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
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!?
You do know why everyone in Australia calls each other "mate", don't you?
It's short for Inmate.
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
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.
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 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.
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 ;)
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.