I just saw http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,26665381-5006301,00.html this piece about a new law which has come into force in South Australia
the law “requires internet bloggers, and anyone making a comment on next month’s state election, to publish their real name and postcode when commenting on the poll. The law will affect anyone posting a comment on an election story on mainstream news websites. It reportedly also applies to social networking sites, and presumably also to personal blogs.
The report states that the law “also requires media organisations to keep a person’s real name and full address on file for six months, and they face fines of $5000 if they do not hand over this information to the Electoral Commissioner.”
This is the first I’d heard of this, although presumably it came up when the relevant legislation was passed last year. It is hard to believe a measure like this got through the Upper House, but apparently the Opposition Liberals also supported.
This sort of idea was considered at federal level by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters but was rejected as unworkable and not necessarily desirable in any case.
Draconian, dumb, futile and foolish are a few descriptions that spring to mind. I’d also say it’s unworkable in terms of it’s stated purpose, but it could none the less snare innocent parties if a bloody minded government decided to enfore it to the letter.
I just saw this piece on The Advertiser’s site about a new law which has come into force in South Australia. The law
“requires internet bloggers, and anyone making a comment on next month’s state election, to publish their real name and postcode when commenting on the poll.”
The law will affect anyone posting a comment on an election story on mainstream news websites. It reportedly also applies to social networking sites, and presumably also to personal blogs.
The report states that the law “also requires media organisations to keep a person’s real name and full address on file for six months, and they face fines of $5000 if they do not hand over this information to the Electoral Commissioner.”
This is the first I’d heard of this, although presumably it came up when the relevant legislation was passed last year. It is hard to believe a measure like this got through the Upper House, but apparently the Opposition Liberals also supported it.
This sort of idea was considered at federal level by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters some years ago but was rejected as unworkable and not necessarily desirable in any case.
Draconian, dumb, futile and foolish are a few descriptions that spring to mind. I’d also say it’s unworkable in terms of it’s stated purpose, but it could none the less snare innocent parties if a bloody minded government decided to enforce it to the letter.
18 Comments
It also raises a question over what a ‘published’ statement would be. A verbal conversation with a friend isn’t. An email to a group of friends could possibly be. A facebook posting visible only to friends could be. A facebook posting visible to all is getting closer.
That’s why I reckon it is not workable. It is very grey where the law could extend to. Throw in the impracticality of trying to prove who actually wrote an anonymous comment – who was on the computer, was it a public access computer etc.
It would only serve to discourage average punters from discussing issues due to concerns of prosecution (If they don’t disclose) or persecution (if they do disclose). People who really wan’t to say nasty stuff will still be able to with impunity.
Not to discount it’s stupidity as a law, but it sounds like a toothless tiger to me. They can’t possibly police this.
Yeah, good luck with that.
You couldn’t hope to police it across the board or stop someone from setting up a site to post anonymous commentary, but if the government wanted to target a specific genuine site for not complying (like this one), they would be able to.
(That’s assuming the interpretation of the law as put on it by The Advertiser is correct – I’m not totally sure it is, although as with many laws its precise limits wouldn’t be clear until/unless it was tested in a court)
If you won’t put your name to what you’re saying, don’t publish it on the internet. http://bit.ly/b51c6W
I’ve always put my name to what I say Alexander. And its relatively which area I live in, and if someone wanted to find out my actual address it wouldn’t be hard, although I don’t especially intend to advertise it.
But I certainly don’t see why people leaving comments on websites, whether mainstream media, independent media or independent blogs, should have to give their full name, let alone their postcode to anyone. (In fact the ABC website specifically recommends people NOT use their real/full name for their online commenting – which I always found a bit odd).
And the suggestion that there is something especially precious about everyday people expressing a political opinion just when an election’s been called is silly. If someone wants to consciously set out to anonymous slander someone, it will be no easier to prevent them than now. It’s just an attempt to make people that bit less inclined to express an opinion publicly – hard to see how that can be a good thing.
I wasn’t directing my comment specifically at you, but generally. There is enough vile slander on mainstream media blogs (or even vexatious blogs), including impersonations and anonymous gossip, that this law is worthwhile (even if it cannot be immediately enforced). What is published on online can be just as damaging (if not moreso, since it can be cached, effectively, for ever) as what is published on paper.
So an off shore site and interstate bloggers wouldn’t be subject to this law.
It is a bad law. We need more protection of free speech, not less. When you have companies like Gunns who will initiate ruinously expensive legal procedings against individuals who criticize them, and who are in cahoots with politicians and public servants at all levels, this level of disclosure makes an alarming situation for anyone who wishes to raise ligitimate concerns. Governments (such as the Victorian government’s persuit of Plug the Pipe, Blue Wedges, and Anti-Destalination plant protestors) are other examples of why requiring disclosure of enough personal details to identify contributors to discussions such as this is another step in the wrong direction.
I can’t think of any reasonable excuse for parliment to pass a piece of legislation like this. So far, the only excuse I’ve heard in defence of this is that it’s: “Good for democracy” or words to that effect, yet I fail to see how.
I mean, would it “good for democracy” if we abolished the secret ballot altogether and people were obliged to have their identity recorded with their vote? That sounds, to me, like a huge blow for a democracy, and to the liberties of the people within. Yet this agenda to force people to reveal their identities whenever they express a political opinion seems very much akin to exactly that: abolish the ability for people to express their views annomously.
So then, people’s identities are mapped to their political pursuasion, and records must be kept by order of law. What could possibly be the purpose for collecting such data? More to the point, how could that situation possibly be good for our democracy?
Do we, the people who vote these law-makers into parliament, and who endure the consequences of parliment’s legislation, really trust that such records won’t be abused by any group with special interests? I mean, our elected officials passed this piece of law pretty quietly it seems. The law has also been backed up by the atterny general, even though it seems abundently clear that most people are against the law (that is, now that they know about it). So, do you believe the government and the parliament are working for you? Do you believe that they’ve improved your democracy? Do you trust them to ensure that information about you (such as your political views) isn’t used against you by any group or individual?
Shame on Michael Atkinson or anyone who prohibits freedom of speech of any kind. Why would you do that to your own people? Here in Delaide we have lost freedom of association already and now freedom of speech! With such a crusty old demographic in our Parliament (average age is death) the internet is seen as a threat and goes againt the whole idea of democratisation of information. We dont even have a separate church and state here now – how embarrassing! Hang in there Gen X and Y, hopefully LibLab with its poor quality outcomes cant last forever. Things have got so bad (conservative) here that we may need to declare the State Parliament a natural disaster. Oops, too late. It already is.
How is requiring you to own up to your statements *during an election period* any way a limit on freedom of speech. You can still say anything you want and express any opinion you want.
Why does the internet get off scott-free, while people publishing something in print are required to put their name and address on their comment? Are these people’s rights to free speech infringed?
Get real!
Get real? Hmm…ironic? The whole idea of free speech (in any context) being considered to be ‘getting off scott-free’ is laughable and controlling. Even Atkinson himself thought so – he appeared on television last night apologising for his misguided and outdated outlook on the internet and how it works.
Delaide, I think alex white was coming at it from the other direction.
Why should the “old media” have to abide by any of the restrictions that the guardians of the internet declare their medium is too cool (or too tedious to police) to abide by? Might that not be restraint of trade/anti-competitive behaviour? Surely as the internet progressively becomes the default means of communication its standards should become the default as well- among other things extending anonymous political comment and a general lack of censorship to all media?
Piers Akerman posted my home address on his web-site the other day, maybe because I told him we had a lot of Rudd haters on his web-site. I am not happy with him posting my home address on his blog, for the whole world to see. What course of action should I take? How would he feel if I posted his home address on the internet. Regards Richard Ryan.
Maybe Piers posted my comment to get plenty of abuse and feed-back from his blogger idols, see Piers blogg–In Case PM Forgets, Buck Stops with him. see under Richard Ryan@ 10/1, 7.39pm then under the reply from Dracula 17/1@ 8.51, who by the way was the vampire who posted my home address in his reply. Dracula seems to get a lot of space from Piers, Dracula laps to Piers on a daily basis.
Andrew Bartlett! I would love to see you on ABC Insiders, unlike Andrew Bolt who tells the story to his bosses requirements—Rupert Murdoch, I think your views would be more interesting to hear. What say you bloggers? Regards Richard Ryan.
Imagine! Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt on ABC Insiders together, singing from the same hymn book —–Hallelujah, now that would be a nightmare. Regards Richard Ryan.