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."

Comments

Dumbest article quote

[AEton]

MelbourneIT representative: "To us it looks like a phishing site."

Not bloody likely.

Re:Dumbest article quote

[hey!]

The answer is if you elect politicians who think you need to be protected from your own stupidity, those politicians may be onto something.

Re:Dumbest article quote

[iminplaya]

When you're mired in it, it's pretty hard to see what you're mired in. Anyway, the politicians are living pretty well. Stupid are the people who elect them. Ignorant really. I don't think they would get elected if the voters actually made an effort to find out the truth about the people they're voting for. If not ignorant, then apathetic, if not that, then despicable, because they actually want censorship of "undesirables".

Re:Dumbest article quote

[digster]

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.

Re:Dumbest article quote

[wrightam]

Lets face it if voting changed anything theyd make it illegal.

I love that. You just found my sig...

Re:Dumbest article quote

[troll -1]

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.

Re:Dumbest article quote

[pcameron41]

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.

Re:Dumbest article quote

[Mateito]

Difference between the US and Australia is the Boston Tea Party.

That is unfortunately true

We have really only one historical civil uprising, the Eureka Stockade, which basically was crushed and didn't change very much at all. At least when I went through school, it wasn't taught as part of Australian history.

To add insult to injury, the "Queen's Baton" (the Commonwealth Games' poor impression of the Olympic Torch) was run right through the centre of what many people see as a sacred site.

Given that the Queen of England is still our head of state, despite a national referendum to become a republic, and that Britain's flag occupies 25% of our own national emblem, its quite obvious that we failed to establish ourselves as a country who are willing to let go of the apron strings and stand alone. I'd love to remove the Union Jack, but with our current political leaders, all we'd do is replace it with the Stars and Stripes.

If even the poorest contries in South America can separate themselves from the Spanish, and if all the ex-French-colonial African nations are now independant, why can't we, as a relatively prosperous nation, separate ourselves from the UK?

Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT

[Dynamoo]

This is a Bad Thing, and it's quite possibly unlawful. In most countries, parody sites are protected under the "fair use" clause in copyright laws. If I wanted to create a humorous site parodying the UK government (where I live), I'd have certain protection by law to copy the "look and feel" of the other site. This is true of most other countries.

For example, some time ago there was a similar issue (reported here) about the UK Gov's "Preparing for Emergencies" site (the real one is here, the parody one here). There was some fuss about it at the time, but basically the UK Gov cocked up by not registering the .co.uk domain along with the .gov.uk, and there was no case to answer in law, because of the "fair use" clause.

Similarly, whitehouse.org and whitehouse.gov coexist. Indeed, there are probably hundreds of parody sites that work in a similar way.

Now, when I read the story, the quote from Bruce Tonkin at Melbourne IT set off my BS alarm. His claim that Melbourne IT reacts quickly to issues like this is simply not true. If you're involved in the anti-spam or anti-scam business, you'll know that Melbourne IT are one of the domain registrars of choice for phishers and spammers. 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. The site was offline for several days because Melbourne IT don't work weekends. You'll see that Bruce Tonkin offered another bullshit excuse there too.

So, don't just blame the "Australian government" for this, as it's unclear who exactly intervened. A large part of the blame for this has to fall on Melbourne IT and their pisspoor procedures.. I bet they'd believe ANYBODY who rang up and claimed to be from the government. Shucks, perhaps I should give 'em a call and pretend to be John Howard.. although my English accent might give me away, though probably not.

Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT

[tpgp]

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.

Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT

[mpe]

This is a Bad Thing, and it's quite possibly unlawful.

It's also rather counter productive since it gets a lot of people looking at whatever all this fuss is about.

Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT

[Anonymous Coward]

So, don't just blame the "Australian government" for this, as it's unclear who exactly intervened.

The current Australian government's reputation doesn't help them though...

Particularly they have a very poor reputation as far as "supporting civil liverties on principle" is concerned. It is one of the few governments that is entirely happy for the US to keep its citizens who are terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay (on the grounds that that way Australia doesn't have to deal with them). Their attitude towards assylum seekers is notorious worldwide. And the opposition aren't actually much better - they have just successfully campaigned to remove accountability for controversial drug approvals from the Health Minister [who might have to justify himself to the Australian people] and pass it to an entirely unaccountable "panel of experts". I wonder how long before John Howard realises that so long as you pass all the unpopular decisions to an unaccountable "panel of experts" then no voter can ever reasonably complain about anything you do!

Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT

[bogie]

"This is a Bad Thing, and it's quite possibly unlawful. In most countries, parody sites are protected under the "fair use" clause in copyright laws"

Exactly. Here in the awesome USofA such things are protected. You are free to openly disagree with the President and his policies with NO WORRY of retribution. In other countries doing things like that would get you fired from your job, put on the nofly list, or even worse they dig up dirt on you and your family in an attempt to embarass or discredit you if you try to tell the truth.

Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT

[Burz]

Here in the awesome USofA such things are protected. You are free to openly disagree with the President and his policies with NO WORRY of retribution. In other countries doing things like that would get you fired from your job, put on the nofly list, or even worse they dig up dirt on you and your family in an attempt to embarass or discredit you if you try to tell the truth.

Except that political retribution happens here anyway. After the Venezuelan govt made inexpensive fuel available to poor Americans, the VZ fuel company CITGO is being put under a microscope by Congress.

Some Venezuelans who normally teach in the US have had their visas revoked, or their classes held-up. Government agents swaggering by your office saying "We have derrogatory information on you". "Blah Blah TERRORISM Blah Blah...", which is the new codeword for "We're not accountable to the Constitution".

If US efforts to dispense aid met with investigations by politicians, or US teachers were prevented from teaching abroad, the foreign country would be labeled "totalitarian" (except if you are fascist like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan-- then you get to buy ad time on our airwaves for propaganda).

Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT

[IAmTheDave]

It's also rather counter productive since it gets a lot of people looking at whatever all this fuss is about.

It's also bad press. Anyone/thing that can look at themselves and make fun of themselves or accept a good making-fun-of always comes out looking better in the end. In fact, they'd be smarter to publicize that they support the proprieter's free speech rights.

Trying to stifle speech, on the other hand, never, ever looks good.

Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT

[operagost]

In other countries doing things like that would get you fired from your job,

Sounds like an problem with the employer. I'm afraid we don't force employment here in the US like France does (unless you're a 'minority').

put on the nofly list,

Have you heard of Michael Moore, Barbra Streisand, or Alec Baldwin being put on a no-fly list? Do you know anyone personally? No? See, it turns out that it's just the usual sloppy work by bureaucrats who confused similar-sounding Arabic names. Joe Caucasian Liberal has nothing to fear, and once we get our representatives to implement proper review procedures maybe we can weed out the incompetents who have screwed up the no-fly list.

or even worse they dig up dirt on you and your family in an attempt to embarass or discredit you if you try to tell the truth.

Sounds like the usual politics to me.

Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT

[qwijibo]

It's not just Arabic sounding names. There is no way to dispute being on the list, so there is no way to find out if the lists are abused. I know someone named David Nelson who managed our data center and is subjected to additional review, because someone else with a common name made it on the list. Here's a reference for this problem:

http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg 26610.html

Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT

[LifesABeach]

I RTFA and to me it wasn't funny. Maybe if the tone was from the Director of Marketing for the Foster's Bewery, then THAT would be funny.

Some constructive suggestions for the site:

1. A "How To" page for using a turbin as a cooler for beer

2. A "How To" page for showing when president Bush is lying, (his lips are moving...).

3. A "How To" for watching sand as the wind blows.

4. A "How To" for looking at dead civilizations in Iraq

5. An aussie-english to aribic translation page?

"hay mate, where can I get a beer?"

"hay mate, I'm not american, I'm an aussie"

"hay mate, where can I buy some razor blades? . . . To SHAVE with!"

"hay mate, where is the local strip parlor?"

"hay mate, where is the liquor store?"

Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT

[billgates]

'they have just successfully campaigned to remove accountability for controversial drug approvals from the Health Minister [who might have to justify himself to the Australian people] and pass it to an entirely unaccountable "panel of experts"'

This is not true and you know it. Didn't your mother tell you not to tell lies? The health minister had a right wing Christian agenda. That's why many people in his own party voted against him.

Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT

[drsmithy]

And the opposition aren't actually much better - they have just successfully campaigned to remove accountability for controversial drug approvals from the Health Minister [who might have to justify himself to the Australian people] and pass it to an entirely unaccountable "panel of experts". I wonder how long before John Howard realises that so long as you pass all the unpopular decisions to an unaccountable "panel of experts" then no voter can ever reasonably complain about anything you do!

For non Australians, what *actually* happened, was that the Health Minister had veto power over a *single* drug - the abortion pill RU486 - and that veto power has been removed. The only reason the Health Minister even had such a veto was because several years earlier the Government had traded it for the support in Parliament of a Christian fundie independent MP, since at that time they needed it to have legislation passed.

The situation has *nothing* to do with "accountability" and everything to do with anti-abortion agenda of the Christian Right. Parent post should be modded "-1, Blatant Misinformation".

Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT

[GreatAwk]

This is the ultimate in misinformation.

The government and Senator Brian Harradine deny any such deal over the abortion drug years and years ago. It's a Labor meme.

Sen. Harradine's roots were in Labor and he would cause any American Liberalometer to explode. He happens to be a Catholic and care about life issues, like many from both the major parties. I'm sure you would think that good enough to call him a `Christian fundie' and part of the `Christian Right', but non-Australian readers would think from your descriptions that he was a Protestant Evangelical with an organised church infrastructure, rather than a socially conservative unionist. The very characterisation is of a piece with the sectarian nab on the Health Minister who happens to be a Catholic, even though he says that the abortion question has been settled and I, for one, don't think that I could vote for him in conscience.

Non-Australian readers also mightn't realise that abortion remains criminal in most of Australia. Much as it is tolerated by the adoption of foreign precedents, in the context that it is basically criminal, an abortion pill requires closer supervision by Parliament, rather than the new act's pretence that the whole issue is `therapeutic' and can be farmed out to technical bodies.

The private members' bill was a power grab taking advantage of anti-Catholic prejudice.

Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT

[drsmithy]

The government and Senator Brian Harradine deny any such deal over the abortion drug years and years ago.

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.

Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT

[Pseudonym]

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.

Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT

[Pseudonym]

Abortions can be legally performed in Australia.

Indeed. What isn't legal in Australia is what US feminists refer to as "abortion on demand".

In most places in Australia, what you need is a referral from a doctor. In theory, this means that you can't obtain a termination without a legitimate medical (that includes psychological) reason for it. I've never heard of a case of this being challenged, though that's possibly because of doctor-patient confidentiality.

In practice, of course, it's usually easy to find a doctor who can give you a referral.

On a personal note, I think that this puts the abortion debate in Australia (such that it is; it doesn't seem to be a hot issue like it is in the US) on a better footing that it is elsewhere. The debate is not about "rights" vs "life". Abortion is a medical procedure, and so should be understood as a public health issue, inseparable from such issues as sex education. But then, the US has never had a very good relationship with public health.

Fascism spreads

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the way of the world, folks. Our corporate masters can't have you exposed to a different world view, now can they. And, of course the citizens who should be protecting the old "democratic" system are way too busy.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

[Anonymous Coward]

looks like this was not Minitrue approved!
And there I was thinking parodical works were protected

Google cache

[Odiumjunkie]

Google cached the site http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:cQX3U8xCBCgJ:w ww.johnhowardpm.org/+&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1

Why can't people take a joke any more?

[HellYeahAutomaton]

Politicians are in the public eye, and should expect satire and public attention. No one forced them to be politicians. Danish cartoons causing bloodshed, and now this. Does the Australian government think its people so dumb that they can't distinguish parody from sincerity?

What a miserable miserable world we live in.

Some people have no sense of humour

[ackthpt]

Politicians should grow some thicker skin in Oz. Hard to imagine a more thin skinned bunch, what next, censorship, oh, wait, that's exactly what it is.

50 years ago, March 17th, 1956, Fred Allen, born May 31, 1894 in Cambridge MA to irish catholic parents, famed comedy writer and radio comedian, died of a heart attack while walking his dog.

I'll toast him with a pint of Guinness. Thanks Fred, for all the laughs.

Re:Some people have no sense of humour

[ackthpt]

It has nothing to do with a sense of humor. It's all about free speech. If I want to talk shit on a elected offical then I am going to and big brother shouldn't be able to step in and shut me up. Imagine if they tried to shut down all the websites that made fun of W?

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.

It doesn't look like satire to me

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It doesn't look like satire to me

['nother poster]

Satire doesn't have to be "Ha Ha" funny. I'm American. I follow world politics fairly loosely, and I can tell that the Australian PM, wossisname, Um, Howard Dean? Nah. Oh, yeah, John Howard didn't write that. His political allies would shit kittens, then have him commited to the loonie bin for saying those things.

Re:It doesn't look like satire to me

[Dystopian Rebel]

I'm American. I follow world politics fairly loosely

Will you be running for President? ;o)

Re:It doesn't look like satire to me

['nother poster]

I have too much self respect to do that.

Backfire!

[redelm]

As usual, attempts to ban something mostly just serve as publicity.

It would have been better to request that the material clearly be labelled "parody" or "fiction", because some wankers might be confused and think Howie is a nice guy.

I'm glad to see...

[soft_guy]

I'm glad to see that Australia now has the same level of freedoms as Iran, North Korea, and China.

I love the Austrailian people and I hope that the US will liberate them from their repressive government sometime soon.

Re:I'm glad to see...

[Zzesers92]

Wow, the Australia government does something facists and you actually managed to make an anti-American dig as a result! I'm impressed.

America has problems, yes, but when another country demonstrates their similar inperfections to the world, can't we hold them accountable without trashing the US in the same breath?

How about just a "Boo Australia" in this case?

Tired of John Howard and the like? VOTE THEM OUT

[digitaldc]

He said that after two days of silence, a customer service representative from Melbourne IT today informed him by telephone that the site had "been closed on the advice from the Australian Government"

People know censorship when they see it.
People do not like being censored.
I suggest if you are an Aussie and this bothers you, vote John Howard and his friends out of office.

Australia???

[shabushabu]

Are we really talking about Australia here? Or am I suffering from this rare disorder that causes me to misread "China" as "Australia"

Free speech in Austrailia?

[Kohath]

Don't they have free speech in Austrailia?

This wouldn't happen in the USA because we have free speech. Except if a lesbian is offended, then it's sexual harrassment. Or on campuses with a speech code. Or it you want to advertise cigarettes. Or alcohol. Or if you want to run political ads, then it might violate campaign finance reform, even if it's exactly like this John Howard web site.

So this wouldn't happen in the USA in the early 80s. We sort-of had free speech back then.

Re:Free speech in Austrailia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except if a lesbian is offended, then it's sexual harrassment.

Yeah, lesbians are stopping free speech... nice one.

Re:Free speech in Austrailia?

[Burz]

Except if a lesbian is offended, then it's sexual harrassment. Or on campuses with a speech code.

Can you tell the difference between criticisizing an individual, and generalizing about a minority? No?? I could tell...

Re:Free speech in Austrailia?

[Mordaximus]

Except if a lesbian is offended, then it's sexual harrassment.

I believe the first ammendment prevents the government from abridging free speech, not lesbians nor campuses.

Re:Free speech in Austrailia?

[soft_guy]

That's why you should immediately file a sexual harassment claim against any/all lesbians you encounter. That way, you can say their claim is just to retaliate against your claim.

Chilling.

[TripMaster Monkey]

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:

"If we receive a complaint from an intellectual property basis claiming that a website directly infringes the rights of another site we would check it, and if it is a direct copy we would suspend the site," he said.

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:

"To us it looks like a phishing site."

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.

Re:Chilling.

[TripMaster Monkey]

It's an easy enough misunderstanding: a phishing site looks like a genuine site, but isn't.

Parody sites look like genuine sites too. That's the general point of parody.

Yes, he's missed the point that phishing is about data capture not misinformation but I wouldn't rag him too hard, he's in the right ballpark.

"The right ballpark"????? For Chrissakes....he's the chief technology officer at Melbourne IT. If he doesn't fucking understand what a phishing site is, Melbourne IT Needs a new CTO.

What's more likely? That a CTO of a major ISP actually doesn't understand the concept of a 'phishing site', or said CTO is prevaricating because the Government is breathing down his neck? You do the math.

Satire

[mwvdlee]

I'm probably going to get marked as a troll or something but the site (see google cache elsewhere) does indeed try to look identical to the real site and links everything but the speeches to the original site, down to the copyright notice.
Copying material for satire is probably legal in this case, but he should not have misrepresented ownership of the text he wrote.

As an Australian ...

[OzPeter]

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.

On the other hand, for the Aussies reading this .. 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 :-)

But yeah .. it sucks not to have free speech.

Johnny gets tough!

[ockegheim]

Well at last he's doing something about sedition instead of just talking about it. I'd better stop thinking freely.

Any Australian would know this is a fake speech because the Mr Howard is pathologically unable to apologise for anything.

Our politicians have lot to learn

[CSHARP123]

During my recent trip to India, also horribly touched with extremist violence, I was reminded by their soft spoken Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, that the British had seriously erred by clinging too long to their former colony. Despite widespread opposition to their presence, British politicians continued to insist that their departure would lead to chaos. Dr Singh said, 'But it would be our chaos, dont you see?' At that moment I understood what he was saying.

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.

Re:Tired of John Howard and the like? VOTE THEM OU

[ozmanjusri]

I suggest if you are an Aussie and this bothers you, vote John Howard and his friends out of office.

We would, but there's nobody to vote into office. All we can chose from is a bunch of near-identical lying pricks.

Rights vs Laws

[stlhawkeye]

This is one of those tricky intersections of "rights" and "law." Note that "rights" are things we have whether the law recognizes it or not. That's the classic liberal "natural law" version, and it's what most modernized democracies found their legal system on. Among those rights are speech, especially the right to speech of a political nature. The law protects IP because such laws ultimately benefit everybody (in theory), but this guy MIGHT be breaking IP laws to make a political statement. My take would be that his political statement isn't being silenced, just this particular method of making it. The guy could probably re-package or re-do the web site to make it more clearly a parody and get around the IP laws on this. What pisses me off is that it was just SHUT DOWN rather than trying this very reasonable intermediate step.

Re:Parody...

[sammy baby]

(Warning: IANAL. I'm speaking here specifically on the subject of US law, which obviously isn't the same as UK or Australian law.)

Parody isn't the only "fair use." "Fair Use" is a legal standard established in title 17 of the US code. Basically it says that reproducing a copyrighted work without authorization is permissible if it is considered to be for "fair use." To determine whether a usage is fair or not, there are four tests that can be applied:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted

Works of parody are usually given pretty broad latitude as being permissible under the first category.

However, pretty much none of this is applicable to the Australian issue, since, to my knowledge, Australia doesn't have a fair use doctrine. In fact, according to Wikipedia, the only countries that do are the US and the Phillipines. In Australia, I think the legal test would be "fair dealing". If the wiki is correct, parody does not appear to be a provision of that doctrine.

Only ourselves to blame

[davem2]

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.

Re:Only ourselves to blame

[ttys00]

Parent is correct. The Australian Constitution does not guarantee freedom of speech. From Freedom of Speech and the Constitution:

The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power.

The above page also states that Australians do not have free speech under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights either.

Re:Good

[deesine]

We'd all do better off without such hateful speech.

Betterment through censorship is a one step forward-two steps backwards maneuver.

I'd rather

[tkrotchko]

In the U.S. we're supposed to be a beacon of freedom and tolerance. When we don't meet these ideals, they should be pointed out. In fact, people are doing us a favor for pointing out our flaws because it's possible we don't see them ourselves.

Let me use an analogy... If I have some food on the corner of mouth after I eat, I hope my friends will tell me about it, and not just ignore it because some guy down the hall spilled his entire meal on his tie.

People from around the world point out our flaws because we're disappointing them. After we did so much to liberate the world from tyranny in the 20th century, they want us to continue in the 21st. And if we don't meet that benchmark, then they want to tell us to get better.

Back to the good old days

[1_brown_mouse]

Rotten tomatoes will make a comeback!

The internet upsets a free society

[SlappyBastard]

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.

Re:Tired of John Howard and the like? VOTE THEM OU

[geobeck]

So find someone who has the following characteristics:

• Tall
• Big teeth
• Big hair
• Ability to talk for hours without saying anything
• Likes to shake babies and kiss hands... or something like that

...and run him against Howard.

The usual mistake grassroots campaigns make is trying to find someone with brains, a firm grasp of the issues, and a sense of justice and fairness. The average voter couldn't care less about these characteristics if the candidate looks like Danny deVito. Find someone who looks pretty and likes to talk and you'll have a winner.

Hell, recall Mel Gibson (if he's not completely Americanized) and run him. The women's vote would carry the election.

Perspective of an Australian (ex) Lawyer

[Any Web Loco]

The Oz Government requested that the site be taken down on the grounds of a potential copyright infringement. It's unclear from the article how the request was made, but they usually come in the form of a "take-down" issued by the Australian Communications and Media Authority under the Broadcasting Services Act (Google 'em, I'm lazy) which goes to the orgainsation hosting the site and says that there's a website which uses copyrighted material without the authority of the copyright holder, please take it down within 48 hours (IIRC). Process open to abuse? Absolutely.

Take Down notices don't turn up as often as you'd think but even if one wasn't issued, when the Government called Melbourne IT, you can bet that they said "how high"..

Fair use. Yes, Australia has Fair Use exceptions within their copyright regime and they extend to the use of copyrighted material for the purposes of satire. This site clearly falls within the exception.

Further, Australians have an "implied right" of "freedom of political communication". Basically, the Australian Consitution "implies" that Australians have the right of free speech insofar as that speech relates to politicians and the political process (ie because your speech relates to the election of government and by extension politicians, you are free to say what you want - approximately accurate nutshell). It's actually quite restricted and has failed as a defence (it's not a positive right like the US right, only a defence) on a number of occasions, most notably when a satirical song was created about an Australian politician called Pauline Hanson by a satirist called Pauline Pantsdown. It was an hilarious satire using Pauline Hanson's own words but mixed up & rephrased (definitely worth googling).

I gues that the end story here is that the Australian Govt. have done themselves NO favours. Requesting the site be taken down was always going to make the press and was always going to go against the Govt. End result is better publicity for his piece.

And it's not bad - gets the tone right and doesn't resort to the usual "nah-nah-nah" that passes for political satire in Australia.

Pretty much spot on, content included.

And could someone do the guy a favour & mirror the PDF?

Problems with this issue

[rjstanford]

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.

Re:Problems with this issue

[Grey Haired Luser]

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.

I take it you don't know John Howard very well.... I was rolling in tears as soon as "he" starts admitting being wrong!

Oh yes it does.

[Any Web Loco]

You're just not getting it (no disrespect). As an Aussie, yo uonly really need to read the firsst couple of lines to know that this is satire. The content of the thing is SO radically removed from John Howard's stance as to be an obvious satire. Australia has quite a history (bit like the British with The Office) of doing satire that *looks* like it could be/should be real. If you're American, imagine that this purported to come straight from GW... I imagine you'd look at it and *know* that it was a joke. Same story here.

Re:Oh yes it does.

[HrothgarReborn]

Yes but in the US all we need to look for is proper spelling and grammar to tell Bush didn't write it.

Re:Tired of John Howard and the like? VOTE THEM OU

[ceoyoyo]

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. ;)

DNS was censored, not the WWW

[femto]

The site was hosted on Yahoo and the domain name registeres with Melbourne IT. The site is still on Yahoo's servers and can be downloaded using an IP address and an absolute URL (so their virtual server knows which website you want. By way of explanation, here is something I previously submitted as a story:

At the request of the Australian government, domain name registrar Melbourne IT has removed DNS entries for a political opponent of a ruling political party and its policies in Iraq.

Richard Neville created a parody of one of the Australian Prime Minister's speeches and posted it on a the website www.johnhowardpm.org. After a day the website mysteriously disappeared from the Internet. Melbourne IT, domain registrar for johnhowardpm.org, and Yahoo, the website host, both denied knowledge.

Tim Longhurst has been investigating. After two days two anonymous Melbourne IT technicians have come forward and told him that "johnhowardpm.org" was removed from DNS at the request of representatives from the Australian government, without the knowledge of the domain owner. Normal proceedure is for the domain owner to at least be notified.

Australian Internet users can no longer read www.johnhowardpm.org. Yahoo's DNS server (yns1.yahoo.com) still resolves johnhowardpm.org and the pages still exist on Yahoo's server (premium7.geo.vip.re4.yahoo.com = 216.39.58.74). They may be retrieved by sending a http GET request using telnet, or by setting one's HTTP proxy to 216.39.58.74 and typing "http://www.johnhowardpm.org/" into a browser address bar.

Given that the parody was not obscene, and its facts were well backed with references the only justification seems to be political censorship by Melbourne IT and the Australian government. The Internet equivalent of a political assassination to shut someone up.

If "The Net treats censorship as a defect and routes around it.", what is the future for Melbourne IT as a registrar? The High Court of Australia has also ruled that the Australian Constitution contains a right to freedom of political speech.

Re:DNS was censored, not the WWW

[aXis100]

Thanks for the tip, I'm browsing the site right now.
The other alternative (as I have used) is to add the line:

216.39.58.74 www.johnhowardpm.org

to your hosts file. You can then click away happily at Johny's site

You can't use the presidential seal on anything...

[agentofchange]

I don't know what USA you live in but you can't just go around using the presidential seal on anything you like. The website in question had the australian government coat of arms (same deal). The reason this is off line is not because of the content but because it looks like an official government website and is using official logos.