Comments on: Suppressing Criticism?

By: Chicago

Chicago — Tue, 20 May 2008 14:59:46 +0000

A good man would prefer to be defeated than to defeat injustice by evil means.

By: Val

Val — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:15:58 +0000

While I originally thought such legislation was important - On reading all this convoluted stuff, I now think it is a can of worms, and that it should be dropped, withdrawn, torn up, composted - RIGHT NOW.

Instead we should put all that smart, intricate thought, energy and inevitable expense of legal fees into the REALLY IMPORTANT issue of SAVING THE PLANET from Climate Change. NOW.

Do we really need over-protecting in this way? It’s like when we “protected” Vietnam from the Reds under the Beds by destroying it with napalm and Agent Orange - or Iraq, by bombing the hell out of it.

We really are adult enough to see through such stuff as the Brethren put out (and look where it got them anyway) - without stomping on our rights to free expression, as this bill seems to aim at.

By: Marquise

Marquise — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 04:09:46 +0000

hi i enjoyed the read

By: Luke

Luke — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 05:54:10 +0000

So the price for having strict rules is putting “Party Vote X” in a footer on the bottom of any published material? Is this to big to pay?

By: Idiot/Savant

Idiot/Savant — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:13:58 +0000

Clause iii seems to be based on british and Canadian law. There’s a difference though: as proposed, it would be enough for an ad merely to ‘take a position” on an issue. in the UK at least, it must be able to be “reasonably regarded as intended to… promote or procure electoral success” for “candidates who hold (or not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate0 particular policies”.

If the aim is to get rid of ’sham issue advertising”, then more closely following the UK law would seem to be a better idea.

By: coalitionforopengovernment

coalitionforopengovernment — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 02:20:09 +0000

I/S - either of those might be a start, but probably wouldn’t be enough. The exceptionally broad definition of publish also helps create some of the problems.

And you may actually want to catch some of third party issue advertising - a million dollars of “cut taxes” advertising in the final weeks of the campaign isn’t terribly different from a million dollars of “vote for a party that will cut taxes” advertising. But perhaps that’s where the line should be drawn?

Basically, if you’re going to have this sort of regime, there should probably be a financial limit below which nothing needs to be done.

By: coalitionforopengovernment

coalitionforopengovernment — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 02:12:34 +0000

Luke - clause 53(5) of the Bill makes it an illegal practice to contravene clause 53(1). Political parties that were responsible for issue ads being published would breach of s 53(1) - by causing ads to be published even though they were not entitled to promote them.

By: Luke

Luke — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 00:42:38 +0000

How do they commit an illegal practise?

By: Idiot/savant

Idiot/savant — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 23:29:41 +0000

The past three posts have made a pretty compelling case. So, how can it be fixed? Is removing clause iii from the definition of “electoral advertising” enough? Can s53 (3) be altered so as not to impose too many bureaucratic hoops? Would repealing the requirement for a statutory declaration be enough?