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!
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.
Well, good luck finding any new employees to work for the government ever then. After hearing this, nobody will bother to apply.
One can only hope this is the case. Unfortunately, I think that also in Australia, there are thousands of people who will either argue that "they have to somehow pay their bills", or that "they have nothing to hide", or any other stupid argument. And otherwise, the govt. can always promise to pay 5000 $ more per year than in similar jobs elsewhere, which is no doubt enough to shut up a whole lot of people.
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
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.
Well, good luck finding any new employees to work for the government ever then. After hearing this, nobody will bother to apply.
You might be surprised at how many people would be willing to have their mouths sewn shut, in exchange for money and power.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I'd rather live in a country where you actually hear about the abuses instead of those countries where the abuses are hidden. The fact that we actually know about the abuses in Anglo countries gives me hope.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
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
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!
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
More and more, the reason that we're hearing about the abuses is because someone was willing to go to jail to expose them. Video a cop beating the crap out of someone? Publicize it and you'll go to jail for interfering with an officer, or invasion of privacy, or some such. Expose massive abuses of the Geneva Conventions by the military? Join Bradley Manning in solitary confinement. Expose illegal wiretapping? Hope you have a ticket to Russia. Publish information showing that politicians are interfering with CIA operations trying to stop smuggling of nuclear material? Go to jail if you're not willing to give up your source.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
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