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 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".
Censorship is the road to fascism.
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
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
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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