Slashdot Mirror
NZ MPs Outlaw Satire of Parliament
mernil writes "New Zealand's Parliament has voted itself far-reaching powers to control satire and ridicule of MPs in Parliament, attracting a storm of media and academic criticism. The new standing orders, voted in last month, concern the use of images of Parliamentary debates, and make it a contempt of Parliament for broadcasters or anyone else to use footage of the chamber for 'satire, ridicule or denigration.' The new rules are actually more liberal than the previous ones, but the threat of felony contempt is new."
This means that Jon Stewart would get pretty low ratings in NZ - wouldn't he?
How far reaching is this? It seems from the article that this is "guilt by association" as well. FTA: "The rules apply any to broadcasts or rebroadcasts in any medium."
Um.. New Zealand is not apart of Australia....
I won't disagree with you on that, but what does this have to do with Australia?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
``make it a contempt of Parliament for broadcasters or anyone else to use footage of the chamber for 'satire, ridicule or denigration.''
Huh? I thought the whole point of Parliament was to be ridiculed and denigrated?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Good lord, this is very old news.
The local TV stations have already said they'll ignore it and certain politicians have already been backing down from their high horse.
It is unlikely this "law" will have any actual effect on the satirisation, ridicule, or other general highlighting of how usless our MPs actually are.
See subject. Can you even read?
Al Gore used the frog analogy in An Inconvenient Truth.
With the addition of a 0x20 character you could have been exactly right.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Goodbye to our old and dear friend, Free speech, it was nice knowing you and you left us before it was your time.
But at least you did have a good long run.
May you rest in peace.
Never say never.... Its already the United States of Aristocracy now. Unless your a multimillionaire, an oil or energy company, or a fundi zealot institution good luck "lobbying" or "protecting" your rights here...
The media will just have to do something like they did during the Michael Jackson trial - get a bunch of political lookalikes, build a parliament set, and then re-enact the day's proceedings. And then they can start having real fun with the politicians...
Or build a CGI parliament. Then they could release a FPS version of the parliament and you could run round and blast your MPs to death with a BFG.
First, despite what the evidence found around Bondi Beach might suggest, New Zealand is not officially part of Australia.
Second, draconian privacy laws are a good thing. That would mean harsh penalties for companies breaching individuals' right to privacy. I don't think this is what you meant... But it's actually pretty accurate.
Third, on the internet laws... If you host a porn site in Australia, and someone complains, and the complaint is upheld, your site can be taken down. You are completely free to host the same content outside Australia. Australians are free to view the content wherever it's hosted. That, really, is about it.
(Until last November I was head of tech support at a small Aussie ISP, so I have some familiarity with the laws involved.)
Attempts to muzzle the press or media have been tried before in Commonwealth countries (such as in Alberta in 1934) but those types of laws are usually refused royal assent because they are ultra vires, or beyond the powers of the government to enact such laws. In this case however, there is no legislation involved, only House rules which expire at end of the present session. So it appears they have effectively found, a way, however temporary, to do an end-run around the Bill of Rights. It will be interesting to see if other parliamentary democracies try - and get away with - the same tactic.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
It's not surprising that he doesn't know the difference between NZ and AUS, considering that he's Norwegian. Or Belgian. Same diff. (I did a whois on zakata.com.)
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Its NEW ZEALAND not Australia you moron. Look at a fucking map.
Sorry, I have a headache.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
How is it that a person can grow up in a society of people, enter government, and then vote to enact a law that so evidently goes against the freedoms of that society?
I understand that people in government feel some shame about their corruption and dishonesty, and would like to keep as much of their activities secret as possible, but have they lost all conscience and connection with the people? Also, do they not imagine how making certain laws might make it easier to expand the laws to the point of oppression of all?
I am amazed and scared by the ideas that have it in to law in countries that I have long considered as ADVANCING freedom! I used to regard the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc, as promoting freedom and democracy around the world, BY EXAMPLE. Now the theme seems to be "spy on everyone" and "no anonymity" for the citizens, but "forbid criticism" and "enforce secrecy" for the governments.
Third, on the internet laws... If you host a porn site in Australia, and someone complains, and the complaint is upheld, your site can be taken down. You are completely free to host the same content outside Australia. Australians are free to view the content wherever it's hosted. That, really, is about it.
Actually I'm australian and you might want to read up on what happens. Here ISPs can take any of your details and use them how you like. The government can ban any sites it wants to, based on any content, and it is up to ISPs to do so. Doesn't matter if it isn't technically possible, the ISPs must comply and if they fail they're shut down by constant recursive fines. This week it's government satire, next week it'll be criticism of the government, the week after that nobody will be able to mention the name "haneef" without their packets going missing in the ether.
And the worst bit is ISPs aren't legally allowed to say a damn thing about it, which is why you'll find they're so quite about it.
(obligatory 1984 reference)
Who is going to police it? The newly set up Ministry of Truth?
As democracy weakens, states clamp down on their critics and introduce more extreme punishments for transgressors.
This sounds like a good example of this kind of action - sadly it seems to be getting more common across the world, not just in NZ.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Those New Zealand MPs really have a sense of humour. This is self-parody.
Your understanding of Australian law seems to have come only via Slashdot headlines - whether you're an Australian or not.
And it still has nothing to do with this article.
Advanced users are users too!
I'm still trying to figure out how we could blame this on Bush...
Surely the anti-bestiality-porn laws already prevent TV networks from using footage of the NZ parliament, in any manner?
Sigh, when do Americans learn the difference between Aristocracy and Nobility?
As a New Zealander I've found this very disappointing. Normally I associate New Zealand as having a very open and non-corrupt national government with an open information policy (written into law through New Zealand's Official Information Act), and without too many layers of bureaucracy. I'd much rather have an environment where the media is free to take what pictures they like. To put it in context though, the main section of New Zealand's television media, which is most directly affected by this, really is hopeless. Personally I think the un-professionalism of many of the journalists has really encouraged parliament to add some limitations, appropriate or not.
There are only two major providers of television news in New Zealand -- one state-owned (TV1) and another private (TV3, owned by CanWest). Neither actually invests in quality journalism any more. They invest in news that can double as entertainment to sell commercials in a prime-time entertainment slot. The way they advertise their own news programmes makes this obvious, and on television there's no alternative. TV3, in particular, spends a lot of time trying to stress how much better it is than TV1. Any story that has anything to do with that is promoted to the front of its bulletin.
Most reporters are young and inexperienced, with the experienced journalists having either lost their jobs, retired or moved overseas for better opportunities. A lot of reports seem to be more about making sure people know who the reporter is and adding superlatives, annoying clichés, metaphors, and background music that just distract from the actual information. The only reason I bother to watch locally produced television news programmes in New Zealand these days (with a few exceptions) is to get some pictures, but I cringe at the commentary that comes with them. Many of those who are left have an attitude where they like to claim they're hugely important, but in general they're not actually providing quality journalism to back it up. I've found it quite sickening watching this whole thing play out, because the media that's kicking up such a storm isn't actually demonstrating that it's worthy of the right it's wanting.
I'm quite amazed when I flick over to BBC and see something like Hard Talk, which is just amazing in comparison to what we have locally produced. I really wish we could have that kind of quality in a local production, but I suspect the country just isn't large enough to have the resources for a reliable media.
If you are in New Zealand, try listening to MediaWatch on National Radio (or stream it if you prefer). Personally I think it's one of the most insightful commentaries on the New Zealand media available. (The show on 1st July actually covered this issue.)
What New Zealanders say about themselves is often much stronger than anything Jon Stewart says. Stories about New Zealand on Slashdot all seem to give the impression that N.Z. is a country like the United States. Actually, only 4 million people live there, so it is more like a city in the U.S. than the U.S. itself.
Anyhow, apparently some New Zealanders think that N.Z. has an exaggerated self-importance. So they joke about their country. For example: Adult Sheep Finder "New Zealand's #1 Internet Dating Site". (The site is partly a reference to the fact that raising sheep is the main agricultural activity in New Zealand; although there are only 4 million people, there are 60 million sheep.)
I doubt the N.Z. parliament will stop "satire, ridicule or denigration". In fact, the idea is absurd. Remember, the story Alice in wonderland was partly a parody of the English king and queen, when saying negative things about the monarchy was illegal. That was in England, and it is sometimes said that New Zealanders are "more English than the English".
It sounds rather satirical itself. The mere mention of it could get you locked up.
What?
After reading about some of the nonsense going on in other countries lately living in the US doesn't seem so bad anymore :)
This is news? Handy rule of thumb: If you're three days behind the Daily Show in covering a news item, you've probably lost the right to describe that story as "news".
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Here's the actual link to the order in question:/ b/2/0/48HansD_20070628_00000893-Standing-Orders-Se ssional.htm
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates
Basically, this is a sessional order, and will be reviewed after the next election, if not sooner. Based on current popular opinion, it won't last...
Methinks this was introduced because, as others have pointed out, it's much easier for New Zealand's TV stations to fill the 10 minutes between ad breaks with name-calling and napping politicians than it is to actually do some proper journalism. Seriously, the journalism here is so pathetic; with this order in place, TV3's "political editor", Duncan Garner, is screwed.
Also, what Jon Stewart did on the Daily show, as far as I can tell, isn't in breach of the order. Satire of the politician is fine, however showing images of them picking their nose isn't...
I'm presently in the middle of reading an English translation of Mein Kampf. Earlier tonight, I got to the part where Hitler talks about the dangers of "freedom of the press" -- he rants at length about the need to control it completely, and to stop it from poisoning the state with lies and digging up dirt on even the most noble politicians.
Needless to say, while I am well aware that NZ can hardly be compared to Nazi Germany, I found this news quite disturbing.
I forgot to say that the linked web site is NSFW -- if your co-workers are sheep.
Also, the result of the N.Z. parliament making criticism illegal will be that the criticism becomes much, much worse. Tthe old rules were not followed, either. Quote from the article: "However, the old rules were frequently breached, as the media often used wider-angled shots or published photographs of MPs napping, reading comics, eating lollies, and in one notable case, giving another MP the finger."
WTF?^^ mates
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Aristocrats are the ones who have no money, right?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Just to clarify something
Its still legal to make satire, and ridicule politician. You just can't use footage taken from inside the Beehive (The New Zealand parliament)
So making fun of them, while using footage of them outside is perfectly legal, and i belive thats how the Australians have adapted the most part.
I am however greatly bothered by the fact that this is what i consider abuse of power, and rather nasty form of censorship of the actions of our goverment.
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
Remember when we used to joke about TVNZ news as being "BBC One News" due to it being heavily Brit-oriented? How I miss those naive and innocent days! It all turned so sinister.
Ever since Prime Minister Helen Clark made the hideous error of criticising the NZ$800,000-per-year Saint Judy Bailey was paid by the state broadcaster for reading from a teleprompter and making 'News Faces', TVNZ has been out to get her. (And Labour out of power.)
The disgusting and overtly pro-National Party stance TVNZ took during the last election was unforgivable. They were in effect campaigning for them. And they are still doing it.
Big Money Corporate Media...gotta love it. Not.
This is all pretty meaningless as the vast majority of New Zealanders have nothing but contempt for parliament. The TV news organizations, including the state broadcaster, have indicated that they will ignore the legislation.
Ok, now that was funny.
It's true that a free press _is_ dangerous. He was right about that much. It causes all kinds of trouble.
However, a free press is nonetheless less dangerous than a government that controls the press -- as he himself proved to anyone who was paying any attention whatever.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
You might want to check your geography. To help you understand find photos, preferably nude, of Helen Clark and John Howard. Compare and contrast.
In 2015, when the Kiwi campaign of terror commences with a second-hand nuke being smuggled into Sydney Harbour onboard a sheep carrier, everyone will be asking the same question - "why do they hate us?"
Your post pretty much answers their question.
If you outlaw ridicule of parliament, then only outlaws will ridicule parliament!
--Dan
Web Tips
46137
If so, this law would put them right out of business!
Laws like this are SO wrong.
after this charade i dont know what to think or say
Read radical news here
Helen Clark has balls; John Howard doesn't.
This sounds like a YouTube law. These politicians are scared of appearing in public with "macaca" and "tubes":
http://youtube.com/watch?v=r90z0PMnKwI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE
and the remixes...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8
Well, one might say that sound bites are not a fair way of characterizing the entire work of a politician. I think they are right: with Stevens and Allen, the rotten attitudes seem to go far deeper.
Laws like this aren't going to be very effective, but these people are running scared.
I suspect that laws like this aren't aimed at TV stations, who really have never been able to afford to antagonize or expose politicians too much. I suspect laws like this are aimed at people publishing things on YouTube: viral videos and all that. It may be designed to make people think twice about making fun of their politicians.
Wow,poor kiwis! I can't imagine life without the ability to contemptuously ridicule the Democraps and Republican'ts of the congress and senate.Or the right to own a gun in case we decide to revolt and start anew.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
This is we the people being manipulated by professional liars. It seems to me that the NZ parliament has every right to demand that footage of its debates not be manipulated to suggest things that are not true.
Interestingly, a recent opinion poll in the UK suggested that younger people are less worried about media distortion of public events and people. I suggest this is a mistake. They should be. They have the least political power, the least share of the national wealth. Allowing people who are mostly rich, overentitled middle aged white males to foist lies on them by distorting apparent photographic footage suggests that, at the very least, compulsory reading of _1984_, the history of the 1920s in Russia and history of the 1930s in Germany should be considered.
Pining for the fjords
So where can I get some footage from NZ? I have a sudden need to create some satire.
Belgian? Is he somewhere near Austria? Near the Harbour Bridge, and all...
I wonder if USA would allow a reporter or somebody to be extradited from here to NZ over this? It goes against the very grain that we use to stand for. But with us asking for other countries to send us those who have committed IP issues, would we hand stewart over if he continues to lampoon NZ?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
A person hears a lot of good things about New Zealand but also that it sways perhaps a little paternally authoritarian in being too politically correct and "protective". All debatable within the range of democratic practice but when the elected leaders put themselves above scorn that's a bit sinister.
More work for cartoonists and comedians? There's a radio show in the U.S. with skits by "Drunky McPukeShoes" which everyone understands is former Senate Majority Leader Tom DeLay. The MPs might be getting more than they asked for?
I wrote: "the order of footage was reversed". That means that different bits of filming were shown out of order, not that the film was reversed. I suggest you learn English a bit better before posting about English syntax in future.
Pining for the fjords
This is an excellent example of why extreme left (Australia, in modern times) or extreme right (Germany, in history) politics are very, very bad things.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
I am not silly enough to believe the BBC is a conspiracy, but I do know it is manipulated by its staff to support their own agendas. One example was the way that a Dimbleby appeared to be able to affect BBC coverage of the Bath bypass so that the interests of the families who were being affected by the traffic on the A4 (in the days of leaded petrol) got little hearing, simply because Dimbleby's view from his house would include the new road. If BBC staff were held to the same interest declaring standards as MPs, that couldn't have happened.
More recently, the BBC apparently did no background checks on a commissioned programme for Panorama in which the seller of, basically, tinfoil hats and fake radiation detection equipment was allowed to allege at length that radiation from 802.11 devices and cordless telephones was dangerous. On Channel 4, an equally untrustworthy programme was made claiming that global warming was a myth, again with no checks or balances. A recent opinion poll suggests that public confidence in the BBC has dropped.
Finally, on the evidential side, the fact is that the BBC did reverse the order of the footage, showing miners throwing stones followed by a police baton charge. Your attempt at exculpation is vacuous, which is why I think you must work for the BBC. It is admitted that the order of events was reversed, and this was therefore a lie. It is a matter of great public interest whether the police actively provoke violence. Years after a similar event in Wiltshire involving the police and travellers, there is still a committee in existence to deal with police/traveller relations, purely because a member of the aristocracy actually witnessed the events and testified in court. Flannel about the essential hopelessness of trying to establish cause and effect merely tries to obscure the fact that the BBC critically failed in its duty to speak truth unto nation.
The answer, of course, is that the BBC has to remember Douglas Adams' comment - that the BBC and the commercial channels are not in the same business. The job of commercial television is to deliver viewers to advertisers, and I hope it fails. The job of the BBC is to deliver content to licence payers. Its duty is to us, not even to the government. Most licence payers are of a generation that expects a degree of truth in broadcasting, and we have a right to expect it. The BBC needs to clean up its act, and ask the Government to change the rules by which it is expected to rely on outside suppliers with no tradition of public service (such as that pool of exploitative excrement Endemol.) And governments have the right to expect that footage of their own deliberations is not modified and selectively distorted to misrepresent what happens, whether it be by Fox News, the BBC, or some Ann Coulter lite with a video editor and the ability to post to YouTube. Rory Bremner sending up politicians is clearly satire. Modified footage of actual parliamentary sessions is misrepresentation. The line should be quite clear.
Pining for the fjords
Has no one considered the possibility that Parliament themselves are merely engaging in self-satire? That's the only way I can make sense of this...
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
You said, "And Americans don't have a problem is exaggerated self-importance?"
Are you implying that, if I say one thing is true, then therefore you assume I think all other things are false?
No one in N.Z. kills other people as part of U.S. government policy. I wouldn't say that some of those in power in the U.S. government have "exaggerated self-importance". I think it is more accurate to say they are extraordinarily arrogant to the point that their arrogance is crippling mental illness. See George W. Bush comedy and tragedy and Coups Arranged or Backed by the USA. Sadly, those in power in the U.S. government believe that it is okay kill for profit.
This is just another attempt to medicate the symptom (dissent) instead of addressing the disease (apathy, corruption, disillusionment) which is a MUCH bigger issue. I'll forgo the soap box but we as a world are heading for a Roman Empire type meltdown on a global scale if we don't start appreciating what we do have instead of whining about what we don't. The world will never be perfect but it's still pretty dang amazing.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
"NZ MPs Outlaw Satire of Parliament
Posted by kdawson on Sunday July 29, @04:45AM"
"New Zealand's Parliament has voted itself far-reaching powers to control satire and ridicule of MPs in Parliament"
No, they have voted to make it a crime to use footage of parliamentary debates for satire or ridicule. They have not outlawed satire, and they have not voted themselves far-reaching power to control or ridicule it (unless you say that the primary and vital component of parliamentary satire is specifically these broadcasts, in which case the powers would be far-reaching, but it's difficult to argue that they are). What you can still do is draw satirical cartoons and make whatever claims about them you want - what you can not do is broadcast a parliamentary video that has been manipulated and lip-synced to make the representative say "I like licking GWB's brown bunghole" or "I'm really just taxing the rich to buy myself a better looking wife".
A question for the Slashdotters: Who is acting most immoraly; a decision-making organ that affects a number of people and does not publish to these either word records or televised records of their debates, OR, a decision-making organ that affects a number of people and publishes word and visual records of their debates BUT makes it a crime to use these for ridicule and satire?
If you are concerned about liberty: How about the other things that are de facto illegal to discuss in media? So long as there are plenty of issues and angles that can't be described in media without serious repercussions, I fail to be concerned about yet another one. Wake me when there's a slanted and satirical discussion between genetics and behaviour.
Yes there's some truth there, but like NZ'ers it just encourages us to take the piss to a higher level. Don't underestimate public ridicule as a good "leveler", remeber Pauline Hanson was laughed out of politics first, and thrown in jail later. Little Johnny has told so many fibs that they (like the US Administration) are butt of all jokes, and the ridicule is not restricted to their own country (do a simple "bush" or "john howard" search on YouTube and then play spot the serious one).
Do you ever sit up and watch the parlimentry broadcasts, I do sometimes and it's as boring as dogshit - but a great "sleeping pill". We are very much like the US in that we have a bad case of ADD when it comes to politics, however I think our collective "bullshit detector" seems to work ok - except for this guy(NSFW). He once stood for election on a country party ticket and now has a radio show dedicated to inciting race riots amoungst teen gangs. Problem is, his is the "most popular talk show" in Sydney, so naturally all the pollies line up to get on his show, which in turn makes his the most popular show...., you can see where I'm going.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Your opinion seems to be based on the assumption that a politician is imbued with even a modicum of dignity. Mouthing lies for money pretty much proves they are totally lacking in the attribute.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
That sounds similar to law enforcement agencies in the US claiming that citizens videotaping uniformed cops making routine traffic stops in highly public areas is a violation of homeland defense security laws.
Perhaps they can't stand the competition.
Have gnu, will travel.
No, Aristocrats are the ones who fuck and suck and fist their wife's neck.
FC Closer
its funny how not apart and not a part are two totally different things :)
You're really some dumbass, aren't you?
The media are blowing this out of all proportion. That's fair and reasonable - it's their job. But as a political scientist and media analyst in New Zealand, I think it's important to note a few things here.
1. For one thing, this is not a law, it's a sessional order - the sort of thing parliaments enact all the time for all manner of arbitrary reasons. Breach of a sessional order constitutes `contempt of parliament' - the sort of thing for which you would typically get ejected from the galleries and perhaps prevented from returning for a while. The offence *does* carry more severe penalties for extreme cases, however there is no indication those would apply in this case (especially since the judiciary in NZ is genuinely and thoroughly independent of the legislature).
2. The order was passed by a *vast* majority of the parliament (without looking it up I believe six of 121 MPs voted against it) and is very much in line with regulations in other parliamentary democracies, including those in Australia and Great Britain. The order *does not* restrict satire, ridicule or denigration - it simply precludes the use of *parliamentary footage* from being used in such
3. The parliament, upon passing the order, acknowledged that the measures will be seen as unreasonable, and assured the public and media they would interpret the rules `liberally' and would review them if any major friction came up.
4. Most media in NZ (particularly TV3, but even the state broadcaster TVNZ; and all the radio networks except Radio New Zealand) are quite explicitly anti-parliament (not implying that they are anti-government partisans - just unjustifiably critical of parliamentarians in general). This is part of the `bah, humbug' discourse of New Zealand politics which is quite well documented here and elsewhere. Again - this is the media's job, to criticise elected representatives. However the balance has in the past couple of years moved away from criticising substantive policy content to various `personality wars' and other such trivia, which gives quite a poor image of what is actually a fairly well-behaved and civilised chamber by most international standards.
5. The new regulations *do* in fact liberalise reporting rules in parliament, in addition to making available a free high-quality video feed of all proceedings to anyone who wants it. The video feed is also much *less* strict in what it can sho - previously only the member with the `call', currently speaking, could be shown - this made it very hard to track who was speaking to whom and to get a feel of the overall debate. The new regulations allow for contextual coverage of other members or the house in general, as appropriate. This is actually a major improvement over the past.
6. The main thing for all those people who think the sky is falling to remember here is that neither the government nor the opposition stand to gain much from this regulation, but they DO stand to lose a great deal in terms of public confidence if it is too strictly enforced. New Zealand has a very strong tradition of satire which will continue unabated, and woe betide any politician who seeks to restrict that.
All that said, I think passing the sessional order was unwise - as I said, it gains parliament little and could potentially cost it very dearly in terms of public confidence. It plays into the hands of a significant but vocal minority of alarmist nutters in the New Zealand political-media economy (people like Lindsay Perigo and John Banks) who take every perceived imposition of government authority as an indication that Stalinism is just around the corner. This is very far from the case, but such beat-ups sell air time and column inches. But as other posters have noted - the New Zealand media has pledged to treat the order with the satire, ridicule and denigration it so richly deserves.
L
I'm not sure how to respond this law...
Oh wait- yes I do. With a satircal video of New Zealand's Parliament.
Power to the people, my Kiwi brothers.
barack to the future?
What the parent was trying to do is something rarely seen on slashdot: making fun of both sides of the aisle.
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
However, a free press is nonetheless less dangerous than a government that controls the press
A government that controls the press is almost without exception a government that doesn't want there to be any other voices. Religion? From Stalin to China to Iraq dictators don't like religion. Nor do they like commerce making a voice which is why facism (cooperation) or communism (expropriation) to silence them. The one voice is government, and you will hear and obey.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Cuz I'm pretty sure Merry and Pippin would not be pleased by this...
I was head of tech support for a small Australian ISP for years. There are strict privacy regulations covering what you can and cannot (mostly cannot) do with user data. There are no regulations requiring ISPs to restrict access to web sites. Nor is there any technology in place to enforce such a thing at a national scale.
Here's a good summary of what the laws actually say.
Websites hosted within Australia can be the target of a take down notice if they are rated X or RC (refused classification) by the OFLC (censors).
Websites hosted outside Australia can be rated by the OFLC as well. In this case, they cannot be the target of a take down notice because the ABA has no jurisdiction. Instead, the site is added to the lists provided by companies producing internet filtering software. Internet filtering software is installed by the user, and is not required by any part of the legislation.
From that page, here's a list of the actual responsibilities of ISPs:
The extent to which as an Australian ISP you are required to filter content? You have to tell your customers that content filtering software is available, and you have to sell such a program to your customers on request. (You can do that via a third-party; you don't have to stock the software yourself.)
The headline is utterly misleading. The parliament did NOT outlaw satire. Firstly, because it's not a law, it's a sessional arrangement (relating to how sessions of parliament are run) and secondly, because it ONLY relates to the usage of parliamentary footage, not satire in general.
There used to be NO footage at ALL of parliament - this is an improvement.
What's more (and what's worse) is the issue at hand is not satire of government, but the misuse of parliamentary footage to be deliberately misleading about what politicians said or did in parliament. One of the central requirements of democracy is that debates be fair and informed and allowing the media to mislead the public is quite contrary to that aim.
The politicians are not in the wrong here, its the media outlets who are more interested in selling copy than reporting the news that should be criticised.
And an 0x2e.
It's true that a free press _is_ dangerous.
The fact of the matter is that either the government controls the press or the press controls the government.
"He who has the power to destroy a thing controls that thing"
I bet that every major press corporation in any given 'democratic' (I prefer the term 'mediacratic') nation has some secret dirt filed away on every major political player in that nation ready to roll out and destroy those politicians (or their cronies) should push come to shove.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
New Zealanders should use their votes to oppose this. Let it be know that you will not vote for people who pass this sort of nonsense. At least in New Zealand your votes count for something. Here in the UK we don't have Proportional Representation and my vote (like hundreds of thousands of others) goes straight down the loo.
"but the threat of felony contempt is new." What? We don't even have a class of criminal offending in New Zealand called felony... I don't even know what the distinction in America is. Also, Parliament has already backed down on this, they changed the wording to include "misrepresentation for satire..."
Well the consitution of Australia does list New Zealand as one of the orginal states.
"Call us when the New age is old enough to drink" Beck
Not quite. The Australian Constitution lists New Zealand as one of the possible sources of colonies that could become states and then says "'Original States' shall mean such States as are parts of the Commonwealth at its establishment.". New Zealand wasn't part of the Commonwealth at its establishment.
At the time of the Constitutional Conventions in the late 19th century it did seem more likely that New Zealand would become a state than West Australia.
Over a month ago (26 June 2007), this decision was made.
On 6 July 2007, one of the 2 major politic parties decided to rethink the ban after media companies gave the NZ parliament the finger.
Over 3 weeks later, after talkback radio and online discussions have done to death, it gets posted to Slashdot.
Just to rub salt into the open wounds the nz government has decided to spend $4 million ($nz) on setting( $2 million a year to run )up a in house government TV station to broadcasts the debating floor excitement. This too will be edited to remove any unwanted humor/sarcasm/jokes/mp's sleeping in the house or picking there noses. expected viewing audience = 4. People who watch the tv test pattern = 430.
Of course this law will be widely ignored, except that its a handy tool for any politician to use should an opponent get too pesky and threaten his position.
I do not see why people actually get upset about this. How you ever seen dynamic democracy in
action? Taiwan does a great job of making sure that it is #1 all the time.
Taiwanese parliament discussion, round #3
Yawn. Giving another MP the finger, falling asleep, that is just for countries where being an MP means skipping PE at school. Lazy overpaid gits.
Parliament traditionally did not allow photos or filming. When they allowed that in, they said "you can film us under certain conditions, including conditions about the dignity of Parliament" (yeah right). However if anyone thinks that the fact that media cannot make satirical use film of parliamentarians misbehaving implies that satire is dead in NZ they are wrong. Facelift is on TV1 tonight, and undoubtedly will be repeated via your favourite p2p program in due course. http://www.gibson.co.nz/production/entry/facelift/ about
Dude.
If they do kill people, it would be part of N.Z. government policy anyway.
Sheesh.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
In New Zealand, you can order pizza from Hell.
As in, "Hell. Too good for some evil bastards." Click the link to see who is evil.
The term aristocracy refers to a form of government where power is held by a small number of individuals from an elite or from noble families. Only this elite is allowed to compete for power and to hold the most powerful positions in state. The transmission of power is often hereditary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy In regards to my post, Busch Sr, Jr, and Jeb Busch qualify as Aristocracy as far as I'm concerned, I live in Florida, and I only recently was freed from bondage under Jeb and put back into bondage with his close cousin Christ. Aristocracy also tend to hold most of the wealth in the country since they hold all of the power in the country. They are also closely allied with very wealthy tradesmen such as Bill Gates and Houses such as House Haliburton or House Ratheon. Alas if we only had House Atreides to set us free from the despotic rule of House Busch and his legions of Fundamentalist Sardukar Troopers.
My source is the New Zealand government: In 1988 there were 64,600,000 (64.6 million) sheep.
It's somewhat unlikely that someone who demonstrated a strong interest in New Zealand, and some knowledge of the country and the culture would be completely wrong, off by a factor of 10.
Stories aren't limited to national concerns and international news is featured prominently, something that never happens in the states.
While I am no fan of Americans news, I imagine that a large part of this is due to the fact that 'national' news for the American crowd covers over 300 million people while national news for NZ covers 4 million people. The result, unsurprisingly, is that a lazy ass national news programs in the US has a few thousand affiliate news stations to dreg up crappy national 'news' (OMG!!! PARIS IS IN JAIL!11!!!1!!) while NZ has only a handful (OMG!!11!! SOME DUDE FUCKED A SHEEP!!!!). I am not saying it is a happy state of affairs, but it isn't a terribly surprising one.
For me personally, you need to put a gun to my head before I will watch national American news. God gave us Google News for a reason... or maybe it is the other way around... whatever the case, with the Internet these days there is no excuse for watching such crap.
Should have said, "No one in N.Z. kills other people as part of government policy."