find humor in it. Humor is a very personal experience.

      I have a laugh when the “I don’t like Sandilands and I’m looking forward to not listening to him, vote with your ears and he’ll be taken off air” crowd come out whining too. Here’s a math lesson. Let x be the set of Kyle’s listeners. Let Y be the number of non-listeners who claim that they will ‘vote with their ears’. The set Y is not a subset of X and does not intersect with X, and so the boolean operation X - Y…. equals X. That is… you don’t listen so he is not going to miss your listenership is he? Even if he did lose a few listeners, it won’t be enough to really affect his ratings or popularity. Go ahead, vote with your ears. It will make absolutely no difference.

    • Scott says:

      10:43am | 17/08/09

      I hear what you are saying - but I don’t think the issue is about vetting individual pieces - to me it is about getting him off media that is open for all (including kids) to listen to - you can’t netnanny a radio!

    • Christine says:

      11:00am | 17/08/09

      Enough !!! Honestly !!! Kyle is not the villian that the media has painted him to be ! He is honest, brash and a breath of fresh air compared to all the other phonies on radio/tv (I’m talking about you Merrick and Rosso and Kate). I think axing him from idol was a gross error in judgement and I think the show will pay for it.

      You all werent in his shoes during that “Stunt” and if you were I guarentee you would have put your foot in your mouth as well!!! He has apologised for his stupid comment and has gone the extra mile to help provide counselling for the girl and her family so I think you should all give him a break !!!!

    • stephen says:

      11:54am | 17/08/09

      I saw him for the first time recently.
      he not too bright. only book he ever read Yellow Pages under “L” for
      Laundromat.

      P.S. Put him on the next plane outta here. ( To a cold-water flat in London.)

    • TMan says:

      12:49pm | 17/08/09

      why did u start this blog with mention to AMERICAN LAWS IN AN AMERICAN CASE? completely pointless, different laws… different countries

      AND REGARDS TO KYLE, he is a worthless p.o.s that deserves nothing

    • Fiona says:

      01:10pm | 17/08/09

      That CHILD was bullied by ADULTS for the purpose of sexual titilation of other ADULTS. Dress it up and deflect however you like, but that was the intent and that was the result. I am amazed at the muddying of the waters to the point where Freedom of Speech is relevant. If that child was locked in a room and interrogated by adults it would be no different.
      Does anyone else remember the outrage about the artwork of naked children and the cries of ‘protect the children at all costs’.  Clearly arty children are a bit more precious than suburbian children.
      The fact that this little girl was a raped just makes it even worse. Who is protecting her?
      That anyone can find reasons to defend this situation is beyond belief.

    • Andrea says:

      01:35pm | 17/08/09

      I’m all for free speech, but where was the girl’s consent for this?  And I hardly think a radio stunt program is the forum for discussing a subject like this.  There are plenty of programs on the ABC and SBS that have the maturity to tackle a subject like this tactfully and without bias.

    • Hugo says:

      01:37pm | 17/08/09

      While not entirely agreeing with eveything you say in this piece, I commend you for some responsible commentary surrounding chid protection and docs, this appears to be a task beyond the majority of the media these days.
      Well done for showing a responsible standard in these issues

    • Anthony says:

      01:48pm | 17/08/09

      Fiona, that ‘child’ was fourteen, and apparently old enough in he r own mind to decide to have sex (the sex was consensual, underage, and still by the law ‘rape’), drink alcohol, smoke and engage in recreational drugs, vandalize public property (her family confirm that), and generally act like a lout.

      She willingly went on an anonymous radio program after signing the required waiver, knowing she would be hooked to a lie detector and asked questions by her mother and with a fair idea of what those questions would be. She lied - you may call it technically true, but the girl’s intention was deceive, and she did - about her sexual experiences, calling it rape when it was consensual, implying to everyone in doing so that it was a forced attack,  probably at the hands of an adult. That was a knowing deception, and probably thought out in advance given how calm and ‘pat’  the response was.

      So no, I don’t believe some poor child has been terribly harmed by Kyle, or the lie detector segment.

      She wasn’t bullied, Fiona, she chose to be there. She could have - as she has many times in the past - said no to her mother, and refused.

      Ironically, you probably support the “current affairs” programs that ask the same questions, with the same degree of anonymity, as part of their exposes into how children these days are having sex younger and younger, or starting drinking at ten or whatever else they have run countless times in the past any time they want a ratings boost or are low on material.

    • Sal says:

      05:25pm | 17/08/09

      Anthony - have you listened to the transcript? Like others (eg the alcoholic that was interviewed in the previous session) she may well have been tricked into going to the station. She may have been enticed by the celebrity aspect, and goodness knows what the mother told her she’d be doing there.

      She tried to get out of it at the start of the interview. She said that she was scared. At the point that she expressed concern, all adults in the position to make a decision about the interview, knowing its content, should have aborted it.

      How can you say that you don’t believe she was harmed by participating in the segment? Anyone who heard the replay could clearly ascertain that she was bullied and vulnerable. Are you a psychologist? Have you ever met the girl? Have you ever experienced anything as potentially harming as she has at the age of 14, with a dangerously irresponsible mother and seemingly no prior help to deal with the situation? As for other aspects of the girl’s behaviour, please. Your assumptions and judgements are sickening.

      And what on earth from Fiona’s comment would lead to the assumption that she supports exploitative current affairs programs? Huh? I think it’s pretty clear that those fed up with 2DayFm’s antics on this one are cut up about exploitative media across the board.

    • Mark says:

      07:20pm | 17/08/09

      Thing is, Anthony, at 14 years old , you are well and truly a child in the eyes of the law. If you are a parent you will also know that children make stupid impulsive decisions - that ‘s why they are protected by the law from people who like to take advantage of children and their naive and foolish decisions. This poor girl also has an evidently very foolish mother who led her knowingly or unknowingly into the lair of those two nearly middle-age muppets to be exposed for the entertainment of the public.

    • Fiona says:

      09:53pm | 17/08/09

      I stand corrected Anthony. You’re right - she was asking for it, wasn’t she? Just like all of ‘em, hey mate?

      If we cannot get past blaming children for their unstable upbringing and consequent struggle to make decisions, we are all in trouble. Kids only know what they are shown and taught, and that is why it is up to those of us who have been lucky enough to have an education and some sense of social responsibility to gently encourage them towards personal success and self esteem. That is in all our best interest. Accusing them of having but choosing to ignore an adult concept of actions and responsibilities is not, Anthony. You may think that she had choices, but she obviously did not.
      BTW I am more of a Southpark & Jon Stewart fan, but thanks for asking.

    • Matt says:

      10:24pm | 17/08/09

      anthony, even if she was capable of making these decisions (which under law she is not,) does hearing about a 14 year olds drug habits and sex life (consensual or not) really entertain you in the mornings?

    • Michael says:

      01:36pm | 18/08/09

      Trotting out the “freedom of speech” defence is an intellectually dishonest debating tactic, Anthony.  In debate you attack either the argument or the facts.  What you’re doing here is what debaters call “making a straw man” of the original argument—instead of answering the original argument, saying that the argument was something else and then refuting that easier argument.  The original question here was whether it was appropriate to put a 14-year-old on a lie detector test against her will, ask her incriminating questions, and then broadcast the results of that interrogation live to the Australian public.  The answer has to be a resounding “No”, and there’s ample logical and moral reasons which have been advanced on that issue.

      I will note as a side issue that journalists like to be lazy and suggest that there are always two sides to every story—when for many stories there is only one, or three, or five or more.  Running “free speech” as the other side of the story is lazy journalism, because it shows an inability to process morally right and morally wrong in any terms other than “Free speech versus censorship”.  It is akin to the defence lawyer who always stands up for and defends his scumbag clients—well and good, they have a right to legal representation, but don’t presume that in doing so the defence lawyer’s opinions on simple morality or simple questions of propriety have any real resonance or validity in the wider community.

      Other people on this blog have already pointed out that free speech isn’t an absolute right in Australia—and you should well know it’s not an absolute right in the US, either.  It’s not as simple as “anything goes”, as you would surely know.  Courts there have differed on where the line should be drawn on free speech, and it’s an ongoing debate, so please don’t insult the intelligence of your readers by suggesting that The People vs. Larry Flynt is the be-all and end-all of the freedom of speech debate in the US or elsewhere as you seem to suggest.  Again, that is lazy journalism and failing to look into the complexities of the whole debate.

      It’s even more complex in Australia, where there isn’t an absolute right to free speech as under the US model.  The right to free speech extends only to political issues (the Theophanous case, as I’m sure you’d be well aware, goes into it.) and I fail to see how the issue of whose convexities were inserted into a 14 year old girls’ concavities qualifies as that.

      One last thing to note, though—if you’re going to use the US Constitution as a crutch for an anaemic freedom of speech argument, you might consider another amendment the Americans made to that: the right not to incriminate yourself, which Kyle and Jackie O denied the girl since she didn’t consent to the lie detector test.

    • Dan says:

      02:53pm | 18/08/09

      Anyone else realise that “Kyle” rhymes with “vile” or am I just a bit slow?

    • intepid says:

      12:05pm | 19/08/09

      There’s a difference between banishing someone from the air and refusing to pay them a million bucks a year to act like a total prick. If Kyle was a blogger or podcaster, no one would give a shit. The point is that he makes serious money from serious sponsors while pouring bile into the ears of people in cars and waiting rooms everywhere, and there is nothing “unconstitutional” about suggesting that they refrain from supporting him.

    • DocSniper says:

      08:59pm | 23/08/09

      Oh! by golly,look at all the self righteous pricks here.
      Abuse comes in many formats and what Kyle did was NOT abuse,this falls in that same bracket as a pig with balloons and all the self righteous idiots just flooded that one.
      How about abuse from the local government ?. A government body like the dept of child safety,where children are murdered and molested by these so called protectors,where man and woman are forced apart,where love is destroyed, All done with fabrication and manipulation,with tampering with files. to enhance a man to be a bloody pedo. where this dept will demoralize the woman.
      And ya all here,placing a knife in Kyles back, a very human act Ay. But ya dont give a Iota to how the Australia government is abusing the families of this country.

      KYLE: welcome back to radio. and if you want a good topic, tackle the Local government to why they abuse normal stable families.

    • DocSniper says:

      10:33pm | 23/08/09

      While im on a roll.
      For those that think we are in a lucky country and have Human rights, Think again.
      have a peek here and then tell me, to why nobody cares?.

      http://forums.altnews.com.au/forums/families-and-children-forums
      KYLE: if you and the radio station decide to do a story on this Issue, heres a Link to show the Nation of how many Abused soul are screaming for Justice. Our stories will rock the foundations of this nation.

    • James Smith says:

      02:53pm | 27/08/09

      @Mark II. The chaser sketch was fictional. That’s a pretty significant difference.
      This is a very well reasoned article and I largely agree with you. However ACMA probably needs more powers. There is no point in having regulations when the regulator is toothless. Austereo don’t train their staff properly in the guidelines. I know this from personal experience and they have the attitude that they do what they want and then deal with it when they get into trouble. The airways are public and we really have two options. We allow anything to be broadcast and let the audience choose or we regulate it reasonably. There’s nothing wrong with the guidelines as they exist but if they aren’t enforced or if there is no serious penalty for breaking them we may as well get rid of them.

    • DocSniper says:

      10:44am | 01/09/09

      Well!! James twas not like that 20 odd yrs ago, Broadcasting had its limits, like the word “F U C K”: One would never hear that word to be Broadcasted, as it is well used today broadcasting freely.
      Remember a Richard Carlton from 60 minutes ?. Remember how a reporter reported ?. How a journalist will investigate to 100%.Now anything is the go to mediate to grab the audience for that mighty ratings.
      Yet, media will not investigate or report the events of abuse to Australia citizens conducted by the Australian government, From the stolen generation,to the stolen children of 40 odd years ago in Brisbane hospitals, to the New stolen children that will becoming, A new generation of stolen abused children will embark yet again in this nation.
      Did not a Mr K.Rudd quote,  “A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.”
      Does not altnews.com.au states otherwise ?. It Is Happening, Still happening.
      Did not the Forde Inquiry concluded that was and is the case ?.
      Did not a Mr Fitzgerald Quoted in saying, Queensland is still corrupted ?.

      Now, to why then does media, ? shy away from this type of topic ?.
      Humans are being abused in this country, Just like the Jews were.

 

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Watching them do it online, as Labor did it to the nation

Watching them do it online, as Labor did it to the nation

Let’s face it: What Paul McLeay’s done isn’t the worst thing in the world. It isn’t…

Introducing Labor’s new faction – the Greens

Introducing Labor’s new faction – the Greens

The Greens are now officially the far-left faction of the Australian Labor Party.  They have been…

Five ingredients of a good advice column

Five ingredients of a good advice column

Question: A young Man being an apprentice, and having served about half his time, hath a very fair opportunity…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Enough with all the meat eating all ready

Edward James says:

Reducing the consumption of meat and sea food by 15%. What about the world population is it not increasing each year by the same or greater percentage? Those extra people are not all vegatarian they are eating meat and fish too. There is something strange about the maths message in your story. Our world… [read more]

From: The national policy agenda which nobody voted for

thatmosis says:

This whole process has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. Here we have a Nation held captive by independants and a so called independant party called the Greens, aka the Raving Looney Party, whilst money is being wasted daily on public servants doing their usual thing, nothing but with bells on.… [read more]

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

David Penberthy

Scorchingly good and uncharacteristically sensible piece by @Joe_Hildebrand on the NSW Labor Party http://tinyurl.com/2896syw#ausvotes

Leo Shanahan

Like Shane Warne I can guarantee I haven't had a facelift. Can't speak for @penbo though, we don't call him Sza Sza for nothing.

Lucy Kippist

Five ingredients of a good advice column. New post by me: http://bit.ly/d6bbX3#thepunch

Leo Shanahan

@Alex_Carlton there is no nice way for me to say i want to here that right now.

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Gillard and Abbott get a digital makeover

Gillard and Abbott get a digital makeover

Warning: this has nothing to do with politics. We thought we’d see how the Prime Minister and Opposition… Read more

26 comments

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter