Remove this Banner Ad

Labor Gags Internet Debate

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

jo172 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would never base my views on what was said on AdelaideNow.

However, when it comes to elections, people either tend to throw out common sense or are completely apathetic to politics. Why do you think minor parties arrange deals with Labor/Libs to get good preferential spots on How to Vote cards - there are significant numbers of people who for one reason or another will vote 1 for one of the big 2, then follow their how to vote cards religiously to fill the rest of the form out.

If people can be that easily influenced on how to complete their vote, then SOME people could be easily influenced by what they read on online forums - particularly somewhere like AdelaideNow where all sorts of crap are published with next to no moderation.

To put the legislation in another perspective, say you're a candidate for X party, and Y party's your rival. You could use an online forum under an alias to make all sorts of claims about Y party policies (for example, Y party want to legalise all drugs, or they want all non G rated movies outlawed). Now both claims are clearly outrageous, and defame Y party (mud sticks, as they say). Now say Y party see this and want to take action - all they have is your alias. This means Y party's campaign is in tatters because of a vicious smear campaign by X party.
 
brucetiki said:
I would never base my views on what was said on AdelaideNow.

However, when it comes to elections, people either tend to throw out common sense or are completely apathetic to politics. Why do you think minor parties arrange deals with Labor/Libs to get good preferential spots on How to Vote cards - there are significant numbers of people who for one reason or another will vote 1 for one of the big 2, then follow their how to vote cards religiously to fill the rest of the form out.

If people can be that easily influenced on how to complete their vote, then SOME people could be easily influenced by what they read on online forums - particularly somewhere like AdelaideNow where all sorts of crap are published with next to no moderation.

To put the legislation in another perspective, say you're a candidate for X party, and Y party's your rival. You could use an online forum under an alias to make all sorts of claims about Y party policies (for example, Y party want to legalise all drugs, or they want all non G rated movies outlawed). Now both claims are clearly outrageous, and defame Y party (mud sticks, as they say). Now say Y party see this and want to take action - all they have is your alias. This means Y party's campaign is in tatters because of a vicious smear campaign by X party.
Click to expand...

Absurd justification.

A party can make promises in a campaign and then break them when they get in government, what's the distinction?

What's the difference except here a presumably more legitimate source is doing the same thing and if we're to assume that the electorate is as misinformed as you suggest they are this would not work at all to the long term electoral detriment of that party.

The spread of misinformation cannot be used as a justification of the limitation of the freedom of communication.

The way to fight bad information is with good information, not with restricting information flow to those with the most to benifit from it. Then we're just asking to be controlled by a government that is getting more authoritarian.
 
Vader said:
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.
Click to expand...

Vader, do you even believe this for a heartbeat? It can't even prevent that; you don't have to state poltiical affiliation, membership or employment (yet).

This law is absolute bullshit, and that is just a facade to try and make it appear reasonable.

We have implied Freedom of Speech in this country, and the Government has absolutely no right to implement this law - I hope it's challenged in the High Court immediately and thrown out.

Defamation/Libel/Slander laws alright apply to the internet - if any material is of the nature that requires is, the Police can obtain the IP addresses and login information of those involved (unless they're behind 7 proxxies) to try and track them down. There is absolutely no justification what so ever for political opinion (that isn't defamatory) to be anything but anonymous. When Rann originally came to power, I actually had a lot of time for him - now he's a joke.

Especially when this is the Government that refuses to consider an ICAC, refuses to answer hundreds of questions in Question Time, delays and complicates FOI requests as much as possible, and still allows anonymous donations.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/02/02/democracy-with-a-south-australian-twist/

You read articles like that, and then consider the refusal for an ICAC, and then look at things like that landswap causing all the grief at present (swapping $18M worth of Govt land for $6M of Land, nothing strange there!), and you seriously have to wonder whether this is something going on that they're trying to prevent being revealed.

I seriously hope this is challenged ASAP, and that ideally a number of large online forums/communities will do it, or basically tell the government to go fellate itself and refuse to comply - good luck enforcing this.

Atkinson is a damn looney - I've got friends in the Labor Party, including a couple who are being prepared for pre-selection following the next election, and even they think this guy is a menace.

As for Liberal, **** me, what a bunch of clowns. I want so badly to support and vote for these guys, but they're making it extremely hard. There are 3 issues that the State Libs could tackle easily and get a lot of young apathetic voters on their side - give us an R18+ rating for games, oppose the internet filter (I know that's Federal, but appearance is everything) and now they should've opposed this law and kicked up a massive stink about it.

Idiots.


WRITTEN BY ARMIN TAMZARIAN OF 123 FAKE ST.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Vader said:
I think that's what the law is intended to do. The chances of them succeeding varies somewhere between zero and non-existent.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

You think they've implemented a useless, possibly unConstitutional law to prevent their own employees for doing something?

And nevermind that they wont be able to monitor and prove when somebody is using a fake name in the absolute vast majority of cases.

The other massive problem with this - they're legislating that people need to disclose their name and suburb on the internet.

That is a terrible, terrible idea. You know a person's name, strong chance you can find their facebook information, or their phone number or address in the Whitepages.

This is crazy.
 
jo172 said:
A party can make promises in a campaign and then break them when they get in government, what's the distinction?

What's the difference except here a presumably more legitimate source is doing the same thing and if we're to assume that the electorate is as misinformed as you suggest they are this would not work at all to the long term electoral detriment of that party.

The spread of misinformation cannot be used as a justification of the limitation of the freedom of communication.

The way to fight bad information is with good information, not with restricting information flow to those with the most to benifit from it. Then we're just asking to be controlled by a government that is getting more authoritarian.
Click to expand...

but it's much easier to make outlandish/defamatory statements under the pseudo of Brucetiki or jo172, than it is by disclosing our names.

People who make political comments (including party advertisements) during an election via print (papers, magazines, leaflets) or via TV have to disclose their full name and location - the Chasers even did spoofs of these disclosures during the 2007 Federal election. What this legistlation is pretty much doing is extending that to online comments.

The legislation isn't saying you can't comment. It is saying don't put anything online that you're not afraid to put your name/location against it - just like TV or print.

This may cause some people to choose not to comment.

This may cause some to think twice before saying something they may regret later.

Of course (as has been said by others), enforcing it could be a challenge as it's just as easy to create a fake real name. I look forward to the first comment made by I.P.Freely of Adelaide :D
 
brucetiki said:
The legislation isn't saying you can't comment. It is saying don't put anything online that you're not afraid to put your name/location against it - just like TV or print.

This may cause some people to choose not to comment.

This may cause some to think twice before saying something they may regret later.
Click to expand...

This will remove one of the basic tenents of freedom of speech, especially in the political context, where right to anonymity is a major part of it.

This will basically make the political leanings of everybody who chooses to comment public knowledge.

This will put people's full name and suburb on the internet for anybody to use in anyway they wish.

The people who do those political ads are either paid for them, or are part of the system. The common man is not, and it's his right to comment on the political process and situation however he see fit - as long as it isn't defamatory.

As I said, defamation laws already apply to the internet - anonymity is not guaranteed and if you post something defamatory, the cops can come after you.

This law is completely unneccessary and arguably violates freedom of speech (and therefore our human rights).

Keep in mind this is that Federal Labor are going to implement a censorship scheme where we wont even know what is being censored - and when the list was leaked, from memory, barely half of the material was even illegal.
 
jo172 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then why did you create the thread as 'Labor Gags Internet Debate' if both parties voted for it.

As for Chapman, I'd go for the latter.
 
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.
 
brucetiki said:
Looks like the people on AdelaideNow have spoken - Atkinson (if Labor is re-elected) will repeal the laws and won't enforce the law during this election campaign.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175

I'm sure the mods will be relieved about this :D
Click to expand...
"From the feedback we've received through AdelaideNow, the blogging generation believes that the law supported by all MPs and all political parties is unduly restrictive. I have listened." - Atko.

All MP's and All parties? Surely you jest. And it has nothing to do with being restrictive, it has to do with basic democratic rights to have your say in the way we are governed. If you are not able to wade through political rhetoric whether from MP's or members of the public and make your own decision without having to know everyone's name and location then maybe voting is not for you.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

brucetiki said:
Looks like the people on AdelaideNow have spoken - Atkinson (if Labor is re-elected) will repeal the laws and won't enforce the law during this election campaign.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175

I'm sure the mods will be relieved about this :D
Click to expand...

Glad to see reason has triumphed.

One can only note the irony is that if this law was in force then the process by which the later agreed shitness of the law was reached would have been impossible and we would have been left with this piece of shit law.

That in itself should be a decent object lesson for those who supported this law.

What would be interesting to know is who in government ordered Atkinson to stand down as reason and public opposition are usually not enough to stop his hair brained schemes! I'm guessing it cane from Rannbo himself after he realized that he'd have to sign off on every Twitter post as mike rann stepney 5069 which they're still not that bigger fans of in Ramsey!
 
King Elvis said:
This will remove one of the basic tenents of freedom of speech, especially in the political context, where right to anonymity is a major part of it.

This will basically make the political leanings of everybody who chooses to comment public knowledge.

This will put people's full name and suburb on the internet for anybody to use in anyway they wish.

The people who do those political ads are either paid for them, or are part of the system. The common man is not, and it's his right to comment on the political process and situation however he see fit - as long as it isn't defamatory.

As I said, defamation laws already apply to the internet - anonymity is not guaranteed and if you post something defamatory, the cops can come after you.

This law is completely unneccessary and arguably violates freedom of speech (and therefore our human rights).

Keep in mind this is that Federal Labor are going to implement a censorship scheme where we wont even know what is being censored - and when the list was leaked, from memory, barely half of the material was even illegal.
Click to expand...
The legislation was never aimed at Joe Nobody in the street - aka King Elvis, jo172 and brucetiki. It's aimed at the political spin doctors employed by all political parties.

Right now, anyone making comment in print (newspapers - "letters to the editor"), or advertising on TV & radio have to provide their full name and location. This is done so that people don't get hoodwinked by people not declaring their political affiliations when they are relevant. The law was seeking to expand that requirement to include the internet.

What they're aiming at is more akin to the "letters to the editor" than full on paid party political advertising.

The biggest problem is that it's completely unenforceable, so why bother attempting it?

The law would not have prevented people from stating their opinions and spreading political propaganda if that is their desire. It just prevented them from doing so under the cover of anonymity. That's fair enough when it's someone with vested interests, it's not acceptable though when everyone else gets caught up in the net.
 
FWIW, I support the concept of personal responsibility. I believed that the new legislation, while difficult to apply and enforce, was justified as it made personal responsibility explicit.

I also support, for similar reasons, the call for a standing anti-corruption commission.

I also realise that since Atkinson's recent announcement the details of how the new legislation was to be applied have become irrelevant.

But I am still interested. I recall reading in the initial orchestrated screams from AdelaideNow/Advertiser that the legislation required the media organisation publishing be able to identify the author of any published comment, and keep that information for a specified period of time.

If I comment on one of the online paper's articles, or respond to one of their polls, they already have a limited degree of identification - their system has identified my web address. Hence, if you try to vote twice their poll gives you the message that you have already voted. But that web address only identifies a computer, not the actual user.

When I post on BigFooty (or any other forum where the poster is required to log on) the case is different. The publisher does have a record of my identity and location, even if I choose not to share that with the general public. I realise that now we won't find out, but I wonder if that would have been the advice from BF's legal advisors - that nothing on BF need change because the necessary identification already existed. Perhaps Vader and the other mods would not have had to censor posts?
 
I sought advice from the Admins on this one. The situation is complicated somewhat by the fact that the Big Group is actually an American company. In the end it was going to be a matter of us doing whatever BigFooty's lawyers told us to do. Thankfully, the law has now been repealed and we don't need to worry about it.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

S116(1) of the Electoral Act has the answer and it seems you have either misunderstood (or more likely) been misinformed by Adelaide now.

116—Published material to identify person responsible for political content
(1) A person must not, during an election period, publish material consisting of, or
containing a commentary on, any candidate or political party, or the issues being
submitted to electors, in written form, in a journal published in electronic form on the
Internet or by radio or television or broadcast on the Internet, unless the material or
the programme in which the material is presented contains a statement of the name
and address (not being a post office box) of a person who takes responsibility for the
publication of the material.Maximum penalty:
(a) if the offender is a natural person—$1 250;
(b) if the offender is a body corporate—$5 000.
Click to expand...

So it wasn't about a record, it was about publishing the name and adderess with the material.

For example this discussion would have to end with.

My name
Adderess.

As posters would point blank refuse to do this it would have created a horrible time for the mods!
 
jo172 said:
As posters would point blank refuse to do this it would have created a horrible time for the mods!
Click to expand...

Which is why I flagged it on the moderator's board as being something needing immediate attention as soon as I read the article - a couple of hours before you created this thread.
 
Vader said:
Which is why I flagged it on the moderator's board as being something needing immediate attention as soon as I read the article - a couple of hours before you created this thread.
Click to expand...

The most offensive part of that section is the bit about issues.

Would effectively have made the Adelaide Oval discussion illegal if it continued through the campaign even if posters deliberately avoided any partisanship.

Restricting talk on issues, not just politicians and parties is the thin end of the wedge as far as democracy is concerned.
 
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.
 
Vader said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would have thought you'd have to lock the threads and make a temporary rule banning any political talk and start banning posters who did talk politically (even if they did comply with the Electoral Act you just know that those replying to them wouldn't.)

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.

It's the same reason why beacons of talkback sports radio like Graham Cornes hate places like this so much yet will defend their own medium. The establishment hates losing control of the medium of dialouge as without control of this they lose power.

As someone who up until yesterday has been steadfastly against a bill of rights under the assumption that no politician was dumb enough to introduce let alone vote for laws that directly assault our political freedoms. I clearly didn't properly consider the lunacy of the Rann government.
 
jo172 said:
I would have thought you'd have to lock the threads and make a temporary rule banning any political talk and start banning posters who did talk politically (even if they did comply with the Electoral Act you just know that those replying to them wouldn't.)

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.

It's the same reason why beacons of talkback sports radio like Graham Cornes hate places like this so much yet will defend their own medium. The establishment hates losing control of the medium of dialouge as without control of this they lose power.

As someone who up until yesterday has been steadfastly against a bill of rights under the assumption that no politician was dumb enough to introduce let alone vote for laws that directly assault our political freedoms. I clearly didn't properly consider the lunacy of the Rann government.
Click to expand...
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.

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.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Labor Gags Internet Debate

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top