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."
If anonymity is outlawed, only outlaws will have anonymity...
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.
The rest of the English-speaking world should start posting anonymous political comments in South Australian Web sites. Maybe 4Chan should get involved...
"I will immediately after the election move to repeal the law retrospectively."
Promises, promises. . .
-FL
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.
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 implies they care about universal enforcement of the law. They don't really care if someone whines about a traffic fine anonymously on the blog. No, they'll go after "particular" offenders, or they'll use it to punish dissidents they particularly dislike after already having them so they have something that can stick. That's how modern democracy works, after all--enough laws and you'll be able to nail someone on something eventually.
Obviously the Australia constitution guarantees nothing.
Pretty much.
Australian laws are largely created to criminalise anybody, anytime. You know the old joke, "I read my border entry form and didn't realise I had to be a criminal to qualify for entry to Australia!" - the reality is that everybody in Australia is a criminal, take your pick which laws you're breaking at any one time.
If you think you haven't committed any crimes today you'll have a retrospective law applied to you in the future. Never fear, nobody gets away!
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.
I think the right to be anonymous is more important than knowing who said what. You just know that the politicians put this law in place so that they could harass or politically destroy those who would speak against them. It's a "strategic *law* against public participation".
I've been thinking about this lately. Been watching too many dramas where a criminal wants to "face his accuser".
Saying something that the established power base does not want to be heard has consequences. Revealing one's identity can result in injury or death. This is why so many criminals never face justice - what witness wants to have a gang destroy their lives? What individual wants to be targeted by a main political party with threat of police action or secret retribution?
Anonymity is a fundamental part of freedom of speech. Without it there can be no true free speech.
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!
You seem to be forgetting the Great Australian Firewall that the Aussies are working on implementing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia
As soon as the government can shut down your Wordpress blog by blacklisting it, you'll either have to give up political speech entirely or opt for a non-anonymous blog.
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.
Innocent until proven guilty is important in court and before the government, but it is not such a good idea for private individuals. If you are a parent and rumor or your instinct tell that Person A is a child molester, don't leave your child alone with Person A until you are convinced that Person A is not a child molester (the same rule applies to other situations involving individuals, although the standard of proof may be less in most circumstances). However, people should not be locked up on the basis of rumor or somebody's instinct. They shouldn't be seriously investigated by the authorities on that basis, although a quick preliminary check might be called for (something along the lines of a quick background check to see if they have a criminal record).
There have been cases where police have pulled people over on "instinct" and found something serious that was later thrown out because they didn't have what the courts considered sufficient cause. On the other hand, people have been pulled over on suspicion and convicted of something minor that had little to do with why they pulled the person over in the first place. Both are wrong. If the cops pull somebody over because they were driving slowly through an area that has had problems with driveby shootings and all they find is a pipe with pot residue in it, they should let the person go. If on the other hand they find a fully loaded automatic weapon in a car with somebody who had previously been convicted of a gang related crime, well, that's a different story (and I would want further details before deciding what course of action the police should have followed).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Yeah, but an oil company exec is smart enough and rich enough to conceal his identity. You're never going to see a political ad that says "Brought to you by the Exxon Corporation." Instead it will say "Brought to you by Concerned Citizens for a Reasonable Environmental Policy" (or something similar). Then, only if you dig into it, will you find out that the latter "citizens' organization" is funded by a bunch of oil companies. It's much more difficult for an individual with no resources to form a front organization.
Laws like this one and the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision may well deprive the individual citizen of what little voice they already have in politics.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It doesn't matter who says what is being said. Ideas live and die on their own merits, regardless of who supports the ideas. Saying otherwise is an ad hominem fallacy.
And? If an online article has a thousand comments supporting one view, what of it? Do you really have such little faith in the general public (a small minority of which even read all the comments on an online news article) that you believe they're going to become confused and change their vote because Anonymous Coward 1, 2, and 3 all say they should?
Why don't we just publish everyone's votes after the next election? After all, people should be prepared to put their name to their opinion shouldn't they?
Protect freedom? I don't think so. It's just another example of Australian politicians deciding that they are better than the average joe, and have to protect the public from freedom by denying it to them. The internet filter is the best example. Why the fuck didn't our founders write a constitution!?
I know being a geek that I'm supposed to be all pro-electronic freedom and such, but I actually like some aspects of this. Certainly not all but some aspects in any case. I'm so tired of reading statements posted by anonymous people stating this person did this, and that person did that, and this one is the anti-christ, and that one is a pedophile, etc, etc, ad-nauseum. I suspect all of those 'bold' claims will disappear if people are forced to put their names behind their statements unless they have facts to back up their statements. The rhetoric is so thick now, I get disgusted just glancing at anything regarding politics on the net.
That said, I think whistle blowing is a critical right of free speech, and I don't see any protections for that in this legislation. If anything, it is worded so broadly that it will undoubtedly be abused by those in power, and no politician should be trusted to do the right thing.
Even the strongest grassroots organization in history (something like the AARP) can't begin to compete with corporations capable of dropping millions of $ on a single ad campaign--much less conglomerations of corporations capable of dropping hundreds of millions of $ to elect their candidate.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Both parties suck.
Come find me bitches!
What are you trying to do, bankrupt Slashdot?
Some quick calculations. $5000 AUS is about, er, 50 quid or somthing, um, so, by my estimations Slashdot will go offline in approx... er..
This is why having slashdot in the USA is superior to most other countries. People were complaining about EXPORT laws last week for sourceforge.... the USA is looking pretty good now.
This comment is illegal in South Australia.
The repeal of this law has been postponed until the uproar settles down and the government can quietly drop any plans to repeal.
I don't talk politics at work. I get enough pointless argument at work just doing the daily job; I have no desire or need to chum for more.
I don't use Facebook, MySpace, or any other online forum under my real name. Without packet capture, good luck tying me to those pseudonyms.
I'm not sure I even visibly espouse any particular political flavor under those 'nyms, other than generally being in favor of personal liberty over governmental convenience. I guess that just means that since I don't self-identify as one brand of tuna or another, the reader can label me however it pleases them. As if I care.
but get rid of anonymous voting, especially on referenda.
This is sufficiently borderline-retarded that I'm tempted to think it's just a troll, but you seem quite sincere. So let's pretend, for the sake of amusement, that you are.
Retarded. Epic retarded.
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.
Welcome to democracy, Grasshopper. The vote is not "Yes I will" or "No I won't". We all will or won't. So vote no, but if you lose, you get to help anyways. This is reality. No one gets an opt-out. Deal.
Besides, what's the difference between "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" and "If you vote for a big expenditure on a local ballot like a new bond, I want gather up a posse and teach you rough justice"?
Stereotypically, this would just degenerate into mob rule, the majority abusing or eliminating the minority. In a few cases, where the minority already has the whip hand, this degenerates into death squads and los desaparecidos.
But, as long as you don't have to get taxed for anything you don't personally approve of... I guess it's ok.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
If so, couldn't they have build this expiration date into the law itself?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Worse, you can tell they are lying when they are breathing.
Why should political speech be anonymous?
Because sometimes it can get you beat up or killed.
If anonymity is as needless as you claim, why do you have a secret ballot? Why not require everyone to broadcast who they voted for?
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.
You don't need laws criminalizing political speech to politically intimidate your opponents. Sometimes, merely letting one's name known is quite enough. And note that, while this is an extreme case, there are other, milder forms of intimidation - for example, how about getting fired for holding a particular political view, or shunned by your local society?
We absolutely need anonymous political speech for the exact same reasons why we need the secret ballot, for democracy to be anything but a sham.
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.
Lack of anonymous speech isn't really a problem by itself, it's the backlash that people often receive when they say something unpopular. If there were a way to guarantee safety, from both the government and other individuals, because of unpopular speech, anonymous speech probably wouldn't be necessary. Since that's highly unlikely any time soon, though, I can understand the requirement for anonymous political speech.
Actually I'd say it's an almost perfect example of why anonymous speech is almost harmless and is perfectly fine.
Hell on slashdot I can't even see it without changing my settings.
As an anonymous post it holds pretty much zero weight because it cites no sources and doesn't back up it's claims.
If I say "Bill gates has 6 toes" under the name "John Smith" on the other hand people would be less inclined to pay attention to the fact that I have nothing to back up what I'm saying because hey, it's not anonymous.
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.
So...
1)Politician passes hated law
2)People complain
3)Politician does 180 and says he will get law retracted after the elections
4)Politician gets re-elected
5)Profit?
~Syberz
There is a trade-off in speaking anonymously. On one hand, people can't lash out at you for your criticism. On the other hand, with no name behind the statement, its credibility has to be taken with an extra grain of salt. Anonymous speech is good for exposing a problem so others who can speak openly can deal with it- others have to verify the anonymous claims before anything is taken too seriously.
As you point out, it gets problematic when people forget the verify step.
My webcomic
They're also a good way to keep people from being forced to vote a certain way under threat of violence.
While I believe this to be completely improper and unethical, such a law would not stop me from saying what I want. It would actually provoke me to be more harsh and judgmental towards those that passed such a disgusting law. Is the Australian government next going to require protesters and demonstrators to all register before they participate in large groups?
This is exactly what happened with firearms in that country. First, they made the citizens register all the weapons, then they forced them to give the weapons up. Some of the liberal jackasses that told firearm owners to "get real" and to deal with "living in a modern society" did not realize that the government would find a way to come after them next. Well, let this be a lesson to you gun-hating nut jobs. When the government decides that they are tired of you exercising your rights, they will take them away.
If backlash is the problem, perhaps there another underlying problem. The society is too intolerant. Annonymity may let one hide from backlash but it's not solving the problem.
What is true is that speech without the need for responsibility leads to untempered opinons but gains little in freedom of thought. I would assert that the origin of a lot of intolerance is this very anonymity that allows aggressive demography and disrespectful behavior.
One needs to ask, who is the one applying the backlash. Is it the gov't itself? or just vigilantes? If it's the gov't then perhaps there is some utility in anonymity. But if it's vigilante's then we have a societal problem much deeper.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The BEST thing the government here ever did was get rid of those firearms.
We unlike some do not worship guns, and have a much lower death rate then the US.
Note that the SA AG Atkinson has already backed down and decided to retrospectively repeal the law -without a gun in sight. It seems we have a working democracy youn dont.
Your attempt to use this issue to try
and justify an rant against the sensible policies we have is null and void.
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.