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.
What is happening to Australia? Are we picking on them with these outlandish rants or is it all true?
In Canada we face a problem of silencing government scientists who want the right to speak independently from the government about their research. It seems that the government is subverting important information such as catastrophic global climate change, so if only the scientists could by-pass official government channels and speak directly to the people all would be well.
I agree with the Canadian government that they should control the information that their scientists generate. This does not apply to university scientists. But is Australia applying this concept to all groups – private as well?
Rants on blogs are one thing. But understand who has the guns. And I’m not talking about shotguns. Look closely at Syria. Are you who object to this News Media Council in Australia willing to die for your freedom? Because if you’re not, you lose.
Ditto the USA.
Head post: 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.”
Can you turn that around as ‘placing limits on government‘? (Note also that was an amendment to the original document.)
This ‘negative rights’ business does not make sense …
.
No laughing matter. This is draconian imposition. 1984 anyone?
well, let’s see-
liberty is funded by… er….
well, oppression is funded by your tax dollar so there’s at least a zillion to one financing imbalance.
so i guess the game is gamble the farm on impossible odds.
and because the certainty of being ripped off is always so easily masked by false hope,
the anemic patient will always call for more leeches – just different ones.
and so nature takes its course – and that’s the same as it ever was.
dream of change? heh.cum mula peperit.
The government regulating the media rather than a media appointment body in combination with the court system. What an incredible proposition. And utterly reprehensible.
AndiC says: “…and really scary for us in New Zealand, is the growing desire for closer “ties” with Australia.”
Reminds me a lot of the throngs of Austrians eager for closer ties with Nazi Germany. Can anschluss be long in coming?
We had a classic case of what news and current affairs would be like under the Finkelstein regime last night when the ( national broadcaster) ABC’s Lateline program ( one of their flagship N&CA shows) conducted a 15 odd minute “interview” with …. Professor Michael Mann! Professor Mann was fed porridge with honey sprinkled with dorothy dixer questions about the Hockey Stick, Mike’s Nature Trick and of course good old Hide the Decline. He batted them away in his easy, greasy, smug style with po faced denial closely followed by predictable blather about how they were out to get him and the rest of the team etc.
I am sure this utter pap is what the brave new Finklesteined world will look and sound like if the proposed Anti Free Speech Einsatzgruppen ever gets off the ground.
But, there is hope. Queensland’s ALP government are headed for oblivion in a week or so to join that of New South Wales. Victoria’s has already gone as did Western Australia’s a couple of years ago. That means the three most populous states ( Qld, NSW, Vic) and the two mining boom states (WA, Qld) for a total of about 90% of the population will be outside the tent pissing in with firehoses. Tasmania’s ALP-Green fruitcake will be next.
The other thing to keep in mind is that while we have no explicit constitutional right to free speech like the US, our High Court ( i.e. the highest in the land ) has form in this area and it is on the side of liberty. Some years back the ALP tried to ban political advertising and comment in the last few days before an election ( always on a Saturday here). It was in response to a particularly devastating ad by the (conservative) Coalition in the previous election run over the last couple of days with no chance of rebuttal (BEWARE Labor’s WEALTH TAX !! ). The high court threw the restriction out on the basis that our democratic electoral arrangements made no sense without the right of free speech. This was in reality a common law confirmation of free speech as a fundamental right rather than a constitutional one. So fear not too much, dear friends.
This post is my therapy for having to suffer Michael Mann last night.
Australia is scary like that. They literally have no civil rights protections other than the whims of bureaucrats who only adhere to the far left.
If that day comes in the US at least our electrical problems will be solved. We’ll just need to wrap the bodies of our Founding Fathers in copper wire, mount some magnets near them and, voila, an instant supply of power as their bodies spin unendingly in their graves. Other than that, I can’t think of anything to recommend a proposal such as this.
Are there any well-known champions of free speech in Australia whose name you can rally behind? Or at least dead ones you can harness for electrical power in the event that this crazy proposal goes through and becomes law?
It amazes me how theoretically sane people can’t see the purpose in the ideas behind the First Amendment. There is no “truth” in the absolute sense that one person or one set of people can possess it. The only way a committee like this could function effectively (and morally) is if they were omniscient and new all truth without possibility of error. Since that is patently impossible for human beings, the only reasonable and sane thing to do is for people to be free to speak and make their best case and let the marketplace of ideas decide. The hubris in this proposal is mind boggling. As well as it’s obliviousness in putting a small group of people in charge of determining what can and can’t be said across a whole society. Do they not see the overwhelming danger in concentrating power like that? Or are they so mesmerized by the idea of sticking it to those they disagree with that they can’t see that the same tool can be turned against them (c.f. French Revolution).
If you take away freedom of speech, the once free people will very often resort to action instead.
Things could get quite ugly !!
Perhaps Lord Monckton needs to make another visit down under? Maybe he already has a trip in the works. Best of luck to all our freedom loving friends down under. The Marxists and all of their ignoramus followers are hard at work trying to destroy western civilization and they are well entrenched everywhere.
As I have stated before they will not stop until they rule us all and they mean to do it one way or another, at some point they will attempt to do so by force. I sincerely hope we can stop them before it is too late.
Anti democratic forces here in Australia want ever encroaching limits on free speech and critical debate.
Forced myself to watch Michael Mann’s bland interview on ABC last night 🙁
Get yer message t shirts.
Write yer letters.
Do yer protest marches.
It’s gonna be on fer one n’ all !
Seriously stupid idea. I hope it is laughed out of town or, if not, its supporters voted out soon and forever. If it does take effect and remain in force, it will succeed only in driving resistance underground. When that finally erupts, there will be a terrible reckoning.
You know how most of the worlds troubles come from dodgey little 3rd world countries?
We’re trying to turn ourselves into a dodgey big 3rd world country.
Not long now.
I have my Backtrack , IPCop and Tor Linux ready 🙂
It is inevitable.
Governments have always controlled ‘their’ people by feeding them the desired story at the desired time, and have avoided scrutiny of major stuff-ups, distasteful legislation, and outright robbery by creating major distractions. In the old days, these distractions consisted on an SOP of finding an enemy, creating a crisis, then starting a war. More recently, but before the age of the Internet, created or real environmental or economic ‘crises’ have sufficed (a proviso, if you are American, then wars remain the preferred method).
The Great Global Warming Indoctrination Failure (GGWIF) will be followed by gradual but relentless tightening and restriction of ‘freedom of speech’ on the Internet. Individual government will find new ways to manufacture new crises, and use them as an excuse to gradually edge us back to the ‘good old days’, when information moved slowly, and most people only saw the desired side of the ‘argument’.
Green totalitarians. Hopefully Australians will vote these politicians and their sycophants out… Clearly such blattant bias cannot be established without powerful financial forces at work.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
Scary people in scary places
I certainly do not mean any offense to my many Aussie friends (I lived there for 3.5 years, 20 years ago now), but am I ever glad not to be there now!
My Dad passed last year. His favorite t-shirt had a picture of a pile of guns on it. You know, the ones the aussies confiscated about ten years ago. I think it was an nra t, but I’m not sure. I’ll have to see if mom still has it. Anyway, He always preached that the reason they were taking the guns away, was to restrict free speech. He kept waiting for it to happen. I find his wisdom remarkable. Take care of your house, Australia.
The next logical step is to “limit” the content of ballots–meaning that only “correct” ballots will be counted. Then even the time-honored and ultimate means of eliminating such nefarious control will itself be eliminated.
Anthony, see this post of mine regarding the constitutional powers of the Australian federal government to regulate bloggers.
Finkelstein claimed that any organisation with “more than a tenuous connection” to Australia would fall under the jurisdiction of the NMC. But in reality, unless the blogs are a legal corporation, the government has no such power. The advice, from the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, was conveniently omitted from the consultation page of the Inquiry (until I emailed them and they were forced to put it up):
Legal advice sinks bloggers’ Finkelsteinian nightmare”
It will be a lawyers dream, if such legislation ever reached the statute books.
Simon
Editor, Australian Climate Madness (and lawyer)
It is a generational thing.
The movers and shakers in our civilisation are usually aged between 55 and 65. That is when people reach the apex of their careers and tend to have the most influence over their chosen spheres of life. People tend to form their political opinions at roughly the age where they go to university. Lets say 18. That means the movers and shakers of our society right now formed their political viewpoints in the years 1965 – 1975. If you think about what was happening in universities back then you will understand a lot better where most of this nuttiness is coming from. This is the generation that invented political correctness and saw it is a desirable thing.
Wait ten years for the next more cynical generation (of which I am a member) to arrive at their peak of power. That generation that used “political correctness” as a term of disparagement.
Well, so you disseminate information via websites that switch off after the 14,999th click.
That’s still much better than Xeroxing leaflets. Finkelstein is an amateur totalitarian.
I know it was a big leap in my intellectual understanding when I was growing up when I finally realized that, at the highest levels of power, there is no independent, unbiased authority, there’s no absolute truth. There’s only what you can sell and what you can get away with. At lower levels, things operate on automatic pilot, so to speak. As children we’re taught that there are the police and the courts and everything and if you break the law, you get arrested, you get tried and convicted, and you go to jail. All very impersonal. But at the highest levels, it’s very different. Everybody knows everybody and automatic pilot no longer works. Crimes don’t get prosecuted automatically, they get prosecuted if it’s in the interest of those in power to prosecute (or if they are shamed into it against their will). And so “truth” and what “really happened” and what is really a crime is hostage to political intrigue, party affilitiation, and personal relationships. There is no absolute truth because there is no one at that level that is unbiased or uninvolved to render an indepedent judgment.There are always ulterior motives and personal relationships involved. Government, you realize, is no more than a group of flawed human beings fighting among themselves for advantage.
Yet the people who propose commissions like this seem utterly unaware of the true nature of politics and government at those levels. They are still laboring under the child-like belief that “government” is somehow set apart from all that. That it is objectively wise, and fair and noble and can determine what is right and wrong without bias and transmit that “truth” to us mere mortals. But it can’t because it’s none of those things. It’s an association of flawed individuals with independent agendas operating under a loosely enforced set of rules and conventions. In the short term it’s answerable only to itself. It’s naive in the extreme to give the power to determine “truth” to such a group and then further to give it power to enforce that determination by penalties that force one to violate one’s own conscience or prohibit one’s speech. It’s remarkable that such a naive attitude about government and its role in society could survive into adulthood for so many people. They need to grow up. And the sooner the better.