Labor Gags Internet Debate

[jo172]

2 things.

Firstly, get off your high horse about the Rann government being responsible for this mess. BOTH sides of parliament voted for this one. Labor AND Liberal. It was completely bipartisan..

Bullshit, doctirine of Ministerial responsibility, the Minister and Government of the day gets the credit and the blame. For the same reason John Howard gets the blame for the bipartisan Migration (Border Security) Act Mike Rann and Atkinson cop the blame for this one.

Secondly, it's not aimed at preventing political discussion. It was aimed at preventing political spin doctors and the like from posting anonymously. The intention was to make sure that all such posters are accountable for their comments. The fact that the wider public got swept up in it is an unfortunate side-effect.

I don't accept a more noble aim if the consequences are ****ed up. Nor do I accept a noble aim as an excuse for atrocious drafting.

They could have gone down many different paths in an attempt to fight 'spin-doctors' but they chose one that cast the widest net and those that live by the sword die by the sword.

Also, like this law would have done anything about spin doctors anyway. If ST posted his real name and adderess how am I supposed to know that he happens to be a member of the ALP and on the government's payroll?*


*hypothetically of course

 

[Riggy1]

Any "debate" in an open forum like a website or newspaper generally becomes a haven for mud slinging and spouting of party lines by obviously one party affiliated/lifetime supporters or the other.

No real debate is ever acheived in this forum. I say let them eat cake and off with their heads. It makes no difference to me, I know who I will vote for already without a campaign.

this Voting informal all the way

authorised by Jason Rigg, Adelaide, Australia.

 

[Riggy1]

As I see it we were faced with 3 options -

• Enforce the law, with all posters wanting to discuss the election or AO vs new stadium all forced to identify themselves. Not palatable to me, or anyone else on BigFooty.
• Stick our heads in the sand and go lalalala, effectively ignoring the law and hoping that we didn't get into any trouble.
• Lock the AO & new stadium threads and ban all political discussion for the duration of the election campaign.

Not sure what we would have ended up doing, but none of them are particularly to my liking.

orrrrrrrrrrrr you can claim that the site is American (otherwise you would have .au in it) and claim that Australian legislation doesn't apply to something in America

authorised by Jason Rigg, Adelaide, Australia.

 

[jo172]

orrrrrrrrrrrr you can claim that the site is American (otherwise you would have .au in it) and claim that Australian legislation doesn't apply to something in America

authorised by Jason Rigg, Adelaide, Australia.

Then have BF added to the ALP list of illegal unviewable websites?

 

[King Elvis]

orrrrrrrrrrrr you can claim that the site is American (otherwise you would have .au in it) and claim that Australian legislation doesn't apply to something in America

authorised by Jason Rigg, Adelaide, Australia.

Doesn't apply to something im America, but you're not in America, you are in Australia.

If you decide you want to look at kiddy pr0n (sorry, it's terrible, but best example) and do it on an American website, you've still broken the law.

To me that was what this amendment was designed to achieve, the limitation of political discussion in medium that the government didn't previously have some control over.

Bingo.

 

[jo172]

Doesn't apply to something im America, but you're not in America, you are in Australia.

If you decide you want to look at kiddy pr0n (sorry, it's terrible, but best example) and do it on an American website, you've still broken the law.

And considering that this provision in the Electoral Act also allowed punishment against the writer of the information not just the publisher. Hence it is possible for BF to be theoretically liability free whilst you still being liable for a $1500 penalty.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Would have liked the definition of 'a journal published in electronic form', before reacting to what this would have applied to.

 

[jo172]

Would have liked the definition of 'a journal published in electronic form', before reacting to what this would have applied to.

And as usual something as helpful as that is amiss from the definition section!

Having said all that it's been interpreted before to include letters to the editor, and OPC clearly assumed it would apply to AdelaideNow judging by the tenor of the debate and I for one would think that BF would be fairly analogus to them?

I do get what your saying, a literal interpretation makes you assume it's purely targeting permanent blogs.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Also, like this law would have done anything about spin doctors anyway. If ST posted his real name and adderess how am I supposed to know that he happens to be a member of the ALP and on the government's payroll?*


*hypothetically of course

Hey now, its pretty obvious im a member of the 'What Women Really Want' party.



Although, if i joined the Adelaide Federal Branch id get a crack at the minister for Sport wouldnt i?

 

[jo172]

Although, if i joined the Adelaide Federal Branch id get a crack at the minister for Sport wouldnt i?

Depends, how's your rack?

FWIW Minister for Sport has to be the sweetest job, relatively uncontroversial (unless you're Ros Kelly) whilst you get to go to every sporting contest around.

Unless I suppose you actually got into politics to help people, having said that, those neophytes are generally marked not ministry material.

 

[Southerntakeover]

And as usual something as helpful as that is amiss from the definition section!

Having said all that it's been interpreted before to include letters to the editor, and OPC clearly assumed it would apply to AdelaideNow judging by the tenor of the debate and I for one would think that BF would be fairly analogus to them?

I do get what your saying, a literal interpretation makes you assume it's purely targeting permanent blogs.

I dont think Bigfooty does quite connect. Again, wed need to find the legal definition of Journal.

My initial thought was that sites like Adelaidenow are official and registered news sites, and its that connection which makes the commentary tacked onto stories part of the 'journal' as it were.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Depends, how's your rack?

FWIW Minister for Sport has to be the sweetest job, relatively uncontroversial (unless you're Ros Kelly) whilst you get to go to every sporting contest around.

Unless I suppose you actually got into politics to help people, having said that, those neophytes are generally marked not ministry material.

I think you misunderstood.

Its not the job i want to have a crack at.

 

[KUNG FU]

Hey now, its pretty obvious im a member of the 'What Women Really Want' party.



Although, if i joined the Adelaide Federal Branch id get a crack at the minister for Sport wouldnt i?

Only if you aren't tertiary educated

 

[jo172]

I think you misunderstood.

Its not the job i want to have a crack at.

Woosh as that went over my head!

Well played though

 

[Crow-mo]

Also, like this law would have done anything about spin doctors anyway. If ST posted his real name and adderess how am I supposed to know that he happens to be a member of the ALP and on the government's payroll?

you are spot on. over here, people assume that people posting on such matters are partisan shills anyway.

very naive to think a real names policy could be effective - even if you could identify if that was in fact, a real name (which generally you can't).

 

[brucetiki]

you are spot on. over here, people assume that people posting on such matters are partisan shills anyway.

very naive to think a real names policy could be effective - even if you could identify if that was in fact, a real name (which generally you can't).

And I had Mr. Ian Peter Freely from Bolivar all set and ready to go