It's intimidation, but it's not censorship. We'll see if this amounts to anything, I doubt it because plenty of these sorts of threats amount to nothing, as Ed Husic or Tony Windsor can attest, for example.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
It's intimidation, but it's not censorship. We'll see if this amounts to anything, I doubt it because plenty of these sorts of threats amount to nothing, as Ed Husic or Tony Windsor can attest, for example.
Elaugaufein
Member
Politician does backflip worthy of Olympic gymnast. News at 11.
Box of Bunnies
Banned
Liberal-National coalition, brought to you by Microsoft 180
l o l
Not to Godwin, but they are one and the same in many unsavoury regimes. The libs have already decided to gag the reporting of the asylum seeker boat arrivals. They are imposing an internet filter. They will probably bring back sedition laws in use.
No fucking way will they be putting up gay marriage for a conscience vote. This is the nanny state the nutcases were calling labor last time.
Fuck. I got a copy of Titanic 2 in my mail.
roosters93
Member
stay fucking classy Liberals
Ahhh right. I get you now.
Just fine. Is just fine what we should wish for our government?
I mean the middle class welfare was pretty great wasn't it
Thing is, the mining boom is winding down and if Abbot et al. emulate the fiscal irresponsibility that Howard & Costello displayed we won't be fine for long.
Why would you want it done on the state level though? It seems to me matters of equality should be enacted on the largest scale possible rather than creating disharmony between the states.
Ahhh right. I get you now.
Just fine. Is just fine what we should wish for our government?
I mean the middle class welfare was pretty great wasn't it
Thing is, the mining boom is winding down and if Abbot et al. emulate the fiscal irresponsibility that Howard & Costello displayed we won't be fine for long.
Why would you want it done on the state level though? It seems to me matters of equality should be enacted on the largest scale possible rather than creating disharmony between the states.
It's an excuse. Abbot doesn't need to support it, so it's OK to vote for him.
The article he wrote wasn't to promote discussion, it was designed to inflame certain sections of the readership. "Why those pesky whites pretending to be abos* to gain an advantage!"
(*Sorry)
But more alarmingly, it is accusatory and offensive to the people he wrote about and others with some Aboriginal heritage who are proud to identify as an Aborigine. Who are we to say that they are not?
I don't see any legitimate discussion in what Bolt wrote. If he wanted to promote discussion on the matter, and he did believe people of minority Aboriginal heritage should be eligible, he could have questioned the criteria for receiving awards, schemes and whatnot designed to benefit Aborigines. He could also investigate people who claim to be Aborigines but weren't at all.
To write an article attacking people due to their own self-identification to one part of their heritage just because they don't look the part is disgusting.
Also, on your opinion of the author of that "idiot" website and the apparently Liberal-affiliated intimidation against him, his job and possibly his family, I think the problem is that at least from what I gather, you're basically saying "Well yeah, this is wrong BUT! he had it coming and he probably deserves it."
No, I don't think anybody deserves to be intimidated for having any political view or for attacking any political party, much less having that intimidation come from anonymous members of said political party. That's pretty messed up shit, and he should probably take the matter to the police, but that's up to him.
Policy document, with that 'typo'.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tc0qy9p4u...on Policy – Enhance Online Safety - final.pdf
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tc0qy9p4u...on Policy – Enhance Online Safety - final.pdf
I knew you'd do that. The only similarity between them is that they're both bad.
I remember when flag burning became an issue and John Howard refused to make laws banning it, saying people should be free to express themselves. I agree that some of the things they've been doing are downright stupid (all parties have done stupid things), but we're not close to a despotic regime.
According to ABC it looks as if the LNP has backflipped on the filter. That was really fast.
I remember when Howard's government brought in/back sedition laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law
How's that free speechy thing working out for you?
toddhunter
Member
I'd take it?
But seriously it is pretty much "Obama is a secret muslim" time with some of the comments about Abbott. He is just an incompetent politician. The sun will rise on Sunday, then they'll spend the next three years debating something over and over and nothing much will change. Heck, it'll take them a year and a half just to unpack.
My only real concern is if the Labor party doesn't get its act together. If they are still a mess by the next election, that is when things could start to get bad.
Black Republican
Member
Aussies, hows the state of the economy over there compared to other 1st world countries? wages/hours, % of young people needing work etc, not as bad?
To intimidate someone is to try and coerce them into doing something with threats. Stop being willfully obtuse.
It's in pretty damn good condition.
toddhunter
Member
Since removed as promised by the Labor party right?
Its in fantastic shape. Obviously unemployment is a problem in some regional areas, but nationally it's at about 6% which is pretty good.
Youth unemployment is about 22-25% though, which I dont think is good but I dont know what international standards are.
Elaugaufein
Member
Pretty good relatively at the moment. In the top 5 or 10 best IIRC. Not great in absolute terms though but that would take magic.
I remember when Howard's government brought in/back sedition laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law
How's that free speechy thing working out for you?
Difficult. Tearing down an echo chamber is hard work
But those laws were wrong. No government is perfect otherwise there'd never be a change.
I'm afraid I would have to agree with him that that is intimidation, not censorship.
I don't remember the outcome of the Bolt case, but I don't remember him being censored either, though.
It's not 'strict' censorship in the state-mandated form, certainly. But intimidation can certainly itself constitute a form of censorship, no?
Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a phone call... if you're unable to speak?
You might intimidate someone in an attempt to get them to self-censor, but that's really the only link. I could intimidate and threaten you if I wanted a post of yours to be deleted, but it isn't up to me whether said post gets deleted.
My whole argument in the last few pages was about state-mandated censorship, though.
Fewer backflips
Did you miss the event on the last page where ISP's were threatened to censor someone? It is not just about self censorship.
Black Republican
Member
Glad you have mandatory voting there too, best aussie website for polls/prediction?
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
I understand that you were arguing about state regulation of the media, but your attempts to distinguish between censorship and intimidation are invalid. The goal of the intimidation is censorship. Similarly, if Bolt wanted to he could republish those articles, or write new ones on the same topic. He doesn't though, because he knows there would be legal consequences. The difference isn't between intimidation and censorship, it's between where the intimidation that enforces the censorship comes from. There's a reason these sorts of things are handled by the courts and not vigilantes.
roosters93
Member
I expect more as Tony Abbott will appear on the next season of celebrity spash in his budgie smugglers and attempt a reverse triple flip with a half twist.
I don't know if it's the best per se, but the box on the right here titled 'Bludgertrack 2013' is an aggregate. props to wonzo for introducing me to it.
edit: FUCK YOU WONZO I TAKE IT BACK
Here's an audio recording of Liberal MP Paul Fletcher explaining the filter policy is "Opt-out". What a farce.
( ≖‿≖
Ah, okay, we were arguing with different definitions.
Regarding that "wasteful spending" on "ridiculous" research:
http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/academic-ri...university-vicechancellor-20130905-2t86l.html
I have to admit that some of the topics sound silly at face value, but deciding what constitutes wasteful spending based on those one sentence descriptions is like using the title of a journal paper to make a decision without reading the actual paper.
http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/academic-ri...university-vicechancellor-20130905-2t86l.html
I have to admit that some of the topics sound silly at face value, but deciding what constitutes wasteful spending based on those one sentence descriptions is like using the title of a journal paper to make a decision without reading the actual paper.
Black Republican
Member
Thanks guys, elections are always fun to watch, despite the certain trainwreck outcomes for you guys though lol im sorry
reptilescorpio
Member
Thank your lucky stars we don't live in Syria!
shanshan310
Member
And Syrians can thank their lucky stars they don't live in North Korea or Sudan.
A country with fucked policies may be less fucked than a country with more fucked policies, but it's still a fucked country with fucked policies all the same.
Australia is about to get more fucked.
In that spirit, let us try out some wonderful phrases.
"The mandate handed to us by the Australian people..."
"The Honourable Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott"
"Deputy Prime Minister Julie Bishop"*
* Actually, does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition automatically become the Deputy Prime Minister in the same way Shadow Ministers automatically... uh... from memory I believe they devour their predecessors.
That is actually quite horrifying.
In Labor, yes, but I think under the Coalition agreement the deputy PM is the leader of the Nationals.
Wrong. The Liberal deputy does not become Deputy Prime Minister.
The senior Nationals member does.
Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce.
That's what we will have.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked