SA passes unworkable 'censorship' law

 

Anonymous commentary made illegal.

In the build up to its election, South Australia has passed a law that will make it illegal to anonymously comment about an election candidate, political party or election issue - either online, on television or in a newspaper.

The law, which can be seen in PDF format here (page 89, sect 116), states that any commentary must contain the "name and address (not being a post office box) of a person who takes responsibility for the publication of the material".

Reaction to the law has been consistent, with privacy, legal and security experts claiming they understand the good intentions behind the law but agree that in reality, the law cannot be enforced.

Peter Black, free speech advocate and senior lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology's School of Law, described the policy as "totally impractical, totally unworkable and very misguided."

However Black said his personal opinion is that the spirit behind the law is something he agrees with.

"I think you have a right to speak and a right not to be punished for anything you say but I don't think it extends so far that every individual can use whatever soap-box they like and then hide behind that in some sort of cloud of anonymity.

"It is another foolish attempt from the government to try and regulate the internet in a way it is not going to work so I agree with all of that but my personal view is, in this case, we don't have the right to speak anonymously," Black told iTnews.

Paul Ducklin, head of technology at Sophos, said the law could be easily ignored and the information published by individuals could be helping cyber-criminals.

"Those who want to rant anonymously will find it easy to do - blog on an overseas-hosted blogging site under a pseudonym. Those who choose to obey the law will be revealing information which I think we'd all advise them not routinely to share online," he said.

Ducklin said these types of laws will most likely fail and waste taxpayer money.

"Governments which try to regulate the internet too specifically are, in my opinion, doomed to fail in the attempt, or at least to waste a pile of taxpayers' money (and parliamentary time) trying.

"The internet moves faster than any government can shuffle its paperwork, and the internet doesn't care about marginal seats or getting re-relected. Are we really protecting Australians by spending effort passing laws to worry whether election bloggers have told us whether they live in 1770 or 4677?" added Ducklin.


SA passes unworkable 'censorship' law
"It's hard to understand "free speech advocate" Peter Black's view that all personal details should be published with any political comment. That may be another case of the lawyers wanting to ..."
By anonymous
 
 
 
Comments: 12
Thysce
Feb 2, 2010 3:44 PM
wut...
meski
Feb 2, 2010 3:46 PM
'any commentary must contain the "name and address (not being a post office box) of a person who takes responsibility for the publication of the material". '

Isn't this going to be the company that runs the blog, for example, itnews take responsibility for this comment?
Ace
Feb 2, 2010 3:49 PM
This is got to about the craziest thing SA have tried to legislate. If I make some comment about Mike Rann here during the SA election, then I can get in trouble? I assume this means that every web site in the world hosting a forum or commenting system has to collect more personal information from contributors, and then publish it along with comments that may or may not say something about some SA candidate? Good luck with that.

I'm sure the Chinese & Russians web site operators are shaking in their boots about this one!
arcanedevice
Feb 2, 2010 4:06 PM
An absolute joke. One the one hand we have a government who are trying to help the poor muppets who continually fall for internet scams by telling them not to reveal their identity on the net, yet now put in place legislation that forces them to do exactly that... Bet the scammers must be so scared now of all the information they are about to obtain without even trying!

Any MP in SA who voted yes to this legislation should hang their heads in shame!
mkotadia
Feb 2, 2010 4:09 PM
@meski That is a very good point. A lawyer explained to me that although the wording of the law is too vague, a publication like iTnews.com.ay might have to:

1) get peoples’ names and addresses if they’re posting comments,
2) store details for 6 months, and
3) post the names and postcodes to the comments.

Alternatively, we could simply block access to the site from South Australia!
mkotadia
Feb 2, 2010 4:11 PM
@arcanedevice Excellent point! As Ducklin says, "Those who choose to obey the law will be revealing information which I think we'd all advise them not routinely to share online".
deonast
Feb 2, 2010 4:27 PM
While I could understand the use of real names revealing your address is just nuts. I'm waiting for some nutter who disagrees with some ones political views to go and kill them in their home using the address they were forced to supply. Sure it is far fetched, that is until it happens. Why no have any politicians reveal their address as well.
I hope this doesn't spread to other states.
bcmobile
Feb 2, 2010 5:39 PM
Apparently the men in the SA Labour party like to dress up like women and spank each other.
Rhino
Feb 2, 2010 5:43 PM
Firstly, this 'appears' to not be about censorship, but making people accountable for comments that are posted on blogs, news sites etc.

Secondly, politicians by their very nature have to accept that the public are entitled to their opinion, whether they like it or not.

I personally think Michael Atkinson is a giant dick, and from all the reports I've read I would be right, and dictatorship governments across the globe introduce laws like this, and state that the scope will not be extended etc. But they always do, and the sooner voters wake up to the fact that these people are voted by the people to server the people, not voted by the people to gouge from them then this country might have a chance of saving itself.

Michael, you are a knob, a giant knob, and so is the SA opposition.

Signed with love Mark of 5008.
arcanedevice
Feb 3, 2010 10:33 AM
Interesting to that the AG has now advised that following the backlash and having been exposed for lies and misinformation by suggesting that a liberal plant was using a pseudonym of a valid person within his own electorate, the legislation will be repealed - AFTER the forthcoming election.
If they are that concerned about the backlash, why not start the process to repeal it immediately?
mkotadia
Feb 3, 2010 10:42 AM
Here is a link to the new story, where Michael Atkinson does a u-turn. http://bit.ly/bWzAgW - SA backs down on unpopular censorship law.



anonymous
Feb 3, 2010 11:06 AM

It's hard to understand "free speech advocate" Peter Black's view that all personal details should be published with any political comment. That may be another case of the lawyers wanting to make things easy for themselves.

If he really was interested in free speech, he would recognise that there are many people who could contribute information to political debate, but for family, job or reprisal fears are simply unable to self identify.

Comments have been disabled for this article.
 
 
 
Top Stories
Telstra shifts BigPond email to Windows Live
All data to be migrated to Microsoft cloud.
 
Windows 8: Under the hood
Part One of iTnews' enterprise guide to Windows 8.
 
iTnews on tour: The Executive Summit Series
Join us in Sydney and Melbourne to meet Australia's tech leaders.
 
Sign up to receive iTnews email bulletins
   FOLLOW US...

Latest VideosSee all videos »

Latest Comments
Polls
Would you be concerned about your business' email data being hosted offshore?

   |   View results
Yes
  95%
 
No
  5%
TOTAL VOTES: 22

Vote