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!
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;
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.
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/
Also, gag orders. Just last week someone shut down their encrypted email service and was not able to talk about what happened for legal reasons. That's a blatant violation of his first amendment rights.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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 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
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.
That bugged me.
If he decided to close shop rather than bend to the will of the rulers, why didn't he also shout the reasons from the roof tops?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
"Unlike Americans, Australians have only limited rights to Free Speech."
Pfffftttt.
Not to mention a certain person who has been forced to seek asylum in Russia for practicing free speech. I'm not aware of any exceptions in the American Bill of Rights for national secrets.
Of course there can be conflicts in rights, eg the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that in some cases an individuals right to fundamental justice can, for a while such as the length of a court case, override the groups right to speech as having an impartial jury is important to having a fair trial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Of course there can be conflicts in rights, eg the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that in some cases an individuals right to fundamental justice can, for a while such as the length of a court case, override the groups right to speech as having an impartial jury is important to having a fair trial.
Courts mistake an informed jury for a partial jury. By allowing courts to manage the information a jury hears, they in fact create partial juries. The correct solution to a jury that is swayed by speech is more speech that counters the first speech. Whoever runs out of valid arguments first is the loser.
Can you imagine if we held scientists, who are also supposed to be impartial judges of evidence, to the standards of a jury? Instead of submitting papers for peer review by experts, we'd be submitting them to people who are prohibited from knowing anything about the field.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Because that will land him in jail. He would rather do the right thing and keep his mouth shut, because he still values his limited freedom of not being locked up.
I got that.
But if he already lost his job, why not go to jail - free rent, food, clothes. The neighbors suck, but they will when he has to move from lack of income too.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Because he didn't want to go to prison? Because he didn't want to end up paying a fine?
Never been in jail, have you? If you're really, really lucky you might get placed with the holier-than-thou trust fund kid who spends his time getting arrested "for the cause" (whatever it may be). A lot more likely, especially since a lot of cops are ex-military who believe all the official propaganda, is having to spend a whole lot of time getting familiar with the sort of sadistic dirtbag that most decent people don't believe actually exist. There are a lot of worse things than being unemployed, even if you're living under a bridge, and prison is one of them.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Courts mistake an informed jury for a partial jury. By allowing courts to manage the information a jury hears, they in fact create partial juries. The correct solution to a jury that is swayed by speech is more speech that counters the first speech. Whoever runs out of valid arguments first is the loser.
Whoever gets tarred with the biggest stigma would be the loser. The justice system you imagine would decide cases based on gossip and innuendo, on ill-researched half-truths spouted by loud mouths and anonymous forum posters, on the popular passions of the current moment, on who voted for the wrong party or liked the wrong vices or joined the wrong religion (or the wrong sub-sub-denomination of a religion). Seriously, where did you get those rose-colored glasses of human nature? If we worked like that, we wouldn't need a justice system: mobs and vigilantes would dispassionately confront the accused, gather witness statements, and determine the appropriate judgement.
Can you imagine if we held scientists, who are also supposed to be impartial judges of evidence, to the standards of a jury? Instead of submitting papers for peer review by experts, we'd be submitting them to people who are prohibited from knowing anything about the field.
No, you'd be submitting them to people who mostly don't know anything about the field and are prohibited from researching outside the curated environment of a courtroom. And yeah, that would suck for science. But there's a difference: science produces extremely technical descriptions of the real world. Law, by contrast, should (in theory, and sometimes in fact) be executable by laypersons... you could replace juries with panels of lawyers or judges versed in the technical aspect of the law and probably get better "technical" outcomes. But too much technicality and the law becomes divorced from the day-to-day real world wisdom of the people who are subject to it. The operations of law require a balance b/t technical and human factors that's not required in the sciences.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
America was founded by convicted criminals as well, who far outnumbered the tiny minority of settlers escaping religious persecution.
He shut down his business. He still has skills. I bet he already has another job or venture on the line.
He might just be moving overseas and be in the process of rebooting.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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
Under the Inquisitorial system of justice used in Europe and Asia the judge (including lay judges) hear all the evidence.
Under the Anglo system lawyers get the judge to hide evidence from the jury because they are too stupid to understand it. Like prior convictions.
The Anglo system is the problem.
http://www.amazon.com/Corrupt-Legal-System-Evan-Whitton/dp/1921681071
"The lawyer-run adversary system used in Britain and its former colonies, including the US, India, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia does not try to find the truth. It is the only system which conceals evidence. 'Our Corrupt Legal System' explains why trial lawyers, famously economical with the truth, control evidence; civil hearings take weeks, months or years; in serious criminal cases, 24 anti-truth devices allow more than 50% of guilty accused to escape justice. By contrast, in the investigative system used in Europe and other countries, including Japan, trained judges control evidence and seek the truth; civil hearings take a few hours; 95% of guilty accused are convicted. It is the most widespread, accurate and cost-effective system. Russell Fox, an Australian judge who researched the law for 11 years, concluded: 'The public estimation must be correct, that justice marches with the truth.' The vast majority of voters will support change to a truthseeking system: trial lawyers are fewer than 0.2% of the population; the public are 99.8%. 'A masterpiece.' - Phillip Knightley, twice British Journalist of the Year."
http://netk.net.au/Whitton/OCLS.pdf free download
The problem is when they're informed by hearsay, half-truths and out right fantasy. Do you want to be tried by a jury who has already decided that not only are you guilty but are guilty of the most heinous crimes when they show up for jury duty? When the press is doing all the speech and you're sitting in jail, it is hard to counter the speech. As for the scientist part, the sibling made the points that I would.
The cases I can think of that have had publication bans have been pretty horrible, Paul Barnardo (sp?), the pig farmer Pickton are the only examples I can think of and even people like them deserve a fair trial, as much a right in Canada as freedom of expression.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
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.