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."

14 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT by Dynamoo · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

    --
    Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
    1. Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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!
  2. Re:Dumbest article quote by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  3. Why can't people take a joke any more? by HellYeahAutomaton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. It doesn't look like satire to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:It doesn't look like satire to me by 'nother+poster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  5. Tired of John Howard and the like? VOTE THEM OUT by digitaldc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  6. Free speech in Austrailia? by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Chilling. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  8. Only ourselves to blame by davem2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Only ourselves to blame by ttys00 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  9. Re:Dumbest article quote by iminplaya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".

    --
    What?
  10. Perspective of an Australian (ex) Lawyer by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?