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."
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!
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.
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.
When everyone is a criminal, crime is commonplace.
Stop working and go steal stuff. What do you have to lose?
N.B. This is not legal advice.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
In the US, you're fucked. In pretty much all European countries, large parties grow and shrink even though they rarely fall completely. For example, here in Norway in 2001 Ap acted like an ass and went from 35% to 24% in the election. In 2005 Høyre lost 7.1% and FrP gained 7.5%, shifting which was the biggest right wing party.
It may not shift the overall balance, but US politics would be way different if they had to fear the "New democrats" or "New republicans" taking their seats, not just the antichrist on the other side. Australia, seems to have some fucked up variation of the same, according to this page the Greens got 7.79% of the votes and zero seats. That is defective democracy by design.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Well, the same is true in the US. As a general rule, it is not possible to go about your day without breaking some laws, usually ones that are not enforced via a nod and a wink. Unless of course some DA wants to get you, in which case they magically start being valid laws. Everyone in the US lives under the constant threat of immediate arrest and crippling charges if someone really wants to.
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.
It's only impossible because voters are stupid and gullible. It certainly is possible for non-party candidates to get elected, and it does happen once in a blue moon. For instance, 10-15 years ago, Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnosota, even though he was an independent. It was a complete surprise for the Dems and the Reps.
However, he didn't get re-elected; he spoke his mind too much and offended voters, such as by saying that religion is for weak-minded fools; not that I disagree, but voters are so simple-minded that one little thing will make them not vote for you. Somehow, they think that whoever they vote for should agree with them in every way and never say anything "offensive", so we wind up with politicians who are liars and only say things that will help them get elected, not things they truly believe. So after one term of Jesse, they went right back to the corrupt Dems and Reps they tried to get away from before.
Independent and 3rd-party candidates run all the time for elections at most levels. It's rare they get elected. People complain about the two main parties, but they never want to vote for anyone else: it would be "throwing their vote away" or somesuch.
Honestly, I'm not sure how you can have a non-corrupt government at all. I don't think it's possible. It does seem that unelected governments (like in China) are far more effective than elected ones, although they don't always do the right thing.
Here's a question for you:
If democracy works so well, why is it devolving into this same sort of scenario everywhere we look?
If democracy works so well, why are we now in the position of having to vote the bastards out? how did they get voted in to start with??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?