Slashdot Mirror
Australian PM Has Parody Site Shut Down
babbling writes "The Australian Government has shut down a parody website that mocked Australian Prime Minister John Howard. The website featured a satirical speech that 'apologised' for the Iraq war. The site was down for two days before a phone call from Melbourne IT advised the owner that it had been shut down 'on the advice from the Australian Government'. A mirrored PDF copy of the "apology speech" is available."
In fact, Melbourne IT's procedures are so slack that they infamously transferred the panix.com domain to a third party without authorisation last year.
Not just that. They've also been accused of facilitating 419 fraud.
So, don't just blame the "Australian government" for this, as it's unclear who exactly intervened.
Better: Blame the "Australian government" for this, along with Melbourne IT. John Howard has lied to the Australian Public again and again.
He's currently under investigation for his role in collusion with Saddam's regime under sections.
My pics.
Of course, I'm not Australian, and I may not be catching their humor.
However, the PDF document looks "offical" enough to possibly be the "real thing".
If this is satire, it's not translating well. It's no surprise the government wanted it taken down.
Well, I've looked at the PDF of the satire website, comparing it with the real deal, and I have to say that the two are extremely similar....virtually identical with the exception of content. In this light, the reason offered by Bruce Tonkin, the chief technology officer of Melbourne IT, holds a bit of water: Upon closer observation, however, this reason leaks like a sieve. The parody websise is not a direct copy...far from it, since the content is radically different. This reason also conveniently glosses over the rather important fact that the Melbourne IT was ordered to yank the website by the Australian Government.
Mr.Tonkin goes on to say: Phishing??? Phishing for what??? This claim is patently ridiculous.
The reason Melbourne IT yanked the website is pure and simple: they were told to by the Government.
Our fundamental human rights are being slowly whittled away...not only in America, but around the world. There is no save harbor. There is nowhere to hide from the oppression. Concerned citizens have to make a stand now...not because it is the right thing to do, but because they have no other option, finding themselves with their backs against the wall.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
when I was reading the "speech" I could hear it as the words of John Howard. Whoever wrote it did a great job in mimicking Howard's speech writers. It seemed spot on to me.
.. my visions of John Howard were formed in the 80's from the radio comedy How green was my cactus where his character was "Little Johnny Howard". I'll never be able to shake that caricature of him :-)
.. it sucks not to have free speech.
On the other hand, for the Aussies reading this
But yeah
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Given the attention span of your average internet reader, I imagine many people WILL miss the satire. However, which lies are worse?
The lies of the author, claiming to be John Howard? A desperate ploy in desperate times, an attempt to catch the attention of people who may not have read the truth behind all the Pre-War propaganda. (With a healthy dose of humour, once you catch on)
Or the lies and exagerations of the propaganda to gain public approval? Just get the impression out that it's not really that bad: first impressions count, not boring facts that come out later on. It's all right Joe Public, sit back and watch the news like another TV show. Don't complain to your ministers. There's no real people in TV land, are there?
Atleast people in India seems to elect a sensible PM. Our politicians have lot to learn. May be Indians elect educated people to the top post(current president used to be a scientist). Especially in US, we have elected an idiot to the top post and enitre world is affected by him. No wonder world hates us.
This wouldn't happen in the USA because we have free speech. Except...
True story, and this happened just two days ago.
A guy I know owns two bars, one here in Springfield and one in Riverton (Illinois). Yes, the same Springfield that got flattened by tornados last Sunday night.
Riverton is under a boil order, I think their water purification plant was out of power for a few days (my power just came back on Tuesday night, still no cable TV or internet).
So Dave, the bar owner, put up a sign outside his Riverton bar that read "Riverton's water is bad, drink beer instead."
As I was eating lunch in Dave's Springfield bar, the phone rang. Dave seemed both amused and bemused after the call, chuckling and shaking his head.
Riverton's city water commissioner had called the bartender demanding that they take the sign down!
I don't think Dave complied, though. Someone else under the same circumstances might have.
Sad what we are losing.
(Sorry for the a/c, I'm at work. mcgrew here.)
Australians have no legal guarantee of free speech and we've never demanded one. All Western Governments have been clamping down on human rights since 9/11 and people keep voting them back in.
Unfortunately for us aussies, we have a westminster system of gov that was copied badly Whilst there are implied freedoms of speech etc in the australian constitution they arent actually written in there which means our government can pretty much do what the hell it likes. And for those saying vote jack boot johnny out, i agree, but that just means the other idiots get in. Lets face it if voting changed anything theyd make it illegal.
Historically, free societies have been controlled very easily because the means of mass producing propoganda were easily centered in the hands of a few elites. Basically, the same people who sold you your thoughts every day were the ones who bought your government every day. The internet has blown the hinges off this system. Now, you have small fries all over the world projecting power and strength well beyond what the system has determined is their right. One blog, backed by a good mind, can destroy a politician. And the bastards are scared. This sort of arbitrary exercise of authority is exactly what people do when they're scared. The system is trying to get a handle on the internet, before the internet becomes big enough and strong to end their control of the means of production of propoganda. Unfortunately, that boat has already sailed. It's hard being a pol.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Go and read the PDF. Now assume that its been sent to you, as-is. Nothing whatsoever on that indicates in any way, shape, or form that it was a work of Satire, that those words did not come from John Howard. Its not as if it was posted on The Onion, or another similar site, that clearly indicates it is not official.
Now look down at the bottom. There's a copyright link which, like a lot of other links on the site, actually leads to the official website's copyright page. By doing that, and by not having anything anywhere on the page that identifies the authors in any other way, they may well have actually assigned copyright (I'm not familiar with the intracies of Australian copyright law). In that case, as the copyright owners (if not the authods), they were completly within their rights to insist that the piece be removed.
There's satire, and then there's impersonation. To me, for something to be protected even if satirical there would have to be some way, other than a personal evaluation of the content of the attributed text, for them to be able to tell that they're not looking at a "true" website. It can be evocative of the original, but should not be too easily mistaken for it. In the same way that, in the 'States, Saturday Night Live can use the presidential trappings for a "Press Conference" but if they were to broadcast a) without a laugh track, and b) using a body double instead of a "regular" actor, and c) react accordingly - they'd get in trouble too.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
I can empathize with you. I generally like Australia, my dad lives there now. But I'm suspicious of a country that bans Kazaa, has a total ban on Internet pr0n, and requires you to pay a departure tax when you leave.
Difference between the US and Australia is the Boston Tea Party.
Saying that politicians are stupid is simply a knee-jerk reaction to George W. Bush. I heard Bill Clinton speak recently and I would say that he is one of the most eloquent, intelligent men around.
Well, at least frequently switch between the lying pricks. Or you could do like we just did in Canada. We had the choice between a party that steals money to give to their friends who run advertising agencies (in power) or a pro-American, pro-troops-in-cities party. So we gave the out-of-power right-wing party a minority government so they have to suck up to the third party, the left-wing NDP. ;)
Have you ever heard Tony Blair speak before the british House of Commons? Americans are such a stiff lot, having the president speak before the House or Senate (or both in the case of State of the Union) from a script where there's all this filthy decorum. Blair has to defend himself, think on his feet, respond immediately to the criticism of peers, whereas Bush can issued BS through a press officer and remain in his ivory tower, safe he's not being laughed at to his face for his folly.
Then there's the Australians, which are the aiming to be most like?
Seems the country everyone left, for political freedoms, is doing a better job of it.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Yes. It's amazing how what politicians say and what politicians do don't always coincide, isn't it ?
For about two years Harradine held the balance of power. During that time, the Government was more than happy to dance to his tune so they could get their legislation passed.
It's a Labor meme.
Unfortunately for your rhetoric, I'm not a Labour supporter.
Sen. Harradine's roots were in Labor [...]
This does not change that his very socially-conservative views - particularly about abortion - are religiously motivated.
Non-Australian readers also mightn't realise that abortion remains criminal in most of Australia.
You have passed the point of misinformation, into outright lying. Abortions can be legally performed in Australia. 5 minutes on Google will show this (although it is because of legal precedent, not specific legislation).
This is why the entire debate - and in particular the insistence by the usual anti-abortion suspects that it wasn't about the "morality" of abortion - was ridiculous. Abortion is legal in Australia and has been for over thirty years. Depending on who you ask, up to 120,000 abortions are performed every year (unsurprisingly, without 120,000 subsequent trials). As simply another method of performing abortion, there was no justifiable reason for RU486 to be treated specially. It was nothing more than *blatant* pandering to social conservatives by the Liberal party, so they could get Harradine's support.
The private members' bill was a power grab taking advantage of anti-Catholic prejudice.
This was about as far from a "power grab" as you could get. Mainly because no "power" was "grabbed". No other drug is - or has been - subject to the arbitrary restrictions that were applied to RU486. There was no legal, medical, ethical, moral or other rational reason why RU486 should have been given special conditions in the first place. The bill did nothing more than place RU486 in exactly the same position any other drug is before it is approved for importation and use in Australia - subject to the approval of the TGA.
In summary, the short version is:
Many years ago, legislation was passed requiring the Health Minister's special approval to import and prescribe abortion drugs like RU486.
Recently, a private members bill removed this special control. These drugs are now subject to the standard approvals process all drugs face.
Anti-abortionists are trying to paint this as being "unusual", or "anti-Catholic", or somehow endowing the TGA with special powers it wouldn't normally have (or doesn't have with other drugs) when, in fact, it's just the restoration of the status quo.
"anti-abortion agenda of the Christian Right"
Plenty of people from the atheist left support anti-abortion
One other thing that should be noted, for the benefit of non-Australians, is that to this date, precisely nobody has applied to have RU486 legalised in Australia, even during the term of the previous Health Minister, who was a practicing doctor. So say what you will about the anti-abortion agenda of the fundies (I certainly will, at length), but IMO the purported "veto power" was almost entirely moot.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});