Guest post by Alec Rawls
Andrew Bolt has been blogging for the past week about the totalitarian tendencies in the just released “Media Inquiry” commissioned by Australia’s Labor government.
This “Finkelstein Report” advocates unlimited regulation of virtually all published and broadcast speech in Australia.
The actual proposal can be scanned in a few minutes (pages 290-300 here). It would set up a 21 member News Media Council, charged to enforce at least some level of oversight:
While the setting of standards should be left to the News Media Council, they should incorporate certain minimum standards, such as fairness and accuracy [§ 11.52, p. 291].
But there is no corresponding limit on how much the Council is allowed to regulate. Just the opposite, the Report explicitly declares that protecting freedom of speech is not part of the Council’s mission! §11.55, p. 292:
The News Media Council requires clearly defined functions. It is not recommended that one of them be the promotion of free speech. There are ample bodies and persons in the community who do that more than adequately.
Really? In a country that has no constitutional or statutory protection for speech, how are non-governmental “bodies and persons in the community” more than adequate to protect speech from a governmental body that is endowed with unlimited power to regulate speech?
The report explicitly calls for opinion to be regulated along with news (§11.64, p. 294) , and while low-readership blogs would possibly be exempted, Bolt notes that the suggested threshold for regulation would cover any blog that averaged even one reader a day, and even that would be at the complete discretion of the Council (§11.59, p. 293).
In addition to making whatever rules they want, the Media Council will also sit in judgment (§11.70, p. 296):
If not resolved informally, complaints should be dealt with by a complaints panel consisting of one, three or, only in exceptional cases, five members of the News Media Council.
Envisioned remedies (§ 11.74, p. 297-8) include forced corrections, forced withdrawals, and forced publication on the offender’s website of contrary views.
Crime and punishment
Elsewhere the Media Inquiry makes perfectly clear which views are to be corrected: global warming skepticism and criticism of the Labor government.
Skeptics could even be forced to take their own views down and post contrary views in their place. Just impose all the contemplated remedies at once, and why not? There are no stated limits. There are no limits on scope: that political speech is to be granted wide play, or even whether challengers for office must submit to oversight on their claims about the incumbent regime. Neither are any procedural limits imposed. The Council can make up whatever rules it wants. And if people refuse?
Failures to comply (§11.77, p. 298) are to be turned over to existing courts (civil or criminal not specified) which would be called upon to punish non-compliance as contempt of court (i.e. running fines or jail until compliance is forthcoming). In other words, unlimited punishment.
In the name of efficiency there are to be no “internal” or “external” appeals (§278, p. 299), but judges deciding on contempt charges would be allowed to review Council rulings if they feel that their dockets are not full enough already (§11.79, p. 299).
Orwellian “benefits”
§11.86 (p. 300) lists the proclaimed benefits that justify this system of unlimited regulation. Compared to the barbaric system of liberty, where people compete to offer the most convincing arguments, having the government be the arbiter of truth will:
[enable] the public to have confidence that journalistic standards will be upheld and that complaints will be resolved without fear or favour.
Yes, government is well known to never play favorites, and Solomonic power is famous for its even handed wisdom: “Cut the baby in half!” Liberty is way overrated.
Solomon did not actually cut the baby but we can be certain that this 21 member Council, all appointed by a single “independent committee” (like the authors of the Finkelstein report!), would be an abattoir.
“Independent” the report clarifies (§11.46, p. 291), means “Independent from government” (emphasis added), and yet it is to have the power of government. In other words, it is to have unaccountable power, and this independence from accountability is to be conferred upon a well known permanent Labor constituency, Universities Australia, which would get to appoint a majority of the “independent committee.”
Thus the entire enterprise would have the great virtue (from the Labor point of view) that unlike the sitting government, the voters cannot “throw the bums out.” Here the appointing committee and the appointed Council will violate the fundamental principle of republicanism as articulated by Alexander Hamilton, who appealed at the New York Convention that:
The true principle of a republic is, that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.
Too bad the Australian Constitution also lacks a republican guarantee.
The final punctuation mark on Finkelstein’s plan, the last proclaimed benefit of allowing dissidents to be swallowed whole by the Ministry of Truth, is timeless virtue:
Enhancing the public flow of information and the exchange of views.
“War is peace,” and “we’ve always been at war with Eastasia.” As Brendan O’Neill writes in The Australian:
…we’re witnessing the unravelling of many of the values and virtues of the modern era.
All in a knee-jerk snit over the fact that the left-dominated media does not yet have a complete publishing monopoly. Dissenting voices can still be heard, and Finkelstein finds that very disturbing.
Negative liberty: non-existent in Australia and in peril in America
To an American, what is most striking about the Australian plan is the complete absence of any statement of negative rights, or freedom from restrictions on speech. Our entire concept of free speech is framed in negative terms: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” The Australians have no constitutional protection for speech, but it is still astounding to see how readily the left would overthrow this pillar of Western liberty in exchange for partisan advantage.
The same totalitarian ambitions are at work in America too. They face greater legal obstacles here, but key actors are powerfully placed. Obama’s “regulatory czar” Cass Sunstein wants to use the system of “notice and takedown” from copyright law to shut down “conspiracy theories.” As an example, he wants to suppress claims that:
the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.
If SOPA had passed then all of the necessary machinery would have been in place, ready to expand from copyright infringement to the suppression of conspiracy theories at the drop of a one-line rider on any bill. At that point our freedom to speak our minds would lie in the hands of Sunstein booster Elena Kagan (who brought Sunstein to Harvard, calling him “the preeminent legal scholar of our time”); the racist Sonya Sotomayor (a long-time member of La Raza, or “the race“); and a borderline Court-majority of similar un-worthies.
We dodged a bullet and it looks like Australia will too, given how well the Finkelstein report is being received down under, but dodging bullets is a precarious business. If we don’t somehow manage to effect a fundamental retrenchment of liberty it won’t be long before we lose it.
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
ONLY hours after the Finkelstein media inquiry report was released last week, lecturers from four of Australia’s top journalism schools delivered their instant judgment on the academic website The Conversation.
Each of the four — Brian McNair from the Queensland University of Technology, Johan Lidberg from Monash University, Alexandra Wake from RMIT University and Andrea Carson from the University of Melbourne — enthusiastically embraced Ray Finkelstein’s central recommendation for a new government-funded regulatory body to sit in judgment of news reporting.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/finkelstein-report-medias-great-divide/story-e6frg996-1226295437607
how are non-governmental “bodies and persons in the community” more than adequate to protect speech from a governmental body
Though the use of the ballot box. Throw them out.
I would tactfully suggest that as the sceptical viewpoint seems to be getting heard more here in the UK at the moment that our ozzy friends consider making sure that your head of State can step in and get rid of the muppets.
Not ideal be any stretch
But JHC! – if this is true – your politicians need a wake up call in democracy.
They forget that they govern at the pleasure of the citizens. Maybe they’ll need to see a very large mass of people marching over the hills with pitchforks and shovels. That is the alternate ballot, as I recall.
Thank you for putting this up on your website. We already have the situation that at least 50% of the press is too scared to print serious investigative journalism in Australia. Newspapers that criticise the Government are threatened, daily. We have the 5th highest level of internet censorship in the world being imposed. A sitting State government is allowed to use outright slander to make the opponents look bad – it’s legal. All this to “protect” us from discussing our beliefs.
Bottom line, I get all my AGW information from the web, almost all from international sites. Global Warming discussion in Australia is largely closed down except for a few brave souls.
…and really scary for us in New Zealand, is the growing desire for closer “ties” with Australia
“The Australians have no constitutional protection for speech, but it is still astounding to see how readily the left would overthrow this pillar of Western liberty in exchange for partisan advantage.”
The lefts sole and only goal is to overthrow western liberty… the US Constitution the most rightwing document ever created is a threat to all leftists throughout the world and they will do anything to destroy it or even better to subvert it to prevent that somehow it says they are correct in oppressing the masses.
This subversion has be very successful in that many many people believe left and right mean left and right socialists… pravda had a great line about it… stalin is a moderate hitler is rightwing… and that has become our “new” political world…
Until people turn away from the left and the center and embrace the rightwing ideals in the US Constitution the US won’t be far behind.
My open letter to Australia*:
Dear Australia*,
Please go f**k yourselves. No, seriously. You’re all insane.
Thanks.
Yours truly,
Jay
*In this instance, Australia means the Australian government — all of them, elected or otherwise. Also, Simon Chapman and Nicola Roxon. And global warming alarmists. And most of Australia’s journalists for being pussies. Oh, and that taxi driver who drove me from the airport to Manly Beach. Yeah, you.
This is going to be great!
I cannot wait for this law to be passed, because it will give me no end of pleasure to make the life of those who try to enforce it utter hell.
Doug UK says (March 15, 2012 at 4:49 pm)
“that our ozzy friends consider making sure that your head of State can step in and get rid of the muppets.”
——-
Um, I seem to recall that happening in 1974, and it didn’t go down too well. 🙂
——-
Meanwhile, in the UK the head of the Press Complaints Commission, Lord Hunt, wants to introduce a voluntary ‘kitemarking’ system for blogs. The kitemark with indicate that the blogger has agreed to strive for accuracy, and to be regulated. Bloggers would lose their kitemark if complaints against them were repeatedly upheld. Blogs that cover current affairs will be first hit. Hunt says “At the moment, it is like the Wild West out there. We need to appoint a sheriff.”
This sounds just as bad! Richard Black from the BBC will get a kitemark from the ‘sherriff’ for supporting the ‘proper’ ‘scientific’ view of AGW, while WUWT will be blacklisted after enough warmist complaints about it being ‘anti-climate’.
We can’t even blame this one on the EU!
Atrocious and unbelievable!
The same policies have been tried mutliple times in recent history; Russia in the communist takeover and Germany with National Socialism in the 1930’s come to mind.
We all know – or should know – how that turned out.
Aussie servicemen have fought valiantly and died to help rid the earth of many of these curses on civil liberites. Let us hope the general populace will rise in righteous anger and ban any such possible legislation.
This is outrageous. I doubt the aussies will stand for it.
The true battle mankind has to face, fight and win in this 21st century is for democracy. Democracy as people understand it to be is already largely gone in Europe with laws being made by an unelected, unaccountable group along with the politburo within the EU which are binding upon the democratically elected ‘governments’ of EU member states. These ‘Governments’ where now some 80% of laws they make are dictated to them by the unelected in Brussels are in reality little more than puppet governments of the EU and there to provide the fig-leaf that people still have democratic governance.
The global elite’s determination to control the world through the careful eradication of democracy hidden behind smoke-screens giving a semblance of democracy are gathering strength and this example from Australia is just another manifestation of it.
AGW is, as we all know, another manifestation of the same aim.
The true challenge we all face, regardless of the battleground we fight it on is for truth, honesty and above all the restoration of democracy where it has been eroded or traduced and finding the way to create stronger democracy through public involvement in referenda to ensure that the will of the people will never be trampled and destroyed by the greed and desires of the few.
In Europe the battle to restore democracy has yet to begin although the majority of the public in the UK now understand to some extent that the EU has been terribly damaging to the UK and want us out of it. Other people across europe feel the same way and this is why the EU and member governments use every means to avoid the public having any say in their nations continued membership of the EU. It is more akin to the USSR than to democracy and is now widely nicknamed the EUSSR. Any individual who has worked for the EU in any position and is in receipt of a pension automatically loses that pension if they ever say anything publicly which is critical of any part, operation or aspect of the EU.
Mankind has a major battle to fight and the first stages (which I believe are already underway) are to bring realisation to the public in democracies of the nature of the threat; it seems the Labour party in Australia may be bringing that realisation to the people.
We have to win this fight.
I’m not against judgement of news reporting as long as it is fair, so that alarmist propaganda receives scrutiny and suffers penalties for inaccurate and/or misleading reporting.
My main concern is who is to make such judgements, and whether there is sufficient right of appeal.
I agree with Scottish Sceptic; these guys need to be careful what they’re wishing for.
This is strangely in line with the United Nations’ “Education for Sustainable Development” which says that more highly educated people accumulate more “stuff” and have a bigger environmental “footprint”. The less educated poor live simpler and have a smaller environmental “footprint”. So they conclude that providing a lot of general education is not sustainable and that the people should be educated only to the extent that they need to be in order to perform their (assigned?) work tasks.
This would be the logical follow-on. Since the people would then be too stupid to decide issues in an intelligent manner, we might as well get rid of voting altogether and have some UN commissions (I believe they call this aspect “World Governance”) decide everything.
What they don’t mention is that in the US and probably Australia, too, the percentage of the population with a college degree has never been higher. The population is more educated on these matters than it has ever been in history and MORE qualified to govern itself. And what, pray tell, makes one qualified to make these decisions from simply having won an election? What makes a politician so much more qualified than their constituents in deciding matter?
The entire argument is absurd. These people need to be taken by the scruff of the neck and hauled off to some place as far away from the seat of government as possible.
Its time to remove any government that even attempts to impose such draconian limits to free speech; any government that even proposes such ideas instantly forfeits themselves as the government and is automatically no longer the government but becomes the enemy of the people. Unbelievable that a country like Australia would fall prey to such busy body fascist big brother control freaks.
Do you Aussie’s have a national health care system that requires mandatory ‘payment’ (i.e., requires you to ‘pay into the system’ in some manner way, shape or form)?
Finkelstein, seems like a reasonable fella, mind you someone probably said that about, Pol Pot.
Looks like we’re heading back to the good old days of letterbox drops in the dead of the night. The Man will NEVER stop the resistance
Scottish Skeptic has the key. The tyrants who wrote this law forgot about the Internet. Small bloggers in Australia can keep the tyrants VERY BUSY for a very long time, because most blog ISPs are outside Australia. If the tyrants then try to ‘isolate’ the Net like China, they’ll run into even bigger trouble from ordinary folks who want to pick up tunes from Apple or movies from Disney. And when you start cutting into Apple and Disney profits, that’s when things get serious.
Where’s Guy Fawkes when you really need him?
I will be volunteering.
Yes, I will sign up on the first day of enlistment, to be a member of the army that will be required to liberate Australia from the occupying forces of evil.
I’m certainly hoping I won’t be called upon to liberate and/or rescue people from the inevitable re-education camps, but hey, I’ll do whatever I have to.
(I can’t be any more obvious without someone screaming “Godwin’s Law!”)
One thing Alec Rawls left out was the so-called “fairness doctrine” law proposed by Democrats which was specifically aimed to silence right-wing media by requiring stations to air opposing points of view. Thankfully, that law is dead. But if there is anything I’ve learned over the year is that people who thirst for power don’t give up until they have what they want. Two things corrupt more than anything else: money and power. Climate scientists have been corrupted by both.
Is it just me or is the world becoming more and more like the world of Atlas Shrugged.