Here’s a fun game: Let’s count the ways that Australian Governments are trying to destroy personal freedoms in Australia. First off, you’ve got the mandatory internet filtering regime. Then you’ve got the country’s lack of an adult rating for video games. If that’s not enough, South Australia recently required all R-rated videos to be sectioned off in retail, regardless of content. And now, the South Australians are at it again, with a recent amendment to the Electoral Act destined to make it illegal to comment on State elections online anonymously.
And you’ll never guess which South Australian politician is putting his name to the amendments. If you guessed Attorney General Michael Atkinson, you’d be right! In Michael McGuire’s story for AdelaideNow this morning, he even quoted the AG as saying: “The AdelaideNow website is not just a sewer of criminal defamation, it is a sewer of identity theft and fraud”. (Not that it has anything to do with his argument, but it’s good to know what type of a human being the guys from Gamers4Croydon are going up against at the election.)
The amendment – which you can read for yourself below – will require all online commenters discussing the election later this year to provide their real name and postcode. Of course, in the real world (where it seems no politicians actually live), it’s completely unworkable, with easy workarounds (like hosting a site on a US web server, for example. Not to mention that monitoring the sheer number of sites will be near impossible.
The law is only in effect from when the election is called and ends when the election is over, but it’s still a ridiculous law that avoids the very concept of logic.
116—Published material to identify person responsible for political content
(1) A person must not, during an election period, publish material consisting of, or containing a commentary on, any candidate or political party, or the issues being submitted to electors, in written form, in a journal published in electronic form on the Internet or by radio or television or broadcast on the Internet, unless the material or the programme in which the material is presented contains a statement of the name and address (not being a post office box) of a person who takes responsibility for the publication of the material.
Maximum penalty: (a) if the offender is a natural person—$1 250; (b) if the offender is a body corporate—$5 000.(2) This section does not apply to—
(a) the publication in a journal (including a journal published in electronic form on the Internet) of a leading article;
(b) the publication of a report of a meeting that does not contain any comment (other than comment made by a speaker at the meeting) on any candidate, or political party, or the issues being submitted to electors;
(c) the publication in a journal (including a journal published in electronic form on the Internet) of an article, letter, report or other matter if—
(i) the name and address (not being a post office box) of a person who takes responsibility for the publication of the material is provided to the publisher of the journal and retained by the publisher for a period of 6 months after the end of the election period; and
(ii) the journal contains a statement of the name and postcode of the person who takes responsibility for the publication of the material;
(ca) the publication of a letter (otherwise than as described in paragraph (c)) that contains the name and address (not being a post office box) of the author of the letter;
(d) a news service or a current affairs programme on radio or television or broadcast on the Internet;
(e) any other prescribed material or class of material. (3) In this section—
journal means a newspaper, magazine or other periodical.116A—Evidence
In proceedings for an offence against this Division—
(a) an electoral advertisement that includes a statement that its publication was authorised by a specified person; or
(b) an electoral advertisement that includes a statement that it was printed by a specified person; or
(c) material consisting of, or containing, a commentary on a candidate or political party, or the issues being submitted to electors, that includes a statement that a specified person takes responsibility for the publication of the material; or
(d) an apparently genuine document purporting to be a certificate of the Electoral Commissioner certifying that the Electoral Commissioner made a request for the withdrawal of a misleading advertisement or the publication of a retraction, is, in the absence of proof to the contrary, proof of that fact.
Now just for fun, let’s all comment on the South Australian election. Make sure you use your real name though…
Shane
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 12:18 PMWhat legal jurisdiction does the SA government have out side of SA?
So long as you don’t post on any site hosted within SA how can they possibly prosecute?
I think it’s time we cut SA lose and let it float away on it’s own…
matt
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 12:32 PMyeah, clearly God should have taken another bite out of it!
but I find it hard to even blame SA, it still seems like its all just this one guy’s fault.
Gumby
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 12:34 PMseconded
Derek Weber
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 4:23 PMNooo! Please don’t leave us with Atkinson!!! Help!
R3D
Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 12:37 AMlets cut sa off and we will move tassie back up in its place.
matt
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 12:30 PMis it unreasonable to think of the government as just another business that is meant to serve its customers, US!
Where do these arrogant pricks think their salary comes from? God? In his divine wisdom deeming them worthy enough to continue their own personal crusade?
how can someone be expected to submit their true feelings on an issue if they are in fear of legal retaliation? Especially when such feelings can only result in expletive riddled rants in the case of Mr Atkinson.
seriously? did they just declare a war on the internet? how backwards are these people!?
I would like to thank Giz for continually bringing these issues to light, and also remind people that you only have until some time THIS month to submit to the R18+ discussion if you haven’t already.
other rage inducing articles include:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/97581-Atkinson-Dismisses-Game-Consultation-as-Unfair
“South Australia Attorney General Michael Atkinson says the upcoming public consultation on videogames will likely show “overwhelming” support for an R18+ rating because the only people who care enough to get involved in the debate are gamers.”
I’m sorry, am I the only one who thinks that’s how a democracy should work? as long as everyone is informed, if they don’t care why should they influence the issue!!? this is why I’m against mandatory voting.
as long as everyone has equal information and capacity, maybe the reason they don’t care is because they AREN’T REALLY AGAINST IT!!
also, the Australian Christian lobby officially joined the discussion paper, guess which side…
fair enough I suppose.
max
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 12:31 PMAlmost certain to be ruled unconstitutional.
Dave Furlani
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 2:58 PMThe American constitution has the right to free speech, NOT the Australian constitution. The Aus Government can silence who they like essentially.
Ollie
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 12:38 PMAll hail Herr Atkinson, President of South Australia! Now, for our next trick, we will pillage every library in the state and burn all the books.
We will then write a new South Australian Constitution with Herr Atkinson as the founding father (this is a proclamation by God of course!).
South Australia shall be severed from the Australian internets and have its own state-run broadband network, monitored solely by the special branch of Herr Atkinson.
daf22
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 12:49 PMI have 3 words to say about this,
“WHAT A JOKE!!”
Nicholas
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 1:03 PMI speak for all my fellow South Australians when I say, “THIS MAN DOES NOT REPRESENT US!”
maddogeco
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 1:11 PMDear Mr Atkinson, If you don’t like democracy and freedom of speech please move to China.
Thank You
my_real_name
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 1:20 PMAtkinson has the most to gain from censoring blogs, forums, etc., since Gamers 4 Croydon is a very internet-centric party. The more he can do to silence them and their supporters, the easier it is for him to justify his stance on R18+ games & DVDs.
His comments about the AdelaideNow website seem kind of fanatical too…
Bern
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 2:41 PMThat’s an interesting point, my_real_name.
I wonder how the electoral commission will view a law that adversely affects a specific political group who just happen to be contesting the seat of the law’s proponent?
Angry Pete
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 1:29 PMI couldn’t care less about what Atkinson says I can do. He isn’t even in my state, and the only reason I have to care even a little about his mad little power trip is I played the butchered version of Left 4 Dead 2. At this rate he is going to start hurting people, and we need to stop him.
FOR THE CHILDREN.
Ian
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 2:01 PMGet ready for the new road sign when entering into SA:
Welcome to South Australia!
Australia’s only Police State
We’re watching you…
James
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 2:35 PMMichael Atkinson is a narrow-minded tool; so obsessed with his own self righteousness that he doesn’t see the big picture. I will continue to import me R rated games, I will comment on the election in whichever format I choose. Instead of provided a legal and regulate-able method for adult gamers to purchase what he deems unsuitable, he drives us to import or in worst case pirate games.
How does SA constantly allow him to get away with statements which blatantly defame the same citizens he is meant to represent.
I am in QLD and still this narrow minded STATE politician is telling me and influencing my freedom of choice.
Anonymous Incognito
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 2:38 PMReally who does Atkinson think he is? oh these people don’t like me the most obvious way to take action? ban free speech
Taryn Hicks
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 5:15 PMI even blogged about it, because there’s another problem that most people seem to be missing: this is a big cyber-safety risk.
We’re all told NOT to post personally identifying information online, but here’s a law that REQUIRES ourselves to do so! The government wants us to put ourselves at risk.
I wrote a bit of a blog entry, if you’re interested.
http://blog.tarynhicks.com.au/online-safety-and-the-south-australian-election-speech-laws/
col
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 8:21 PMAt what point can someone be declared too mentally unstable to fill such an important role as the AG?
He’s displaying all the traits of paranoid delusion, hidden behind a facade of what I can only assume are well-spun press releases.
If it wasn’t so crazy, I’d probably find it amusing.
JC
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 8:40 PMThe really scary thing is that the Libs who are supposed to be the opposition seem to be working in collusion with Labor. Not only this but with other moronic legislation like putting mainstream R18 DVDs with the pornos. Between these two and Family First we are seriously short of choices in SA. I REALLY hope some sane independents and minor parties decide to run this election.
Christian Chan
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 9:34 PMIn my opinion, the new amendments are neither wise nor legal. I hope that someone will bring this issue before the High Court for determination. This is not legal advice, just my view on the subject.
Although Australia does not have a constitution guarantee of free speech, there is an implied freedom of political communication within the Constitution (sections 7 and 24).
As stated in the case of Coleman v Power, to determine whether a law contravenes the freedom of political communication, the High Court will examine:
1) Whether it burdens communication about governmental or political matters
2) If it does, whether it is “reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner that is compatible with the maintenance of a constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government”.
The amended Act obviously burdens political communication. Electoral matters are undoubtedly political in nature. People will be unable to comment on such matters unless certain conditions are met, namely that their names and addresses are published as well. Contravening the law results in a fine.
Although it may be argued that requiring a name and address is not a burden of any significance, this underestimates the effect it will have on political communication. Politics is a heated subject and people may wish to retain their anonymity for fear of reprisal. Publishing a name and address may put them in danger, if not of physical harm, then at least of social harm.
It is unlikely that the proposed law will be considered “reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner that is compatible with the maintenance of a constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government”.
The words “in a manner…” requires the Court to examine both the ends and the means adopted. What reasonable end will these amendments serve? I cannot think of any reasonable aim of such laws. The only ones which spring readily to mind are stiffling communication and preventing political dissidents from spreading their views. Representative government does not only take into account the views a narrow slice of the country, or even merely the majority views. The strength and legitimacy of representative government is that it takes into account the wide gamut of political views, before arriving at a conclusion.
In considering the means adopted to achieve its ends, the SA Government has attempted to limit the effect of the amendments in the following ways, including:
1) Introduced a time limit, confining the operation of the law to the duration of the election.
2)Creating exceptions for journal articles that comply with certain conditions, and news/current affairs programs.
It is unlikely that these limitations upon the operation of the proposed laws will render it reasonably appropriate and adapted.
The purpose for which the laws must be reasonably appropriate and adapted is the maintenance of representative and responsible government. Therefore the time limitation that is proposed will not prevent the laws for harming representative government. If a voter cannot freely access information about political parties at or around the time he/she is to vote, he cannot make an informed decision.
Making exceptions for a limited range of publications will not cause the proposed laws to be reasonably appropriate and adapted. The types of publications that are excepted comprise a small minority of the mediums in which ordinary people will freely communicate their thoughts on politics. The internet is currently the most used medium for communication, political or otherwise. Such restrictions upon its use will significantly reduce political debate and damage responsible government
It could even be argued that by excepting only certain publications, they effectively prevent less mainstream views from being heard. Political censorship, if not in name, then in effect.
In light of the above issues, the recent amendments contravene the implied freedom of political communication by imposing a burden upon political communication which is not reasonably appropriate and adapted in the relevant sense. Lets hope the High Court strikes it down for all our sakes.
Zar
Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 12:20 AMThis ammendment by itself is the most compelling reason why Mr. Atkinson should be thrown out of government. Using legislation to attack your opponents and suppress dissent is a gross misuse of power. Someone who uses their position of power in such a fashion is absolutely unfit to have it.
I am disgusted Mr. Atkinson.
davo
Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 2:48 AMAs the late great Dorry Evans once said-WHY WASNT I TOLD!- THIS CORNFLAKES A WACKO-!!!!!!
RM
Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 12:58 PMAktinson will next decree..
Evolution will no longer be taught at school. You’ll have Intelligent Design where kids will learn the Earth is only 6000 years old and Dinosaurs and Man lived in harmony.
Followed by;
Galelio was wrong. The Universe revolves around the Earth
Followed by;
The Earth is flat.