Slashdot Mirror
South Australia Outlaws Anonymous Political Speech
Sabriel writes "If you're online in South Australia and want to comment about the upcoming state election, be prepared to hand over your real name and postcode first — because this month it becomes illegal to do so anonymously (even under a pseudonym). Media organizations must keep your details on file for six months and face 'fines of $5000 if they do not hand over this information to the Electoral Commissioner.' This abomination was passed with the support of both major parties (Labour and Liberal), and to quote its sponsor, Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, 'There is no impinging on freedom of speech, people are free to say what they wish as themselves, not as somebody else.' Apparently incapable of targeting a few impostors without resorting to 'nuke it from orbit' legislative tactics, Atkinson has forgotten that protecting anonymity is important to the democratic process; hopefully both major parties will get a reminder come the polls on March 20."
No critisism. Less freedom than the "suggestion box" at my office. Lame.
Living With a Nerd
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175
I'll be glad when Obama is President. Wait.......this is in Australia? Nevermind......
If anonymity is outlawed, only outlaws will have anonymity...
Both parties suck.
Come find me bitches!
The Soviet constitution guaranteed freedom of speech.
The American constitution guarantees freedom after speech.
Obviously the Australia constitution guarantees nothing.
I would have mixed emotions about this. On the one hand, there's Thomas Payne, who would have hanged had the British known who was posting those flyers. Anonymity is part of free speech.
OTOH, if you hear something good about a candidate, it's good to know that it was an oil company executive or an RIAA goon who who is so enthusiastic about that particular politician.
Free Martian Whores!
Part of the problem here is that when one is in power it is easy to forget why anonymity is important. The main worry causing anonymous speech is threat of retaliation. When one is a powerful politician, one doesn't need to worry about that as much. Moreover, since every political act politicians do is public, they have trouble understanding more general motivations behind anonymous speech. Thus, this behavior is understandable although very bad. I'm also inclined to wonder if this will apply to bloggers and people who comment on blog threads.
Address the message, not the messenger.
Anonymity separates the message from the messenger.
You'll never catch me, you bastards!
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
The rest of the English-speaking world should start posting anonymous political comments in South Australian Web sites. Maybe 4Chan should get involved...
Attorney-General Michael Atkinson vows to repeal election internet censorship law amid reader furore
Slashdot's a little behind today, it seems.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Ah yes, the every hopeful optimism of democracy. They politicians we voted for screw us, so lets vote for new politicians!
When will people finally realize that "the people" simply don't have to be listened to? Even if every single incumbent were to be voted out, the new batch would still benefit from that law. Same story, different faces. No government worker is going to repeal a law that benefits them so much.
John Quiggin, a long-time blogger and Research Fellow in Economics and Political Science at the University of Queensland, doubted whether the laws were enforceable. "They can pass as draconian law as they like, but without the capacity to impose their own internet censorship it's going to be a dead lemon," he said. "Anyone who wants to can set up an anonymous blog. "It will be totally ineffectual with someone who sets up a Wordpress blog post in the US under a false name and publish whatever they want."
Thomas Paine would not approve.
[Insert pithy quote here]
So people without a postal code can't comment? I thought only the USA did that.
Hitler was a proud Australian ... just like Basement Dad.
why are you even taking notice of what they say, there are some laws that can't be taken away, even by passing a dozen of these bills through the houses of law around the world, just ignore them, post anonymous political commentry, make sure you don't keep logs and use 7 proxies. then when it comes to polling day, throw them out in favour of the others, I've been thinking about this and some people say that it's not enough to throw the others out and get the new gang in, because the new is as bad as the old, but there is a big difference in the way that we should do it. instead of throwing them out for "unknown" number of possible reasons, tell them, explicitly, you were thrown out, because of enacting laws that we didnt like, we changed you like a pair of socks. new government, be warned, you're next if you fall out of line, yeah sure, the new guys are as bad as the old guys, but self preservation might actually make them listen, you're going to get thrown out, if you don't do what we say, we don't care who replaces you, as long as you're replaced. your message will get across someday, but in the meantime, do what you want, ignore what you want, post what you want, feel what you want
I'm not an Australian, but as a fellow citizen of the Western world, I'm putting out a call to all Australians to do the right thing, and vote all of these fools out of power. Parties are irrelevant. Get some people in there who love democracy, who crave freedom, who protect privacy, and who promote free expression.
Australians, please take charge. Be the leaders that the Western world so badly needs. Show us that democracy can work, especially in the face of those who strive so hard to crush it.
Be to the Western world what Poland and Hungary were to the Eastern Bloc nations twenty years ago.
Ok, just finished reading TFA and in TFA they say that this law is set to expire right after the elections are over. That's such a blatant attempt to censor for specific electoral ends it isn't funny. If there were a genuine motivation here they'd have implemented it indefinitely. This doesn't seem that different than when some countries take over or close their media right before an election. Not cool.
Obviously they've been stung into action by those pesky Pommies' headlong rush into totalitarianism, and as usual are pulling out all the stops to get one over on their old rival...
since this is the country that first made the secret ballot mainstream.
I have a better idea for reforming Western politics: allow anonymous speech, but get rid of anonymous voting, especially on referenda.
If you vote for a big expenditure on a local ballot like a new bond, I want the government to personally assess you a new tax so you can put your money where your mouth is if I decide to vote "no" on it.
The fact of the matter is that secret ballots don't protect people from reprisal where it counts. If an employer wants to fire you for your views, they'll find out soon enough based on conversations at work. Employers scummy enough to scan through public voting records are also going to do the same for Facebook, etc. so there is no point in even wasting one's breath trying to preemptively stop them.
Not really a shocker from a Western Nation with some of the most outrageous censorship laws as applied to movies and video games. That sort of thing just grows...ThinkSpeak
hopefully both major parties will get a reminder come the polls on March 20.
That's some heavy stuff you're smoking there, you sure it's legal?
The political system of the west is built to let blunders of this kind disappear. Because you can not vote on issues, only on parties. And if party X has 90% of your opinion, you're going to vote for it rather than party Y which only has 60% of your opinions.
Until something like that Pirate Parties "liquid democracy" becomes a reality, that's the way it is and the major parties can pretty much fuck you in the ass as long as they make sure you don't have any realistic alternatives to vote for instead.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
That one benefit to allowing the government to track how people vote on referenda and then hold them personally accountable would be that people would actually wake the hell out on how much government costs. The first time the working class and lower middle class get pounded back into the stone age financially for voting for expensive new programs would be the last time they'd automatically vote themselves largesse from the treasury!
Dunno, tried the White Pages, couldn't find any. Couldn't be stuffed looking further.
Australia... change your govern NOW!.
Hitler was a proud Australian ... just like Basement Dad.
I think Basement Dad is a pretty cool guy, eh comes from the land of Hitler and doesn't afraid of anything.
What will my modern-day South African spiritual counterparts do?
--Publius
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."
Of course, Scalia and Thomas disagreed.
we need to tow australia up to the northern hemisphere, give it someone to talk to and play with. it's kind of getting cabin fever down there in the nothingness and kind of losing its mind. all it has to talk to is new zealand, and we all know what that's worth
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If you can't have an anonymous opinion, why not go all the way and publish people's names and how they voted?
That government has been on quite the moral tear lately--banning videogames, arresting people for looking at naked Simpsons characters, etc. I always thought the U.S. was supposed to be the puritanical country in the English-speaking world, but lately it seems like the Australia and the UK are making America look open-minded and progressive by comparison.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Seems like it would be easy enough to get around this: set up a site for discussing for elections, and have it hosted outside South Australia. People can post as anonymously or pseudonymously as they like, and it's well outside the reach of the authorities. What an utterly useless law.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
I don't care if its the ACLU, RIAA, Greenpeace, NRA, or George Clooney.
People accept views in line with their own usually without regard to source. Far too many put any effort in determining if quotes are from the actual source let alone what some of the those groups with fancy names really represent.
I want all the speech we can get, the day where we outlaw it because of some petty concerns, and yours are petty, is the day we start down the path of excluding groups by voluntary organization which in turn because those of involuntary association.
Sorry, either all or nothing and all is the only choice. Look at any politician who comes out against a particular type of speech and you will find an incumbent fearful of losing his power over others.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has just vowed to repeal this law.
This is no infringement on free speech. Yes, anonymity may be useful if you're blowing the whistle on wrong-doing by the powerful, but in normal political debate anonymity is a bad thing. When you see a thousand comments with a thousand different names all supporting the same view, how do you know whether it's a widely held view or one loon with nine hundred and ninety nine sock puppets? How do you know whether it's astroturf by a foreign corporation or foreign government meddling in your affairs?
You don't.
This law doesn't stop anyone expressing any political opinion they like. All it does is require that they are prepared to put their name to it.
This isn't denying freedom: it's protecting freedom by preventing manipulation.
(And no, I'm not going to 'post anonymously')
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Next up: no more anonymous voting. As Attorney-General Michael Atkinson might say:
What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
True, all elections are rigged, no matter what you do, a politician always wins.
How is this different from laws we have in the US where we require people in public protests to be "unmasked"? Example: The KKK used to do their marches in the full hoods and robes. states started passing laws requiring their faces to be revealed during their marches in order to "shame them" into not doing it. Those laws were ruled constitutional because their right to speak is impinged in any way shape or form.
I'm failing to see how this is different. A right to speak is not the same as a right to speak anonymously.
This law is problematic even beyond the restriction to anonymous speech. By setting specific record keeping requirements to make speech not be considered anonymous, they can label any kind of casual speech as anonymous. Then they can supress it.
http://xkcd.com/756//
or not ... people are stupid
EOF.
The U.S. has solved this problem by removing the significance of honesty from party politics.
Understanding the relationship between political parties, and political rhetoric
in the U.S. What is a Political Party?
I_Voter
My very amateur Web Site:
Citizen's Political Power in the U.S.
I'm Australian, and I don't know who is running for the South Australian parliament. Ergo, they must be a bunch of useless bastards. Feel free to moderate me (+1, Rebel.)
Here come the new laws
Same as the old laws
-The Who
Free Martian Whores!
We should organize a web community through which Aussies tell us foreigners what they want us to post, and we go post it on their behalf. This is insane.
I heart anarcho-capitalism.
You may have meant that as a joke, but I'm afraid this is a lot more insightful than it is funny, sadly.
For a small fee I would publish any political content from the US concerning Australia under my own name. So much for their laws!
I don't think there are any really democratic countries left in the world. There might be some truly democratic villages but just about every example of what we call a democracy from my local city council to every country that declares themselves to be a bastion of democracy are not really democracies. They are republics. Citizens are occasionally polled on some issues but most legislation is passed by a small group of representatives who, once they are elected, don't bother thinking about the citizens they represent until it's time to make a new set of promises to get themselves elected again.
I'm commenting from Canada where our local minority national Government is using every legal technicality to stay in power including suspending the open house so they can't face a loss of confidence vote. Somehow, though, they still manage to pass legislation in committee.
I think the thing they didn't consider is that if people can't speak out anonymously against a politician, then this limits the acts they can attempt anonymously.
When the only anonymous message they can get through to people is violent, expect violence from the opposition.
If anonymity is outlawed, only outlaws will have anonymity.
I'm posting anonymously for good reason - Attorney-General Michael Atkinson is known to track down people who post comments online and intimidate them with legal threats.
The current government headed by Premier Mike Rann is the most dangerous and regressive government this state has seen since it was founded in 1836. It smells rotten.
This government has passed laws that remove the presumption of innocence, restrict freedom of association and the right to a fair trial. They have gaoled prisoners due for release indefinitely, passed laws that allow the government to declare an organisation outlawed without that organisation being able to see the evidence against it. Members of the organisation can have control orders placed upon them where they face gaol for associating with other members or visiting certain places, and they are not allowed to see the evidence against them. They have passed laws allowing them to seize your assets unless you can prove you bought them legit, to confiscate and sell your car if you're a "hoon" driver.
It doesn't stop there though: they have interfered with the judiciary and regularly bully and intimidate the media, threatening to "blackban" reporters who dare to cross them. One reporter who did cross them was forced to leave the state to work for another newspaper because they couldn't do anything after being blackbanned. Another newspaper reporter was assaulted by one of the premier's army of "media minders" when he tried to ask the premier a question and then had the police called on him. Government media minders regularly phone around to reporters demanding to know where they receive their tips and to quash stories. A small army of "media monitors" constantly listen to radio stations and monitor internet forums for negative publicity and then arrange for ministers to call in to radio stations immediately and astroturf on forums.
The Rann government blatantly spends exhorbitant amounts of public money on party political advertising under the guise of "informing the public". It is in bed with developers, has stripped injured workers of their benefits and has mismanaged every public works project it has overseen with long delays and huge cost overruns. The state continues to suffer from water restrictions after seven years since they were first introduced by this government. They continue to oppose the introduction of an independent commission against corruption despite pledging transparent and accountable governance when first running for election in 2002, and Michael Atkinson has been front and centre as Attorney-General the whole time. The man is a fool and an embarrassment to the people of this state. You can find examples of correspondence with people online.
No previous government has ever appointed non-elected people to cabinet, but Rann has. I'm just scratching the tip of the iceberg here as well...
You do know why everyone in Australia calls each other "mate", don't you?
It's short for Inmate.
This comment is illegal in South Australia.
Ok, so you going to prosecute the anonymous commenter? How!?
Few anonymous proxies and you'll never know who they are. To implement this you need to lock everything down so much no one will support you.
...parent post needs to be modded insightful and informative more than funny.
Think about it for a minute...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The most vexing part of this affair to me is that Australia is usually accounted as part of the "Western" world. You know, that part of the world where people have freedom of speech. Now how can you have freedom of speech if you don't have freedom of anonymous speech? Australia is really "ruining the neighborhood" and "letting the side down" on this.
Now what was that again about China trampling on free speech on the Internet?
Oh yes ... still have a proposal to combat bush-fires in Australia that's been unfairly sat upon I feel. Since about 50% of all bush-fires are reported (by the Australian authorities) to be lit on purpose I propose to ban the sale of matches in Australia to any Australian over the age of 5.
Speak up, man!
O, and we know where you live. What a wonderful wife you got. And such lovely kids! It would be ashamed if...
But I digress. What was it you wanted to say again?
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
.....suggest to them that they stop the anonymous voting on electionday?
I'll say what I said on Reddit...
Consider the source people: the article is hosted by News Corp in Australia, referring to an attack on its paper in South Australia, and is pimping the anti-corruption lobby it started as a source of outrage. "The Right to Know Coalition, made up of Australia's major media outlets including News Limited, publisher of The Advertiser and parent company of news.com.au, has called the new laws "draconian"." The same thing is done by having the Wall Street Journal or Times of London report something, and have Fox News run with it as a lead.
And based on what the AC added earlier, they're crowing about their victory too.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/victory-atkinson-loosens-gag/story-e6frea6u-1225826104175
Life is irony, and nothing ever goes as planned.
After all, isn't voting a form of anonymous political free speech?
In protest, I plan on moving to South Australia and changing my name to "Anonymous". No surname, though I am considering "Coward" as an option. I will have an Anonymous Political Commentary blog that sprouts ridiculous crap on an 'Anne Coulter' level.
They are the most racist, f***ed up country around these days. Not trying to be a troll but they stab and burn you to death if you're the wrong skin color. Google Australia + Racism for more.
In South Australia I was born
Heave away. Haul away!
South Australia round Cape Horn
We're banned in South Australia
Haul away you rolling king
Heave away! Haul away!
But never will you hear me sing -
We're banned in South Australia
In recent years European countries have more or less duplicated the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping. Sweden's FRA law for example. This suggests a trend to levelize security-related laws globally. I sure hope that this action by South Australia is not a harbinger of similar things to come in all developed countries.
Another trend seems to be to negotiate such international cooperation in secret. The ATCA talks for example. Put the trends together and the future of personal freedom seems to be in great jeopardy.
If we want to avoid stupid laws written by uninformed politicians, we need to preemptively provide solutions to cyber-related problems before traditional politicians get involved. We need a body of cyberlaw and cyberlaw enforcement independent of any country or government.
Does any such cyberlaw movement already exist?
The right to free speech is not the right to anonymous speech. The proverbial soapbox was never anonymous. Why should political speech be anonymous? I can see how it might make some folks happy, but I don't see why it has to be right. Just let me vote secretly.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
WTF?
...they will do something about the equally noxious practice of anonymous voting. You know, the thing the Americans call the Australian ballot?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Time for paper, pen, and stapler.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
want us to be responsible for what we say about them, then they should be held accountable for the lies they tell us, like " I won't raise taxes " or " I did not have improper sexual relations ... "
Not always, in some cases an animal has won, e.g. Whangamomona in New Zealand elected a billy goat (1999) and later a poodle (2003) for "president" of their breakaway republic.
The reasoning is to stop identity fraud, so why outlaw anonymous commenting?
Even if that is the intent, are Australians really that easily swayed by comments on a blog?
But the fact that the law lapses at 6PM on polling day suggests that isn't really the intent of the law. Might as well pass something that says, "You are not allowed to say bad stuff about me until I'm elected again."
If you are afraid to speak when you can be identified, then your speech isn't free.
It saddens me to see Australia pass such legislation. An idea is an idea regardless of name and postal code, some of those ideas are true honest sentiments that might contradict public perception; and thus either open eyes, be repulsive but true, and outright offense yet true still. Some times, the best way to change the world, is to get your idea out there, and while some might wish to hold you accountable, the time they waste searching for you your concept is sinking in to the rest of the people. On the other hand, if they immediately catch you, they can bash you on the media effectively diverting the public from the issue you might have raised.
Whistleblowers tend to come out in times like these. It's my philosophy that the truth only manifests in extreme situations. And no matter how much we might stomach the ignoble practices of one potential politician, the moment they stand to get elected into a seat of power is such an extreme that often compels an objector to speaking out. Sometimes these issues to be made known are offensive in nature, or of great concern... yet real enough warranting anonymity of the whistleblower not only from the accused but from public backlash.
Anonymity veils a persons inhibitions and permits more honest dialogue. Sometimes we dislike what we hear from anonymity, and challenge the person such as 'Oh, hiding behind a computer screen, I'd kick your ass you say that to my face' is really just... 'I can't convince you of irrational beliefs so I'll threaten pain for you to object to them, and if you rescind or silence, then morons around me will applaud me as if I'm correct'.
Requiring a name and postal code is attempting to achieve accountability, which is a detriment to free speech. With accountability comes liability, should your free speech anger the wrong person. With liability, there is no free speech. It should suffice alone, that the message be known to have originated within the jurisdiction of the topic. With the world being so small due to the Internet, perhaps originating IP address is to restricted for Australian political issues, perhaps an Australian is in Belgium when he rightfully voices his opinion. But, no politician might object to praise from any source, perhaps even from his enemy. International praise is coveted I assume, so if I compliment Vladimir Putin as an American, I think it's safe to assume he might accept the compliment, the International approval, the Global approval, even though I'm not a Russian constituent. If willing to accept praise, then be prepared to hear criticism as well; picking and choosing in this regard is simply foolish for every criticism simply provides the conditions for future praise.
I think Australia would do well to undo this law.
I heard it was Australian.
anonymous political speech outlaws you!
Several of the US founding fathers wrote the federalist papers anonymously. They would be appalled by this law. Unfortunately I could still see something like this happening here because few people know anything about history anymore.
Any freedom in owning your own car is illusory. The state can seize your vehicle any old time for any of a number of reasons. In many places the police can actually enter your property, examine the tags on your vehicle even in your back yard, find that they are out of date, then have the tow company come and tow it out of your yard. In most places they're not permitted to cross a fence with a locked gate to do this, but I wouldn't bet on it being all places. They can also search your vehicle on suspicion, perhaps using ye olde "secret K-9 signal" trick to get a dog to "alert" on your vehicle to provide probable cause for a drug search. And since the fifth amendment has recently been effectively eliminated, they can then arrest you and seize your car for anything illegal they might find, however victimless the "crime" involved might be.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What's the difference? I expect the IRS or state revenue agency to send you a tax bill if you pledge to support a bill that meets a voter quorum at referendum, just like a charity's lawyer can send you a bill for donations you formally pledge.
If the body politic imposes a duty on you, you can legitimately complain about the costs. If you raise your hand and say, "I'll support that $50M new budget increase for local schools," guess what buddy? If a majority of voters agree, then you should get a tax bill assessed to you. Why should you be able to thumb through my wallet when decide how much of my money you're going to pledge on something like this?
Or perhaps we can just split the difference by passing a constitutional amendment that requires Congress to not exempt certain classes of citizens from paying taxes. How about a minimum 5% income tax that doesn't get refunded so that no citizen can demand anything of the state without putting some of their own hard-earned money into it?
...and I apologize to the world. The problem is that, while SA is a wonderful place to live etc, the political gene pool is way too small and its too easy for some fairly marginal individuals to rise to positions of power. I didn't vote for these jokers BTW - but the opposition is even worse. The Greens are the only (reasonably) sane option.
I considered the source when I submitted the article. The nature of the reporting source doesn't make it any less a terrible law.
And as I found out after submission, the actual law (PDF, page 89, section 116) is worse: you're supposed to hand over your address, not just your postcode; media organisations are "merely" required to publish the postcode but still must hand over your full details if the commissioner wants it.
As for the "victory" - I don't see much of one. The AG is "promising" to repeal the law "after" the election - but of course if we vote him back in we're even bigger fools....
SA Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has been the driving force behind moves to ban certain computer games from Australia for a long time. This dude is just bad news.
There is an organisation called Gamers for Croydon, who are locked in a feud with him him and his policies.
gamers4croydon, have a political candidate who will be standing against Atkinson for the seat of Croydon (in Adelaide) next election.
If your interested in the politics of games, checkout their website at http://www.gamers4croydon.org/
They have a steam group also ;)
cf: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/03/2808495.htm "South Australia's Attorney-General Michael Atkinson admits he misjudged public opinion on the state's attempt to curb political comment on the internet. Mr Atkinson says he will repeal a law which would have meant that anyone posting comment or blogs during an election period would have had to give their real name and postcode."
...retrospectively.
And the law's sponsor, everybody's least favorite attorney general, Michael Atkinson, has stated that the law won't be enforced.
He's right about that at least.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
And apparently he has already backed down.
But this law should never have been passed in the first place.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
I am born and bred Australian though now living in the states, tbh I am thinking of dropping my citizenship after hearing this, Australia is sounding more and more Communistic
Since when is Australia in the West?
1 January 1901.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Like many stupid laws, it will simply be ignored by the Australian populous.
I'd like to say that this is a good thing as it highlights the incompetence in our representatives but the sad truth is we already know this and no one cares.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I'm not an Australian, but as a fellow citizen of the Western world, I'm putting out a call to all Australians to do the right thing, and vote all of these fools out of power.
There is a grassroots organization trying hard to oppose this guy, hes the same guy opposed to violent video games.
They have a nice website at gamers4croydon.org
This raises a good point, in Australia our electoral system revolves around the secret ballot, I have to get my name crossed off the electoral role but I make my vote in private on a form with no personally identifiable markings. Realistically this is anonymous political speech which is now against the law in SA.
But kudos to Mr Atkinson, you're giving Gamers 4 Croydon more ammunition to use against you (and I don't think they care about being anonymous).
The rest of Australia has a saying about SA which I'm going to modify slightly, "Welcome to South Australia, set your watch forward 1 hour and back 26 years".
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Gamers 4 Croydon
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Nothing has happened, it's doubtful now anything will happen. Rudd has too much to lose at this point, after all elections are this year (Australian politicians have 3 year terms). This has been stuck in parliament for 3 years, it's not going to take much to kill before the next election.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Oh please! Hope and change, right? Like the Americans, they will vote for the biggest promise they hear.. about anything, taxes, jobs, you name it. Besides, most people are probably for this. Real freedom lovers do not comprise a majority of the general public. Quite the contrary, the public is very authoritarian.
Announced today, 3rd Feb, this is to be overturned.
The Sth Australian Attorney General descibed it as a "humiliating" turnaround. The outcry was too powerful. Good on ya Sth Aussie citizens!
You see in Australia we have plenty of dumb shit arsehole politicians who are nothing other than pathological liars on scummy power trips. Atkinson the attorney general is another case in point. The idiot premier Rann is the cretin behind this too... "We only want people to say NICE (and presumably fake) things about us. (and if they don't we will find them and send the police around to beat them up and charge them with sedition). While some people may think that is a joke, in Australia our last prime minister "John Howard" (and all his party stooges) was an arsehole who used the cops to heavy people. Image management with a caved in head.
.
Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.
I don't how people came to believe in this superstition: That anonymity is a basic, human right of fundamental importance to democracy. You have a right to cast your vote secretly, but that is about all, and that is all that is needed.
There are many good reasons why all political activity should be above board. Otherwise, how can we guard our society against things like powerful money interests posing as the views of "concerned citizens"? Or how about this one: A hostile, foreign nation spreading propaganda?
Apart from that, freedom of speech means that you have the right to the protection of the law, when you express your opinions. If you wan't anonymity, it must be because you don't believe that you are protected by that guarantee.
1. Anonymity is your transparency, in the good old days it kept you from getting killed for your vote.
2. Election fraud is always a broken chain of custody.
Three things will happen:
1. People will post anyway claiming to be South Australians or perhaps even claiming not to be, on other jurisdictions' forums primarily - so
the jurisdiction's authority will be extincted or at least very limited; Anonymity is respected at least in part because it's better than forms of unverifiable credential claim or impersonation that are inevitable if it isn't.
2. Some people, sincerely or not, will claim not to have commented at all because they could not be associated with the comment due to work pressure or family ties (for instance, commenting on gay rights issues when no one knows you're gay, or commenting on abuses in the corporate world which may be construed as describing your own company, or a profession, or other whistle-blowing that cannot be easily dissociated from oneself). Whatever the truth of these claims, there will be allegations that many legitimate comments could not be heard.
3. The law will change either due to 1, 2, or a court ruling based on them. Or profound political backlash.
If nothing else this highlights that there *is* an assumed right to remain anonymous analogous to the secret ballot, and that few jurisdictions have such rules, and they are always very controversial.
Attempting to "out" all political comment is wrong and can be proven wrong by human rights treaties like the UDHR and ICCPR which Australia has signed. Courts will not want to effectively mandate that any comment becomes non-anonymous the second someone claims it caused some controversy. Such a ruling would expose all the dissidents to all of the oppressive regimes in the world.
It's time to fire this Attorney-General and make sure he never holds any public office ever again.
Get to work, folks! Anonymously, of course. Did I hear somewhere that this guy is a pedophile? ;)