Slashdot Mirror
Aussie Public Servant Criticises Gov't On Twitter, Gets Sacked
An anonymous reader writes "An Australian public servant who criticised the government on Twitter has been sacked even though she did not reveal her name or her job to her readers. Federal Judge Warwick Neville told her Australians had no 'unfettered implied right (or freedom) of political expression.' Unlike Americans, Australians have only limited rights to Free Speech. The new ruling makes means public servants cannot criticize the government on social media, even privately and in their own time."
Free speech and beard
Both must be feared
The will of the few
Owns what you do
Burma Shave
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
A Dingo ate my freedom!
Well, good luck finding any new employees to work for the government ever then. After hearing this, nobody will bother to apply.
You got Prism'd!
You might want to learn about "obscenity".
Well, in the US, if an officer in the military criticizes the administration, they can be fired or even charged under the UCMJ. So we're not that far off from the Aussies...
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
"Unlike Americans, Australians have only limited rights to Free Speech."
s/Un//
As recent events have pointed it out.
Free speech that can be arbitrarily oppressed by coercive authority is not free speech -- that's what you call a scam.
In some kangaroo court?
The case is linked to one of the government's most prolific official tweeters, Immigration Department spokesman Sandi Logan, who heads the communications team in which Ms Banerji worked.
There is a danger when you work for a boss who's angry at the world because his parents gave him a girl's name.
I am not a crackpot.
I have watched Australian Cop Shows and they just search cars, dig through pockets, and seize people's cars without the slightest regard to concepts such as probable cause, privacy rights, etc. Australia looks like an amazing country but legally it is a tin pot dictatorship. I think the only thing keeping it from being much worse is that the politicians weren't monsters. But if they were to elect some real monsters there is little protecting the people from them.
Seriously, it seems like every Anglo country is going down the path to authoritarianism.
He was legally able to criticize the administration, but doing so was bad form and he technically resigned his position and retired Just look at some of the statements Colin Powell made. Compare American laws with Australia's:
"Private use relates to the use of social media by ATO employees for private, non-work or job-related purposes in their own time using their own resources as private citizens, or using ATO IT facilities during work hours. This may include accessing and using your private Twitter account.
Must uphold the APS Values and Code of Conduct even when posting material anonymously, or using an ‘alias’ or pseudonym, and are to keep in mind that even if they do not identify themselves online as an ATO employee, they could still be recognised."
... is that people might actually use it
just for the "by the way file" there are slander and libel laws in most "free" countries - so no, you aren't free to say whatever pops into your head, but you are supposed to be "free within the law" to express yourself
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
I would just like to point out that an Aussie public servant critical of this ruling would not be able to post on slashdot without risk of being fired.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
more anonymously, like from a public wifi spot on a twitter account that is not tied to her real identity, there has to be a way of achieving true anonymity online for certain things like criticizing the govt and whistle blowing
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
In soviet Australia government protects you from your freedom.
in the USA. It's not right for citizens to criticize elected politicians. Nothing brings greater shame to your family name than saying unkind things about your leaders.
Why are politicians in America criticized for what they do? I'll tell you why! The people that are elected are inherently more intelligent than the common folk that they lord over, and the little people are simply incapable of understanding the complexities and nuances of proper politics. The stupid plebs need us to make rules and laws for them because without our guidance, they would destroy themselves. They are simple beasts that lack the intellectual capacity to function the way we do, so we herd them around and tell them what to eat, drink, think, and do. Also, we like to maintain the status quo. It wouldn't be right to treat them as though they were human.
The great myth of the last couple centuries that we liked to spread was that blacks and other minorities were inferior. The truth is that we think ALL of you are inferior, and you guys are just easier to control when you are fighting amongst each other. And have you noticed our nearly nonexistent attempts to prevent you from engaging in your vices? We like it when you do things that are blackmail-worthy.
Hail Stanley, full of grace.
Our Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,
Barack.
Holy Stanley, Mother of Obama,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.
Who needs freedom of speech when you are kept "safe" from perverts and terrorists. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along.
We'll see if this actually stands up in the High Court.
In practice, this is unworkable - how can someone be sacked for holding a political view that does not impact the exercise of their duties? that screams discrimination, it screams an unworkable scenario for the exercise of government. It stinks - and the governments policy on refugees stinks as well, it's cruel and inhumane and repugnant to right minded people, it's unaustralian, it brings shame to this country, and it's architects ought to be ashamed..
Now fire me if you dare.
Sarcasm. Just turn the negatives into positives and say everything with a smug expression.
Are you seriously comparing a civil employee to a military officer?
If you're an officer, you're not criticizing "the administration", you're criticizing your commanders. Most people in the military understand why they shouldn't even consider getting involved in politics...if you need to understand why military shouldn't be involved in politics, I cannot help you. A history book can, however.
Please help metamoderate.
'Judge Neville found Australians had no ''unfettered implied right (or freedom) of political expression''.'
Well they certainly don't now that he's made his 'judgment'.
Who decided that 'Australians had no "unfettered implied right (or freedom) of political expression'? Certainly not the Australian people.
"The denial of free speech is the first act of tyranny."
Nobody will believe you... until the find the bones of freedom in a dingo's lair years later.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Unlike Americans, Australians have only limited rights to Free Speech
LOL, are you seriously implying that americans have free speech? In what world do you live in? Politically, the US is one of the worst countries out there, they are just very good in making it look democratic. You search for a pressure cooker online and get arrested....
Take off the blindfold mister.
What? Didn't you know that employers outside the government will sack your ass for criticising them on a tweet anonymous (but not anonymous enough to fail to be tracked down) on your own time and on your own dime.
They're just aping the commercial world.
America is a country of religious crazies ruled by lawyers. At least when I visited Australia (admittedly only for two weeks), your prisoners seemed to be nicer than our religious nuts.
What, precisely is the difference?
And the internet abounds with people insisting that scientists should not get involved with politics because they're climatologists.
All you're doing is pointing out they are different. Not why that difference makes a sodding bit of difference.
PS to shentino: the employee of the government is VOLUNTARILY working for the government. They don't have constription in the civil service. Not even in Australia.
"Unlike Americans, Australians have only limited rights to Free Speech."
Pfffftttt.
Social networks are bad, mmmmmkayyy..
Why not just bring every politician onto talk shows and have them criticize the government? Then all of them would have to be sacked. I'm pretty sure that any competent scripter and host could back even the most smug Aussie politician into a corner where they had to offer even the most subtle and defensive bit of criticism.
America was founded by convicted criminals as well, who far outnumbered the tiny minority of settlers escaping religious persecution.
I live in a country where I have freedom of expression.
I also have an employment agreement that says everything I do in public must reflect a credit to the organization.
These two rules are not at conflict, and I still can't badmouth my gov't on twitter and keep my job. That's the rules
After all, I don't remember anyone in the military being told by their contract for working there that they cannot work in the same industry for 3 years after leaving, unlike was common in Silicon Valley.
So it entirely depends on the contract, right? The contract for your employment or even continued employment, could be a contract that binds you even more fully than that military oath.
This woman worked in the communications team of the immigration department. Her private twitter feed directly criticised that department, effectively running a private communications channel for the department. Its not like she just posted something critical of Kevin Rudd or whatever. She went too close to her day job with her private tweets.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I work for a large consulting company in Australia, currently on a government contract on the government site. I don't really have a problem with this. My contract has a clause about not badmouthing my employer, I'm sure that theirs does too. We don't have freedom of speech here - but even if we did, who would want an employee who publicly badmouths you?
> Well in Government that's what whistleblowing procedures are for. You do not blog about it and expect to keep your job.
You don't blow the whistle and expect to keep your job either. Australia's whistleblower laws protect the corrupt: http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/07/30/you-better-be-careful-blowing-the-whistle-new-laws-have-holes/
In Australia though the government and senior public servants will do what ever they can to keep it hushed up as they know as soon as the general population find out, they are in trouble as the cat is now out of the bag.
Want proof - Read about Serene Teffaha and the Australian Tax Office - She is a whistle blower for what was going on during Operation WIckenby which became public after the ATO bit off more they can chew in chasing Paul Hogan. Turns out the ATOs knife wasn't as big as Pauls.
You can use Google to research much more about the above and you should even be able to dig up PDFs of the nasty and corrupt letters from the ATO to Serene, although they may have been taken down after Serene settle her legal action against the ATO.
The above may not seem likely in Australia but I can assure you it is. I know someone who works for the ATO who was working in the vicinity of those involved in attempting to stitch Serene up and they heard all the scheming going on which was along the lines of "How do we shut her up, and how do we make this go away". This person heard first hand what was going on, but kept their mouth shut, and is now working in a more senior position in the ATO. Corruption breeds further corruption until is all unravels.
I the current economy in Australia where decent jobs are becoming incredibly hard to come by, people will still take the public service job, and keep their mouth shut even when they see corruption, hoping to keep their heads down, get their pay check, and avoid the target bullseye being put on them.
You are not entitled as a public servant to criticise your own department anonymously from within that department. That would and should get you fired just as it would if you were in the private sector. If you're not happy, change the system from within (chain of command) OR openly become a whistleblower OR get out of the system and lodge your complaints openly. To sneak commentary anonymously from within is the action of a coward who isn't sure that the complaint is actually defensible.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.