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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.