Those of you who are thinking about places to move after Palin wins in 2012 might want to cross the home of the Lord of the Rings, Bondi Beach and Tuscany from your list if you want to keep reading Balloon Juice.
Over in Frodo’s back yard, New Zealand has just implemented net censorship. Last month, without telling anyone, two of the country’s Internet providers (ISPs) started using a government filter. It supposedly only screens out depictions of child sexual abuse, and it’s “voluntary”, though the ISPs volunteer, not individual users. By the way, New Zealand also has a government position called The Chief Censor, and the current one, who is openly gay, has been accused of promoting a gay agenda by not banning some films.
Meanwhile, in Australia, the ruling Labor party (center-left conservative, of course) wants to create a mandatory “great firewall” that would make ISPs take down any R or X-rated content hosted at sites without adult verification in Australia, and block it from sites hosted outside Australia. Trials of the firewall haven’t gone well, and Labor has lost the votes for it in the Australian Senate, but it’s still a live issue in Australia’s politics.
Finally, a court in Italy recently convicted three Google employees and gave them a 6 month suspended sentence because YouTube hosted a video of a developmentally disabled kid being bullied.
It’s interesting to note that these three major incursions on Internet freedom by “good countries” have taken place with little notice in the mainstream US press, while China’s censorship policy is hashed over in painful detail.
asiangrrlMN
I’ll stick to Canada, methinks. From what I can glean, I would like Vancouver.
I think you got it in one with your use of ‘good countries’ in the last paragraph. It’s the equivalent of only brown people are terrorists.
Steeplejack
Holy shnikeys. Thanks for posting this. I usually get pretty deep in the weeds on Internet censorship issues, and I had seen only one article, about the Australia fiasco.
Gray and rainy here in NoVa this morning. Good times.
Michael L
Sorry, just need to point out that the Labor Party is not the conservative party in Australia. The conservatives are the Liberal Party (go figure) and the National Party.
Cheers
Michael
arguingwithsignposts
@asiangrrlMN: Toronto is nice, as well. But yeah, I’ll take the cold over net censorship.
Matthew B.
Doesn’t the UK already do what New Zealand has just started? Or is there some kind of difference in the implementation?
JD Rhoades
Canada’s too goddamn cold. How’s the Web in Exuma?
The Ace Tomato Company
To be fair, as odious as the NZ and AU measures are, they are nowhere near as pernicious as those which have been implemented in China. Further, they’re intended purpose (however misguided and heavy-handed they may be) is not fueled by the same motivations as those developed in China. This is a bit of false equivalency, or at least hyperbole.
Bentley Stanforth III
The Australian Labor Party isn’t ‘conservative’; it’s centre-left. The conservative party in Australia is the Liberal Party (confusing, I know).
WereBear
@Bentley Stanforth III: I think of it as upside down, and it works.
jetan
The Italian case was the one I found the most disturbing because of the considerable burden it places on Google to police it’s postings. Criminal liability? Talk about a chilling effect. Thanks for bringing this up.
Sam Wilkinson
That’s a good Zappa reference. However – since when has China’s firewall been hashed over in painful detail? It’s only ever discussed when American companies run up against it. I seriously doubt the average American is weary after having to deal with yet another article about the Chinese internet.
asiangrrlMN
@JD Rhoades: Feature, not a bug.
geg6
I’m on the Canada bandwagon. Toronto is just up the road and it is very nice there (though I’d go for Vancouver, too; been there and it’s a beautiful and wonderfully multi-cultural city). I’m used to cold, being a native of Western PA. Plus single payer health care, bitchez! Mexico is another possibility since I hear Americans can live quite well there on very little. Kidnapping, however, is NOT something I’ll risk easily. But Preznit Palin may make kidnapping look like a good thing.
Keith G
So what’s happening in France? I ask because they famously had developed language content laws years ago for radio and TV and even commercial signage IIRC.
Have modern tech or EU membership made that unworkable or are they still trying to limit content?
Linda Featheringill
Good morning guys.
Worthy cause. Keep an eye on it and keep us updated.
Would be very nice if we could keep the internet open. Consider how much encouragement we were able to give the people of Iran last year. Of course, that is exactly why the Powers That Be want to control the system.
Canada is a thought. Probably not that much colder than Cleveland.
I understand that Vancouver is expensive to live in. And then you have the moving costs. It would probably be cheaper to be active in politics here. :)
The Ace Tomato Company
@geg6
Neither Mexico or Canada will save your from the nuclear fallout if Palin becomes President. You’ll need to go “Road Warrior” and move to central Australia (Easter Island is a good bet too).
EconWatcher
Hmm. Huh….. What? Oh, sorry. Just distracted by that high heels add.
mistermix
@Bentley Stanforth III:
@Michael L:
Thanks for the correction on the Australian Labor Party.
@Sam Wilkinson: I take your point that Chinese censorship isn’t what Joey Biden’s ex-constituents talk about at the kitchen table, but I think most people would be unsurprised to hear that China censors, but surprised to hear that these other “free” countries are thinking about some relatively draconian measures.
spudvol
…and then, in the middle of the night, there was a mysterious knock on mistermix’s door.
polyorchnid octopunch
Quick note guys… it’s only confusing to people in the US, as they use the word liberal in a way that only you use it… to everyone else, liberal means generally laissez-faire business policy and a light hand on speech restrictions. Of course, you don’t actually HAVE any parties in your country that follow those precepts… your libertarians come closest, however that’s totally screwed out by the glibertarian side of your polity. Liberalism in most of the west is to permit the market to do what it does with regulation to prevent abuses of individuals by firms.
In Canada, the Liberal party is seen as the pro-business party by most people.. the Conservative Party is also pro-business, but wants to get rid of those pesky individual protecting regulations, and the socialist party is the New Democratic Party (no relation whatsoever to your Democrats, believe me and thank $DEITY for that).
I mean, I know y’all are into American exceptionalism and all that, but it would be good if you were to use English language political terms in the way that, you know, the Rest of the English-speaking World did. It would help you understand things like this a lot more.
As for this particular issue… it seems to me that the real problem is that the legislators don’t really understand the Internet and how it works. They don’t realise that there’s abso-fucking-lutely no chance that they can stop things like child porn; instead, they should use the internet as a way to follow predators and bust them, as well as to follow the chain back to nail the distributors, and finally use the evidence gathered to destroy the people that create it.
As for the “preventing x-rated content at the network edge” thing… well, that mostly sounds like the Australians are trying to protect a growth industry as embodied in GirlsOutWest.com and abbeywinters.com.
Ash Can
Screening for kiddie porn doesn’t strike me as “draconian.” What it does strike me as, however, is unnecessary. If there are already laws against kiddie porn on the books (and there are), couldn’t they be enforced simply by assigning government officials the task of searching it out on the ‘Net? Why bother with an ISP filter? And as for protecting the children who use the Internet (obligatory pearl clutch here), I’ve found myself that the parental controls already in place work just fine.
Besides the fact that all censorship is yucky in principle and even the most well-meaning censorship is only as good as the censors running it, the whole idea of Internet filtering/screening is pretty much using a nuke when a flyswatter will do.
arguingwithsignposts
@mistermix:
This.
Also, apparently, the UK is looking to revise their intellectual property laws, which will be a nightmare for the Internet culture, from what I’ve read.
Re: content laws – canada has a req. that some percentage (I forget how much) of content must be of canadian origin. I don’t have a problem with teh sockalism in that respect. we might not have the Tragically Hip otherwise.
toujoursdan
Keep in mind that New Zealand has a democratic system of government (using Mixed Member Proportional representation, which makes it far more representative than ours) and a Bill of Rights.
Chances are very good that this will will get tossed out by a court challenge. New Zealand elected a centre-right government led by the National Party and propped up by the neoconservative ACT Party, the right-wing Christian United Future Party and the Maori Party in 2008 and they are starting to test how far they can go.
And the Australian Liberal Party is liberal in the Victorian usage of the word. They embrace so-called “free” market capitalism, and until fairly recently, were social libertarians.
Finally, you’re making a bigger deal out of New Zealand’s “Chief Censor” than is appropriate. It’s very difficult to actually ban a film in NZ. The film board rates films though, just like they do in the U.S.
I lived there for four years and think NZ is quite a bit freer than the U.S. is in practise. The right-wing Prime Minister shows up at gay pride events and openly flirts with drag queens. You Tube: John Key at the Big Gay Out
slightly_peeved
A bit of political background here; the ruling Labor party (left-wing, of course; they’re called the Labor party because they are affiliated with and partly run by labour unions) doesn’t have a majority in our Senate.
Now a run-down of our Senate. In our system, people almost never cross the floor; it’s highly irregular for the Liberal party and flat-out forbidden for the Labor party. It’s a bit of a cultural thing – You stick by your mates – and it’s also the kind of thing you get when your government is run almost entirely by people like Nancy Peloisi. However, there are generally a few minor party members (Greens & a Christian group called Family First) and the odd independent in the Senate.
To get legislation passed through our Senate, the Labor party will cut a deal with sufficient minor party members to get a majority in the Senate, and then it goes straight through – majority rules. Also, there’s the safety valve; a double dissolution. If the government can’t get budgetary items passed, but still has the majority in the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister can dissolve both houses and call a snap election. If they still don’t have the majority in the Senate after that, a joint sitting of both Houses is called. If you have a majority in the lower house, you nominate the prime minister, and you’re considered to have a mandate to govern.
The good news filter-wise is that, as mentioned before, Labor doesn’t have a majority in the Senate. Family First is all for the filter, but the Green Party isn’t and one of the independent Senators is against it. And they can’t, and won’t, have a double dissolution over it, though it might be possible as a result of some other budgetary matters. So for the moment, the filter isn’t happening, and won’t happen unless the balance of power changes significantly in the Senate.
That being said, one thing to bear in mind if you wish to emigrate following a Palin victory is that migrants to Australia who aren’t refugees are required to have useful skills. If Palin gets elected, I personally think that should rule out anyone involved in Democratic Party strategy from coming here.
arguingwithsignposts
@slightly_peeved:
Hmmm, is commenting on BJ a useful skill? :)
toujoursdan
@arguingwithsignposts: Canada and Australia have content regulations.
The UK, Ireland and New Zealand’s media portfolios are dominated by the BBC, RTÉ and Radio New Zealand/TVNZ which have content regulations built into their mandates.
It makes sense. It creates a film/television industry at home and gives some incentive for actors to pursue their career in-country instead of going to Hollywood.
mistermix
@Ash Can:
Keep in mind that high-school kids who were “sexting” — sending naked pictures of themselves to friends– have been convicted and end up on sex offender lists. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/07/sexting.busts/index.html)
So, I don’t think I’m being overly shrill when to conclude that Facebook will end up being be banned in New Zealand, since a lot of pics of naked teens are exchanged on that site.
arguingwithsignposts
@toujoursdan:
Although, interestingly, how many of our famous comedians are Canadian (akroyd, myers, foley, hartman, etc.).
But yes, it does make sense. Which is why it would never be enacted in the U.S.
toujoursdan
@mistermix: New Zealand ban Facebook? Hahahahaha. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition use it.
toujoursdan
@arguingwithsignposts: Well, there is no way film industries in countries with populations between 4 and 30 million people can compete with the mega studios of Hollywood, but if it wasn’t for content regulations it’s doubtful that most of the British comedies many Americans love would exist.
The U.S. at this point doesn’t really need content regulations. 90% of what is shown on U.S. TVs comes from the the U.S.
slightly_peeved
The only person here who wouldn’t need to bring something else to the table is Tunch. Because he could eat the table.
slightly_peeved
And how most of your action films have Australian good guys and English bad guys, or sometimes the other way around. Or of course the English guy playing a German bad guy – the gold standard for bad guys, as used in the Die Hard films.
arguingwithsignposts
@toujoursdan:
Oh, totally agree. Like I said above, I’m all for content regulations for distribution. Hollywood is more a harm than a help in terms of actual original content.
asiangrrlMN
@slightly_peeved: Which, of course, leads to the obligatory, TUUUUUNCH!
arguingwithsignposts
@slightly_peeved: Would tunch fit in Australia, or surround it?
slightly_peeved
To be honest, I don’t think we’d let in Tunch, just because we’d be worried about what he’d do in the Great Sandy Desert.
geg6
Completely OT, but Johnny Weir fans need to get all up in arms!
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/11/weir-uninvited/#comments
Ummm, WTF? Are these idiots aware that their entire audience and most of the “stars on ice” are gay, gay friendly, and women? Piss that demographic off and they HAVE no audience.
The Grand Panjandrum
@polyorchnid octopunch:
What do you mean y’all? That’s painting us with a pretty broad brush isn’t it? Or, are you new here at BJ? The notion of American exceptionalism is frequently scoffed at frequently in this blog.
I would also point out that the usage of language is not stagnant and comes to mean very different things in cultural and political context in every corner of the planet. Besides if it hadn’t been for us unexceptional Yanks the rest of the English speaking world would be speaking German or Japanese, and those who chose not to would have been made into lamp shades.
Ash Can
@mistermix: There’s a pretty wide gulf between New Zealand looking to screen out child pornography on the Internet and poorly-written zero-tolerance laws in the United States. To say otherwise is to ignore practical realities. And speaking of practical realities, I see that toujoursdan already addressed the likelihood of Facebook being banned in New Zealand.
jon
This is why the Bill of Rights is still the most important thing in our Constitution and why this country is still the best place in the entire world. Now, if our courts and politicians understood what it meant we might be even better, but I’m not running away anytime soon.
And as much as a President Palin would have me consider living abroad, I’ll still keep my citizenship.
toujoursdan
I only wish the U.S. would adopt some of New Zealand’s laws and legal approach.
They decriminalized Prostitution in 2003. While cannabis use is illegal under the Misuse of Drugs Act of 1975, in practise, if you are caught with a small amount of marijuana, the police just confiscate it and send you on your way.
The justice system relies on programmes like “Diversion” and “Restorative Justice” to keep relatively minor offenders out of the court and prison systems. Restorative Justice is a programme where the offender and the victim meet each other after arrest and they talk it out.
I am sorry, but I just don’t see New Zealand walking down the road to an Orwellian dystopia. This is a country where you can watch people using the “f” word and bonking each other on the state run television network (TVNZ) in late primetime. If you ever come across TV shows like “Outrageous Fortune” and “Seven Periods with Mr. Gormsby” rent/buy them. That will show you the huge gulf between American and NZ attitudes towards sex and morality.
Xunngom
Sorry, but while I agree with the Anglosphere examples you give, I have to dissent on the Italy thing. There’s been some lackadaisical reporting on it, and it’s far from a simple case. This post seems to make a lot of sense to me, and argues that the main thrust of the conviction is not a free speech issue, but the fact that the ‘objectionable’ flagging in YouTube apparently has no effect.
When copyright infringement and pornographic videos can be taken down with ease, but flagged videos about an autistic kid being bullied stay up for months until law enforcement gets involved… I’m still conflicted on this thing, but the prosecution argues that it’s a matter of protecting human beings vs. protecting corporate interests.
Tattoosydney
Yes, to our shame, the good centre left party is the one which is proposing to shut down the internet, in a desperate attempt to claim the centre, while the Liberal (Conservative) Party is the one proposing to fund 6 months fully paid maternity leave by imposing a big new tax on business, in a desperate attempt to claim, well, the centre.
Of course, the Liberals are actually doing it because white wimmens having white babies keeps out the Afghan hordes, and spent the last month lambasting the Prime Minister because he proposed to fund emissions trading with a big new tax on big business.
Odd times.
cleek
i’m confused.
as liberals, we’re constantly told by wingnuts that this kind of nanny-state mind-control is exactly what we want.
and yet… we don’t want it.
so, either we don’t know what we want, or wingnuts don’t know what they’re talking about.
(this is my way of testing DougJ’s fix to my commenting problem)
Tattoosydney
@Tattoosydney:
Thankfully, our Labor Party (spelled oddly due to connections between Australian and US union movements) has not been all bad… they reversed truly nasty workplace relations laws, said sorry for the devastation of aboriginal society and signed Kyoto.
But then we have a system of government that actually lets our government do things every now and then, unlike some countries.
JD Rhoades
@mistermix:
Really? Where?
(kidding)
Tattoosydney
@toujoursdan:
Australian too… while we have our wingnut religious fringe, the mainstream of Australian and New Zealand societies are (I think) very liberal in the proper “Who you sleep with is genuinely none of my business, and of course everyone should have equal rights” way.
Only recently has our Liberal Party (formerly liberal socially and conservative economically) turned into a holding pen for wing religious freaks.
toujoursdan
@Tattoosydney:
Yeah, like Tony Abbott (shutter)
Annie
@arguingwithsignposts:
Only if pictures of Lady Smudge are included ;)
soonergrunt
Bravo to mistermix and to Balloon-Juice for taking note of this.
Svensker
@toujoursdan:
Are you closing the window on Tony Abbott? Otherwise, it should be “shudder”.
Just a little morning pedantry for ya.
toujoursdan
Well, there are blogs started by Americans who moved abroad. Two started by online friends of mine are:
We Move to Canada
AmeriNZ: A gay American living in New Zealand
Svensker:
Oops
Why oh why
More and more governments want to censor the web.
R-Jud
@Matthew B.:
I would tell you, but the CCTV cameras are watching me.
DougJ
@Sam Wilkinson:
I see it discussed all the time.
Xenos
FWIW, friends and relatives of mine Canada see the same rise of corporatism and media-driven authoritarianism developing there, just a decade or two behind us Yanks. It seems so mild compared to what we see here that I don’t really get the panic, but they know the place much better than I do.
GReynoldsCT00
@geg6:
Fuck, that’s criminal! Amazing that there is such ugliness behind such a beautiful sport.
Fergus Wooster
@asiangrrlMN:
@arguingwithsignposts:
The problem with fleeing to Canada is that I can easily see President Palin annexing it. It would be like fleeing Berlin in 1933 for Vienna – one quick Anschluss and it was all for nought.
Brick Oven Bill
I think you, uh, mistermix, ummm, deleted my first comment on your first thread. You were making an issue of some Republican landing a $2 million or so pork-barrel project. I speculated that the politician in question got ten percent, $200,000 and then brought up these facts:
1. Rahm got $16 million in a hedge fund deal with AT&T headed at the time by that lanky guy (Whitacre?) who was then named by Rahm to head General Motors. This is the guy who does the commercials.
2. Axlerod got $3 million for selling his interest in the word ‘astroturf’. Now astroturf is a good word, and it was worth every penny of this three million dollars. These three million dollars were surely not received in exchange or political influence. This is because astroturf is such a good word.
3. Oh, and then Rahm placed Goldman Sach’s Patterson as Geithener’s Chief of Staff, giving them access to the printing presses. This is OK as Geithner is such a strong man of good Character.
4. So based on Arithmetic, this Administration is way more corrupt than the subject Republican.
By the use of Logic, we come to understand that mistermix teaches us that the only Internet speech that may be justifiably censored is political speech.
Tattoosydney
@toujoursdan:
Agh. If you say his name he may appear in Speedos. Ahhhhhhhhhh, my eyes!
Viva BrisVegas
Stay away from Bondi beach, it’s a rather unpleasant tourist trap. While the boobies on display are nice, they don’t make up for the hassle and general dinginess of the place.
Any of the beaches north of Byron Bay to the border will take your breath away and you’ll probably need binoculars to spot the nearest person to you.
I can assure you that sitting for a few hours on a deserted golden beach with the blue Pacific stretching away in front of you will make sure that you don’t give a flying stuff about internet filters, or anything else for that matter.
As for Tunch fitting into Australia, there is plently of room, although he may need to rest his tail on Tasmania.
Tattoosydney
@Viva BrisVegas:
@slightly_peeved:
Hello fellow aussies. Nice weather we have been having.
toujoursdan
If one of my previous comments ever comes out of moderation, there are things from New Zealand I wish we’d adopt here, like Diversion schemes and Restorative Justice.
It would save taxpayers a lot of money, free up the courts to pursue serious legal matters and help reduce the prison population, where the U.S. enjoys the distinction of having one of the world’s highest per capita incarceration rates.
Kiril
I know many of you hate 4chan, but they’ve been all over this for years. Most recently Operation Titstorm, protesting the Australian government’s censorship of small-breasted women from porn (citing laws against portrayal of women who appear to be under 18).
Personally, I love reading anti-censorship manifestos that include phrases like, “The Australian Government will learn that one does not mess with our porn.”
gnomedad
This thread rocks. It’s exactly what the intertubes are supposed to be for.
Gus
It’s hardly news that other Western countries have more restrictive free speech rights than the US. Those of you who are thinking Canada should know that they have what sound like reasonable limits on free speech, but once you open that door, it’s hard to close.
toujoursdan
@Gus:
But this is what I don’t get, and it seems so stereotypically American in thinking: Canada’s restrictions on “free” speech aren’t all that restrictive and instead of becoming more restrictive, the restrictions have become less restrictive over the years.
The only major difference between Canada and the U.S. is with the restriction on using the public media (radio, TV, internet, billboards, etc.) to spread genocidal hate propaganda. You can, and have always been able to advocate for the death of Natives, Jews, Muslims and gays in Canada in private conversation with no legal sanctions at all. But you can’t use the media, which is considered a public resource under Canadian law, like a park or sidewalk, to spread hate.
But, and this is where I get confused, the underlying assumption is that if you give government an inch it will always take a mile. That having small and pragmatic restrictions on obscenity or hate speech which doesn’t affect political opinion, has no artistic value and won’t affect 99.9999% of the population and helps defend the right of vulnerable minorities not to live in fear, is the start of a slippery slope to the government building gulags for political prisoners.
If you actually look at the evolution of censorship and hate speech laws in Canada and New Zealand, the trend has been in the other direction. In Canada, almost all court cases that have involved hate speech are thrown out. Prosecutors, judges and juries (if they are used) have shown an increasing reluctance to try cases. Even clear cut cases, like when Native leader David Ahenakew said that Jews were a disease and Hitler was right on national TV were thrown out.
The slippery slope assumption seems to be rooted more in American mythology than fact. The trend has been moving in the other direction in the Anglosphere for a long time. It’s almost impossible to be charged with hate speech in Canada or get your movie banned in New Zealand. You have to try really, really hard, and even then, it’s likely to be thrown out. Government isn’t taking a mile in these cases. Government is pulling back from taking action more and more.
Sarcastro
So, my plan to flee to the Ruhr valley is still looking good.
Anyone in Gelsinkirchen need a grade-a network admin?
Kiril
@toujoursdan: Just a thought–maybe the trend is in the other direction because people protest censorship to such a degree? And if almost all court cases are thrown out it Canada, doesn’t that imply the underlying basis for the law is misguided? And if “Government is pulling back from taking action more and more,” then why does “Government” keep seeking greater and greater authority to censor?
It does not take a genius to see that the American government, at least, has sought greater control over internet content for a decade, and has only been stopped because of the outcry it provokes. It only takes a memory.
Sorry, brother, you’re dead wrong on this one.
ruemara
Sorry, planning to conquer my own private island.
Mark S.
@jetan:
That case sounds very frightening. I hope it gets overturned on appeal. If not, you can bet google, facebook, etc., will be getting the hell out of Italy.
So Google’s employees were negligent because they didn’t read every comment on Youtube.
toujoursdan
@Kiril:
But that’s how an accountable democracy is supposed to work. Representative democratic government is supposed to be accountable to the people. So if the people protest a law that they believe is unjust and it builds momentum, it should lead to Government changing this law.
This change always comes in stages. The cases are prosecuted less and less, the law becomes inactive and then either a court rules it unconstitutional or an MP or Congressperson petitions for it to be dropped. This is the case for free speech laws in all western countries (including America’s Sedition law) and well as other laws, like America’s sodomy laws.
For me to be wrong you’d have to argue that Canadians, Europeans, Australians, New Zealanders and Americans were somehow freer 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 years ago than now. And that just isn’t supported by history. The trend is overwhelmingly in the other direction.
It’s strange that Americans believe that they live in the freest country and have the best democracy in the world and then assume that their duly elected and representative government as well as every other democratic is going to go Orwell on their people.
Maude
@toujoursdan: @67
Bush – torture.
We are wary of politicos for valid reasons.
Kiril
@toujoursdan: But Western governments are seeking new powers of censorship. You seem to be arguing we should allow this and then wait for a while and protest and try to get the laws repealed. It doesn’t make sense. I’m not really even sure what your point is anymore. That we don’t trust government censors enough?
It’s not really Orwellian to think that giving the government more power will lead to abuse. Please recall that in the last administration, we had an administration that paid columnists to write pro-administration articles, that produced fake news pieces that were pure propaganda, that attempted to regulate free speech on the internet, that paid former military officers to push the administration line on news programs, and whose press spokesman literally told new people to watch what they say. This is off the top of my head, an exhaustive list would kill the comment system.
Are these the people we should trust with choosing what to censor?
And let’s not forget, these things are done in private. We didn’t find out about most of this until it had been going on for years. I think a lot of what you think of as overreaction is just publicizing governmental intent. And I think suspecting “mission creep” when you give up some of your liberty is perfectly justified. How quickly did the Patriot Act provisions, supposedly meant to be used for terrorism investigations, turn to being used on any illegal activity? Almost immediately. Don’t you remember the government ads equating buying marijuana with supporting terrorism? Or warrantless spying on innocent people? They investigated the Quakers for opposing the war, based upon Patriot Act provisions. The slippery slope is not a hypothetical argument. We have seen the evidence within even Americans’ short memory.
Gus
@toujoursdan: Thanks for a very educational reply.
Peter J
Maybe not an Orwellian dystopia, but in 2007, they outlawed the use of images/footage of parliamentary debates for satire or ridecule, and if you did, you’d be in contempt of Parliament.
Something that was rideculed by The Daily Show.
Gus
@Peter J: Not to mention that in Orwell’s dystopia there was a government agency called Pornosec that made pornography for the consumption of the proles. Fucking (both the word and the act) is different from political speech.
Royston Vasey
@mistermix: Good Morning from sunny New Zealand.
I think your vision of the ‘future’ is a tad over wrought. It’s a bit like saying if the current HRC bill passes today, then tomorrow there’ll be 100% socia-lized medicine and death panels. You are jumping to some mighty big conclusions.
RV in NZ
Fierce Pika
American living here in NZ now, and frankly it’s a mixed bag. Overall the place is much freer with regard to so-called censorship issues, but there’s also (like in Australia) tremendous over-reaction when it comes to issues of cyber-bullying, video games and child porn.
But there are other reasons to be worried about emigrating here. The center-right coalition seems to be hell bent on the following strategy: (1) was it tried and failed in the United States by the Republicans? (2) if so, let’s try to ram it through immediately. This includes policies on education, taxes, fiscal management (guess where all the funding cuts are?), crime, and social welfare. Not to mention an overwhelming zeal to start privatizing absolutely everything (because privatized rail, prisons, insurance systems, etc., have worked out so well). If this coalition stays in power through the next election, expect NZ to continue its shift to the right on structural issues.
But hey, at least they’ll still have socialized medicine and a relatively high standard of living.
Ken Lovell
Don’t want to turn this into a debate about Australian politics, but I would dispute labelling our current government ‘centre-left’ (or even center-left). It’s pretty much indistinguishable from the Liberal Party in terms of ideology: both are centre-right. The Labor Party was quite progressive a few decades ago and some of its hard core supporters pretend it still is, but it’s wishful thinking.
If our current prime minister had been around in 2003 he’d have sent troops to the excellent Iraqi adventure in a heartbeat, just as he has increased our commitment to the endless occupation of Afghanistan.
slightly_peeved
I know this thread is dead, but I just realized what I should have said last night in the comments…
If Tunch came to Australia, we’d have to change the anthem so it said “Our land is girt by Tunch.”