Labor Gags Internet Debate

[jo172]

Just a friendly warning:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/labor-gags-internet-debate/story-e6frea6u-1225825708827

"The AdelaideNow website is not just a sewer of criminal defamation, it is a sewer of identity theft and fraud," Mr Atkinson said.

"There is no impinging on freedom of speech, people are free to say what they wish as themselves, not as somebody else."

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/labor-gags-internet-debate/story-e6frea6u-1225825708827

FWIW every time I've told you that Michael Atkinson is insane and have been idsimissed as having partisan blinders on I think I've now been justified, the man is ****ing crazy and in this practically authoritarian.

I mean honestly, we'll have to lock the Adelaide Oval thread until election day unless everyone is going to start putting their real name to posts.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26665508-5006336,00.html

There's the editorial and it takes alot to get me to agree with Melvin Mansell, but this is ****ing outrageous.

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

No comment.

 

[jo172]

No comment.

We can still call Mike Atkinson a girly man until the election writs have been issued

 

[Vader]

Instructions have been sought with the Admins regarding how to handle this. Thankfully, we have until March 20th (when the election writs are issued) to come up with a response.

Note that they're not preventing anyone from making political comment - only stating that all published political comments made during the election campaign must identify the real name and location of the author.

 

[jo172]

Instructions have been sought with the Admins regarding how to handle this. Thankfully, we have until March 20th (when the election writs are issued) to come up with a response.

Note that they're not preventing anyone from making political comment - only stating that all published political comments made during the election campaign must identify the real name and location of the author.

Which will go down really well on here ...

To the ALP neophytes here. Combine this with the Feds mandatory filter and whatever happened to Labor as the party of freedom?

 

[Vader]

Which will go down really well on here ...

To the ALP neophytes here. Combine this with the Feds mandatory filter and whatever happened to Labor as the party of freedom?

I can see where they're coming from, as it prevents stooges from either party from spamming the blog pages of the main newspapers etc.

Unfortunately, they appear to have cast a very wide net. Too wide, in my opinion. The anonymity provided by the username system is a very important part of what makes BigFooty (and the internet in general) great.

It's going to be a pain in the backside for the mods to police if we're advised that BigFooty has to conform with the legislation. We may just have to ban political discussion on the board during the election campaign, which would have to include discussion about the stadium vs upgraded AO debate.

For now, we'll just have to wait & see what BigFooty's lawyers have to say on the matter.

 

[Dandy_GO]

How the hell do they expect to enforce that? It's a legal and logistical minefield.

I'm not at all worried.

 

[brucetiki]

To the ALP neophytes here. Combine this with the Feds mandatory filter and whatever happened to Labor as the party of freedom?

The Liberals also voted for the amendments.

Vader has pretty much stolen my thunder on my view of the legislation.

This isn't totally earth-shattering legislation, as this rule has been in place for Letters to the Editor for yonks. It appears that the rules are now being extended to online forums as well. If the government really wanted to, they could have implemented the same rules they have for court cases (no comments at all until the result).

I'd rather have this bit of accountability about what we say on forums than allow some of the idiots that comment on AdelaideNow (particularly the Young Liberals/Young Labor) make all sorts of outlandish statements about political parties/candidates during an election campaign.

 

[Allbetsroff]

Why did it have to be a newspaper why couldn't it have been a hammer or a cricket bat?

 

[brucetiki]

One more thing - this law came into effect on 6 January, and would have gone through the due course of every other legislation. Why has it taken nearly until now, nearly a month after it became law and I presume it spent a few months being debated in parliament, for The Advertiser to report on it? Why not report it on 6/7 January, or report on it when it was going through parliament?

 

[Vader]

I'm happy to admit that a problem exists... but surely the cure is worse than the disease? Is this not a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut?

 

[Vader]

One more thing - this law came into effect on 6 January, and would have gone through the due course of every other legislation. Why has it taken nearly until now, nearly a month after it became law and I presume it spent a few months being debated in parliament, for The Advertiser to report on it? Why not report it on 6/7 January, or report on it when it was going through parliament?

Most of what happens in parliament is very mundane and boring. 90% of all legislation has bipartisan support and goes through with little debate. As a result, they probably didn't have a reporter in the room to cover the story as they weren't expecting any fireworks during that parliamentary session.

Due to the lack of controversy (noting that BOTH sides voted for this legislation) the Advertiser staff probably didn't even notice that the law had been passed. It wasn't until someone drew their attention to it - and the implications for their own website - that they published a story on it.

 

[Vader]

Instructions have been sought with the Admins regarding how to handle this. Thankfully, we have until March 20th (when the election writs are issued) to come up with a response.

Just to clarify...

The election is due on March 20th. It's up to Rann to decide when he will issue the election writs, formally kicking off the election race. This law comes into effect once the writs have been issued - and the effect ceases after the day of the election.

 

[screech]

No wonder we are seeing a revival of the DLP, looks like the Socialist element in the ALP is taking over again

 

[jo172]

I'd rather have this bit of accountability about what we say on forums than allow some of the idiots that comment on AdelaideNow (particularly the Young Liberals/Young Labor) make all sorts of outlandish statements about political parties/candidates during an election campaign.

I've never accepted the abuse of freedom of speech by some to allow the curtailing of it for all. Especially considering this's relatively inoffensive (if stupid) form of political communication

 

[brucetiki]

I've never accepted the abuse of freedom of speech by some to allow the curtailing of it for all. Especially considering this's relatively inoffensive (if stupid) form of political communication

Unfortunately it's (once again) a case of the minority spoiling it for everyone.

 

[WALL-e]

Why limit this to political restraints? If it is indeed this beneficial to have, let us have this law for everything, especially Crime Stoppers...... I need to have a word with someone.

 

[Deaneus!]

How the hell do they expect to enforce that? It's a legal and logistical minefield.

I'm not at all worried.

Same way they did with that SA bartender who served someone underage/drunk - give him a massive fine as an example, then never bust anyone else.

I can't remember what he did - only that he's the only bloke to ever be busted for it, it may have been serving alcohol to an already intoxicated person or an underage person or something. Can anyone here remember what i'm talking about?

 

[jo172]

Unfortunately it's (once again) a case of the minority spoiling it for everyone.

Piss poor excuse, what Atkinson is doing is fundamentally telling every voter they're an idiot.

If I read someone's electoral opinion on the internet why does it matter who they are or where they're from? Why can't I discern from the facts and strengths of their argument whether I agree and whether it'll sway my vote?

Are you telling me that you, or anyone else intelligent (not Stupendus) would seriously change their minds on their vote because of a biased as hell comment they read on an article on Adelaide Now?

If you ask me this is just Atkinson firing a pathetic shot across the bow of the Gamers 4 Croydon party.

 

[KUNG FU]

I think that the actual impact of this legislation will be immediately unnoticeable and negligible. I also believe that partisan individuals passing themselves off as independent voters or third parties is a genuine problem - Jackie Kelly's stunt at the 2007 election is just the tip of the iceberg, the problem is rife and seriously undermines the dissemination of information, policy and debate. However, its a misconceived & messy policy, to say the least; dangerous at worst.

Generally speaking this policy is just one example of a much broader problem with Australia's political culture and declining liberal values (small-l, inclusive of classical & social liberalism) and hence there has been an increasing acceptance & advocacy in the electorate of nanny state policies. Australia seems to have lost its brash confidence with the baby boomer generation heading into retirement and the galloping pace of change; technology, globalisation, immigration, the economy etc. Historically in periods of rapid change, people tend to look towards authoritarianism.

The barometer of this problem in Australia has been the decline of the libertarians, liberals & Burkean conservatives in the Liberal Party (and the right generally) to big government conservatives, social conservatives, (Australian) neo-conservatives, religious conservatives across the states and federal governments. This ad-hoc group have been increasingly comfortable forwarding nanny state policies, leading to the Liberals dropping the ball on the defence of small government. This has left the precedent for Labor in government to skew the political landscape and make this kind of policy - plus gaming, bikie legislation etc - largely uncontroversial policy amongst the electorate.

 

[jo172]

The barometer of this problem in Australia has been the decline of the libertarians, liberals & Burkean conservatives in the Liberal Party (and the right generally) to big government conservatives, social conservatives, (Australian) neo-conservatives, religious conservatives across the states and federal governments. This ad-hoc group have been increasingly comfortable forwarding nanny state policies, leading to the Liberals dropping the ball on the defence of small government. This has left the precedent for Labor in government to skew the political landscape and make this kind of policy - plus gaming, bikie legislation etc - largely uncontroversial policy amongst the electorate.

I share your lament over the corpse of classical liberalism yet I think it's a bit unfair to suggest that the ALP never had some of your classic libertarian values preventing nonsense like this being passed.

Blokes like Whitlam and Dunstan would have rolled over in their graves before allowing something like this.

I think the major problem has been since the Hawke years (both sides/state federal) the focus on more presidential leaders whereby one person in the government's opinion carrying a disproportionate amount of weight. Compared to most of history blokes like Keating, Howard, Rudd, Rann have had more personal power in the government than ever before and either as a result of or as a symptom of have taken much more populist (and stupid) stances and have been allowed to get away with them by the demise in power of anyone in the backbenches with half a brain.

I believe the fundamental defect here is the ammassing of power in the role of the Head of Government.

 

[brucetiki]

I find it interesting that none of the FTA news services ran a story on this legislation - and Sky News only has a written article on the Adelaide part of Sky News Local (which is based on the AdelaideNow article). In fact, AdelaideNow are resorting to 'reader' comments (I question how much is actual reader comment and how much is News Corp employees making crap up) to prop up their 'outrage'.

The 'outrage' to the law is looking more and more like an Advertiser/AdelaideNow beat-up.

 

[jo172]

I find it interesting that none of the FTA news services ran a story on this legislation

Commercial television, a well known bastion of informed comment! Almost as bad as Adelaidenow itself!

I gotta say you've created an odd self fufilling prophecy here. Not report the news, then say there's no outrage despite the fact that the news isn't being reported to be outraged over ...

In fact, AdelaideNow are resorting to 'reader' comments

So people affected by new law speak out about new law, how outrageous ...

(I question how much is actual reader comment and how much is News Corp employees making crap up) to prop up their 'outrage'.

Wait a second, Mick?

The 'outrage' to the law is looking more and more like an Advertiser/AdelaideNow beat-up.

FWIW a lack of outrage is not the measuring stick of a good thing.

Also The Crapvertiser (who'll you'll find no harsher critic of than I) is reporting their's and their readers outrage. Which even you have to agree is justified.

You've posted that you don't agree with these laws.

If you're looking for justification to continue voting for the Labor party just use the fact that the ****ing Libs voted for it as well.

In fact I've never heard a more piss-poor excuse than Vicki Chapman's "We didn't realise this was how it's going to be used."

Shows she was either lying and just didn't expect anyone to work it out or that she's an idiot who struggles to understand plain English.

 

[KUNG FU]

I share your lament over the corpse of classical liberalism yet I think it's a bit unfair to suggest that the ALP never had some of your classic libertarian values preventing nonsense like this being passed.

Blokes like Whitlam and Dunstan would have rolled over in their graves before allowing something like this.

I think the major problem has been since the Hawke years (both sides/state federal) the focus on more presidential leaders whereby one person in the government's opinion carrying a disproportionate amount of weight. Compared to most of history blokes like Keating, Howard, Rudd, Rann have had more personal power in the government than ever before and either as a result of or as a symptom of have taken much more populist (and stupid) stances and have been allowed to get away with them by the demise in power of anyone in the backbenches with half a brain.

I believe the fundamental defect here is the ammassing of power in the role of the Head of Government.

I totally agree. I'm not blaming the decline of liberalism on the Liberals, I'm just saying that has been the barometer in my eyes, particularly looking over to NSW & the Howard government.

 

[jo172]

I totally agree. I'm not blaming the decline of liberalism on the Liberals, I'm just saying that has been the barometer in my eyes, particularly looking over to NSW & the Howard government.

Having said all this I have found Isabelle Redmond as an impressibe small(er) l liberal compared to anything else that has lead the Federal/State liberal party in recent times. I think she's been able to get away with it considering the ALP hasn't been able to unleash the usual attack dogs due to her gender.

The real shame in the decline of liberalism is that due to a more selfish and pathetic electorate (the poster boy is posting in this thread) it's become too easy to accuse a sensible liberal alternative as being "soft on crime" in order to win the mortgage belt seats.

How blokes like Rann have managed to convince the electorate that he's tough on crime whilst doing **** all about it in 8 years is a testament to his political skill and governing ineptitude.