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.
A little OT, but related to Aus, the Govn’ts climate adviser Ross Garnout, his dirty big secret and the fact not many people in Aus know about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ok_Tedi_environmental_disaster
I guess his advice and support of a AU$23/tonne “cabon” tax will fix that eh Ross?
Tyranny never sleeps. The default political system is Tyranny.
To have something other than Tyranny, requires, courage, intelligence, wisdom, hard work and vigilance.
It takes only one careless generation to forfeit liberty.
We live in dangerous times (but perhaps it ever was…) and very real courage will be required before liberty is once again secured for a time.
Ian H says:
March 15, 2012 at 6:34 pm
It is a generational 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.
This is very apt.
The US also has it’s own problems: REF: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/%E2%80%9Cwe-are-far-turnkey-totalitarian-state-big-brother-goes-live-september-2013
Plus the Patriot Act, and the National Defense Authorisation Act slaughtering the Bill of Rights.
LazyTeenager says:
March 15, 2012 at 8:02 pm
That’s what the libel and slanders laws are for – it’s already covered. Under no circumstances is it justified to limit another persons speech.
If you think someone is lying, refute them – if you can.
NetDr says:
March 16, 2012 at 9:55 am
In the USA such regulations would cause a revolution , but the army would refuse to attack the people!
What kind of people are Australians that they would accept slavery ?
To accept slavery, you must first be aware that it exists. When Australians are aware, then they will show their true colours, and most will not disappoint.
ExWarmist says:
March 17, 2012 at 10:55 pm
Tyranny never sleeps. The default political system is Tyranny.
To have something other than Tyranny, requires, courage, intelligence, wisdom, hard work and vigilance.
It takes only one careless generation to forfeit liberty…..
_____________________________________________
And that careless generation was the “Baby Boomers” seduced in to voting themselves “freebies” mislabeled as rights while allowing their rights to be stolen with rally cries of “There should be a law….”
There were government bureaucrats in 2000 that brazenly said in a court of law “The farmers have no rights. No right to be heard before the court, no right to independent testing, and no right to question the USDA.” As part of a lawsuit in 2010 the FDA stated: “There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds..“There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract” And very very soon we will be losing our most basic right the right to grow food. Woman Faces 93 Day Jail Sentence For Growing Veggies in Front Yard
You know there is something very very TWISTED in a country when an ex-felon can steal a semi-truck and trailer (MINE) use it for hauling stolen cars and drugs for three months and he only gets a MAX sentence of 60 days probation yet a woman growing veggies gets 93 days in jail.
I’d like to tell you a true story which may help to illustrate the Australia character.
A few years ago a couple of men walked into a pub (can’t remember which state), balaclavas and guns, with the intention of emptying the till.
The pub’s patrons simply didn’t believe in the reality of the threat and laughed uncontrollably. If you think that’s weird the reaction of the would be bandits was odder – they left (apparently baffled and shamed by their inability to put it over). Not a shot fired and no harm done.
Australians don’t have the ‘hair trigger’ culture and, having grown up with the legend of, “the lucky country”, don’t expect the worst.
I wanted to jump back in this thread but I see that Gail is hitting home runs like Babe Ruth.
Anyway, I’ll just say what was said long ago, and that is that the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments (Income Tax, Senatorial Elections, Prohibition) were the death sentence for our free republic. To be sure it wasn’t immediate execution but a delayed one. These set the infrastructure for all later Socialist attacks. The end result was a move toward democratic mob rule where the parasites became empowered to vote themselves other peoples’ money, including their own children’s and grandchildren’s.
Have no doubt whatsoever that this can only end badly, it is inevitable. It is why Americans are busy arming themselves to an extant never seen before. All temporary setbacks that Socialism suffers in the form of elections and unfavorable court decisions are merely delaying the final act. It may be hard to accept, and the brain-dead slave voters of the Democratic Socialist party will whine about conspiracy theories, but they did this to us. And they still are doing this as we sit here and blog.
Ponder this for example: a broke nation already with generation liabilities in the trillions decides to elect to the white house a Manchurian candidate street agitator red doper diaper baby who immediately presses for yet another monster liability added to the previous ones. New Deal – Social Security, Great Society – Medicare, Raw Deal – Obamacare … Game over. You could construct some comparative analogy using a child maxing out credit cards and then obtaining further lines of credit and maxing them out, but really nothing can make the numbers involved imaginable. The error bars for missing funds and accounting errors for the money spent on the welfare state alone dwarf the entire budgets of most of the other nations on planet Earth.
There are very few avenues left to extricate ourselves out of this mess. The easiest one (and the least likely to be exercised) is to NEVER ever vote for a Socialist regardless of party ever again, period. No matter what bribe they offer you, they must be removed from office now. Wake up people!
The greens got the labor party in, well thats how Australia voted, dont sook about the democratic process you advocate (just because your team lost), the rational and logic on the right has gone on holiday, in the case of the media review I would like to know if its someones opinion or its reporting of facts, something missing in our media, to many claiming their opinion is facts, even people convicted of presenting opinions as truth are taken seriously in Australia, how can the media be held accountable when they fund the watch dog, the fox watching the chicken, although Australia are good at ignoring recommendations contained within reports, we are a laughing stock signing up to all these agreements then ignoring the recommendations made worse by the whinging of people who didnt get their own way, that once un-Australian trait of going against the democratic process is now the bread and butter to the opposition, respect Australian laws and processes like you expect all imigrants too or leave to a country where you respect the laws and system
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
Can you believe that? Climate Skeptics to be targetted by censorship. At least that’s a sign that we are on the right track and are showing them up as unable to defend their science and proposed carbon tax. Amazing that they so blatantly abuse the public’s natural rights to free speech, hardly the Australia we used to be so proud of?
NetDr says:
“In the USA such regulations would cause a revolution , but the army would refuse to attack the people!
What kind of people are Australians that they would accept slavery ?”
I am wondering if there is some perception distortion here.
In the USA, the public accept TSA groping and dangerous invasive X-Rays, their loved ones being killed and maimed in false wars, molesting of suspect but not dangerous individuals on the street, tasering children, unfair treatment of Wall St protesters, (an attempt at criticising and defying authority). Wall St banker thieving of taxpayer money, and a few other things. I suspect information censorship is in its infant stage already.
On the other hand, we Aussies have had our guns taken away, are about to pay an unwanted carbon tax and are slowly losing our sovereignty.
At what stage the people rise up in masses, is an interesting consideration.
The control of people and their loss of freedoms is gradually applied and many citizens do not even realize their losses.
I don’t think we are much different to the Americans.