Australians to lose their Freedom of Speech

“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

 Thomas Jefferson

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington

Unfortunately, here in Australia we don’t have a constitution or a bill of rights.  Australians, sadly, are still subjects of the crown, and have never held inalienable rights.

Jooliars apparatchiks are moving in, as freedom of speech goes out the door. Wake up Australia!

Some points to remember and repeat to all our your Labor politicians

Andrew Bolt

Free speech is not a threat but a good.

What threatens us most is not free speech, but laws to control it.

To take away the right of a single person to speak is to take away the right of a million to hear.

The best defence against bad speech is good speech.

An idea which must be defended by banning other ideas is a bad one.

A man muzzled is a man enslaved.

Who are you to tell me what I cannot say?

Dennis Shanahan on a government deceiving itself – and thus threatening its survival, our future and our free speech:  Labor lies even to itself

The Tactic’s of Tyrants:

Why does anyone in a free society despise free speech so much?

Why can politicians have Parliamentary Privilege but heir employer (the Australian people) cannot have the same?

What is there to fear about the transparent debate of ideas?

Who in history has used this same tactic before and Why?

Finkelstein’s media council: will sceptics be censored?

Australian Climate Madness warns the Finkelstein report could lead to warming sceptics being censored by the proposed new News Media Council. And it is right.

More from Andrew Bolt:

Freedom is our best defence against abuse of power

Gerard Henderson notes that Finkelstein wants his proposed News Media Council to be run by people exactly like … him:

According to Finkelstein, journalistic standards should be set by a government-funded body. 

Pinkie Finkie

Raymond Finkelstein QC. Raymond who? Well, he’s the kind of left-leaning activist lawyer I’d normally run a mile from – especially since he’s behind a scary new report which, if implemented, will kill what’s left of freedom of speech in Australia and pretty much criminalise climate scepticism. (the Australian)

Five fundamental freedoms

A government paper: the rights the government grants you.

Update from Joanne Nova:

Welcome to Australistan.

I haven’t read the whole 400 page Finklestein report, but Mark Steyn tells me that the Chinese government likes it. What more do you need to know?

As Steyn says, this is not a left-right thing, it’s a free-unfree thing.

Tim Andrews at Menzies House launches a New Free Speech Campaign: “This is a proposal that would seem right at home in North Korea or Zibmabwe. I never thought – as dark as things seemed- we could stoop this low here in Australia”.

People asked me if this would “affect your blog”. Ha ha, I laughed, Will it? Right now, I’m discussing whether I’d need to move to Fiji, or Florida, or become a citizen of the Dominican Republic in order to express my views. Could I split my blog into a different domain name each day to avoid being “monitored”? ( I could have 365 blogs: joannenova1.com.au, joannenova2.com.au… it would play havoc with the search engines.) Alternately, perhaps I write 100% satire, cartoons, irony, and the exact opposite of what I mean? Ho Ho. Who has the rule book on the Soviet black market for ideas? What can we learn and how does it translate in this Internet era?

If all this legislation achieves is to force me to invite Tim Flannery to do a post here, all I can say is Yes Please. Bring it on. But we all know that requirement would mean that instead of gaining “balance” we would gain silence. Because Flannery only has to say “Sorry I’m busy for  a decade” and what, Joanne Nova has to hold all her posts until he finds the time? Paradoxically, though we could use the legislation to force the ABC to mention the unmentionable — except that in the end, selective enforcement by an unelected Big Brother team would decide what information was “safe” for Australians to read. And that pro-big-government team already thinks the ABC provides enough skeptic content (i.e. almost none).

They pretend it’s about serving the public. But the Finklestein report is aimed at skeptics and disabling the Murdoch newspapers, and the submissions were mostly from professional lobbyists. The “bias” category lists skeptic crimes according to well known warmists. Eighty-six percent of the 10,000 submissions the Inquiry received  were boilerplate copies from Avaaz (foreign group),  GetUp or “NewsStand”. GetUp support Avaaz, and NewsStand turns out to be a front for GetUP. All of them say they are for “Free speech” (as long it’s pro left-green speech). Avaaz and GetUp betray their lack of principles,when  they run open “hate media” type campaigns against Murdoch papers.

Simon at Australian Climate Madness points out the futility of trying to stop an international information flow. “The Australian government cannot legislate regulations to take effect over media organisations outside Australian jurisdiction, without bipartisan agreements between those other states. I do not foresee this happening – for example in the US, the First Amendment prohibits any law infringing on the freedom of speech or the press.”

But then, if the government control the fibre-optic cables, perhaps they really can block overseas sites. Is that why the Labor Party thinks renationalizing Australian telecommunications into the NBN (National Broadcast Network) is “good value” so they can bring sanitized propaganda to every home? Will skeptics laugh at the toothless tiger from overseas sites, or end up broadcasting from moving vans via CB radio? Will anonymous twitter-hack networks spring up to defeat the ruling? Either way, the nation spends more of its intellectual wealth fighting a bureaucratic maze instead of fighting lies, half-truths, and Gongo-ideas.*

The power of one voice

I finally met The Man (Mark Steyn) last night at his Perth speech. Brilliant, brave, inspiring, and it absolutely made-my-day (in a career highlight kind of way) that he knew straight away who I was. He had quoted my Climate Money paper in 2009, and he spoke of it immediately. Forgive me for the shameless brag.  Some days I wonder if an audience of 5,000 readers a day matters, but then I find a famous cartoonist, author, or member of parliament who reads the site, and all the work seems worthwhile. I’m reaching the people that matter.

I almost never reveal the names of the influential readers. (It’s not like I’m doing them a favor by telling the world). Lately there have been many, and I met another last night. As I dryly commented to this particular policymaker who’d come up to praise me and shake my hand:Thankyou. I’ll add your name to the list of people who I can’t say reads my work!

But this is the key isn’t it? The power of the internet is such that one person out of 7 billion can speak a truth that was unspoken, and the message spreads and silently reaches those in the highest circles of influence. Free speech is the greatest of gifts for humanity. It unleashes the best of billions of brains. The internet is changing the power-structure of societies, and the ruling class don’t like it at all. The fact that their ideas are so weak and that they are so defenseless against sharp observations, is is exactly why they have to regulate it.

Bob Brown, we know you are afraid to let Greens policies be debated. Actions speak louder than words.

 How much of our right to speak will they take away? As much as we let them.

We must aim for the total absence of an Independent Media Commission. Their current ambit claim will be watered down, 15,000 hits a year will be negotiated to 150,000 hits a year and it will still be a noxious, nasty, evil piece of work.

Free Speech is free speech. It doesn’t come with a limit.

Please sign the petition at Free Speech Australia.

Menzies House is pursing this legislation.

Prof Bunyip calls it the Finko and Rickety Review. (Streuth, this is the kind of ruling they want more of?)

Prof Bunyip (Speak up while you still can) recommends (as do I) that we start sending letters to University Chancellors to ask them to remove any lecturer of journalism that endorses censorship (lest their institute be exposed for a patsy lap-dog government entity). See his post for details.

————————————-

*And you thought I just made up that word. Actually I did. But then I discovered it means something and Gongo-idea is my new favourite term.  Gongo-  stands for Government-Organized Non-Governmental Organization. Used by undemocratic governments… 

3 thoughts on “Australians to lose their Freedom of Speech”

  1. Canada’s own A.G.W. maven, David Suzuki, has called for Nuremburg style trials for man made climate change skeptics. No scientific debates just heresy trials.

  2. How dare the Press Council censor even politicians?

    Excellent observation by Liberal frontbencher Sophie Mirabella on the Finkelstein report and the already-too-censorious Press Council:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_dare_the_press_council_censor_even_politicians/

    The fact that something as draconian and absurd as the Finkelstein Review can be met with little more than a murmur suggests we are becoming accustomed to surrendering our freedoms on the say so of Government or some other arbitrary body.

    I have my own example. By no means earth-shattering, but still a case where I decided I’d have the argument later, rather than cause the ruckus I instinctively wanted to at the time.

    It was actually my Punch opinion piece last December, published on the 22nd – just days before Christmas – where in an end-of-year summary the term “illegal entrants” was changed to “irregular entrants”. No biggie perhaps.

    But not my words. Not my opinion.

    I don’t blame The Punch crew. It was explained to me that it had to be done due to a Press Council ruling which found that the word “illegal” “may be considered inaccurate and unfair” in relation to those who enter our country by other than legal means. Go figure. Therefore journalists have been instructed to use the term “asylum seekers”, rather than “illegal entrants”. Even more insidiously, the Press Council ruled that “even opinion pieces and commentary” had to be held to this apparently new standard.

    Check out the details here.
    Without getting into the argument of whether it’s “unfair” to describe someone who has entered our country illegally as an “illegal entrant”, exactly who has made the ruling that my opinion is now so very offensive that it must be censored?

    How dare the Press Council censor opinion like this? How dare media organisations put up with? How dare the Finkelstein declare that this already too-mighty bureaucracy is still not sufficient a policeman or our speech?

    Flannery: “great” if they could stop me (Andrew Bolt)

    Read this blog while you still can, because free speech about the great global warming scandal seems threatened, and not just by the proposed News Media Council.

    Professor Bunyip reports this exchange at a Launceston meeting address by Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery:

    Admirer: Flannery… Can I ask you a question?
    Flannery: Yeah
    Admirer: You know the journalist… er… Andrew Bolt?
    Flannery: Yes, yeah.
    Admirer: He keeps bagging you.
    Flannery: Yes, yeah.
    Admirer: He got a court order by the Aborigines, because he denied the “Stolen Generations”. I don’t know who was it that took him to court exactly, but he got a court order to stop… to stop… uhhhh…. bagging the Aborigines… [inaudible]… And anyway… now he tries to deny Global Warming.
    Flannery: I haven’t really looked… I had to chase The Australian newspaper to court twice last year … I sued them twice over… for defamation. But he hasn’t actually defamed me yet. He just keeps on saying that, you know, I said certain things… whatever… which are not true… But he hasn’t actually said that I’m a lying bastard or anything like that…
    Admirer: So, just for denying Global Warming in general…
    Flannery: Yeah….
    Admirer: Is it possible to get a court order that he stops?
    Flannery: I am not aware of it … I do… I have worked with some lawyers [inaudible]… you know… these people… they do… I… I just think they are doing totally the wrong thing… [inaudible]… but I haven’t found a way of achieving that [inaudible].
    Admirer: Like… You are not allowed… You know that you are not allowed to write anything about denying the Stolen Generations [inaudible]
    Flannery: I do… Yeah… I do… Yeah, yeah…
    Admirer: Maybe… it’s just… if we could get him to stop denying Global Warming….
    Flannery: That would be great… Then he would have nothing to write about… [laughing]… You’re right… that would be lovely…. yeah.
    Anyway, I have to take the Commission to dinner, but great meeting you. Thank you for coming along.
    Admirer: Ok, Thank you for… eh… coming to Launceston…
    Flannery: What do you do?
    Admirer: I am a student in the university.
    Flannery: Oh, fantastic. What are you studying?
    Admirer: Environmental studies…
    Flannery: Oh, fantastic…
    Admirer: Yeah…
    Flannery: Excellent. Well, I hope you enjoy it…
    Admirer: Yeah… The University of Tasmania is very big in promoting “Global Warming”…
    Flannery: Yeah… Yeah… Exactly… Yeah.

    If you can’t win on argument, try shutting them up by law.

    The same in America:

    The rush to censor Limbaugh

    The scandal-ette should be over.
    So why are the Left and the media still pushing and publicizing a campaign for advertisers to dump the Limbaugh show and end his career?

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/05/rush-to-censor-limbaugh/#ixzz1oJ5XLx6h

    But lets take a closer look at the slut:

    Revealed: Abortion Agenda of Campus Group Headed by Sandra Fluke

    “A woman’s right to access an abortion is rooted in fundamental human rights, including the right to life.”
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/revealed-abortion-agenda-of-campus-group-headed-by-sandra-fluke/

  3. Brown preaches hate to trash your right to read a different opinion

    Andrew Bolt – Thursday, March 08, 12

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/brown_preaches_hate_to_trash_your_right_to_read_a_different_opinion/

    Justin Quill is a defamation lawyer, so more measured than most when commenting. But Bob Brown’s deceptions in threatening the media demands plain speaking:

    Brown said that the media “want to be exempted from what every other Australian has to do and that is to make sure that if they do a wrong it gets rectified and gets rectified quickly”.

    I’ve never been a fan of Bob Brown, but that really is misleading….The media is not exempt. And the media is not asking to be exempt…

    It is hard to imagine a more regulated industry than the media industry.

    Bob, , what about the law of defamation? Or perhaps contempt of court laws? Racial vilification, surveillance devices legislation or copyright ringing any bells, Bob? You get the point, right?

    I would love to list all the different ways the media can be hauled over the coals for mistakes.

    The list would make Brown look even sillier than he does now.

    Of course for Brown, our judicial system is not a good enough regulator of the media. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that Brown cannot control the judiciary? The separation of powers doctrine sees to that.

    So why not get around it by creating an environment of fear or, better still, hate, of the media and then use it to justify a government entity to regulate the media?…

    Bob Brown has so much power within our democracy and yet, it seems, a complete disdain for the organ in society that keeps that democracy alive and free from corruption.

    Bob Brown is a threat to free speech and to democracy. From him, I’ve learned to expect little better. But from the Labor politicians aiding him in this shameless, destructive attack on free speech and a free press I had expected much, much more.

    Senator Stephen Conroy should hang his head in shame. The man I knew 15 years ago would not have countenanced such a thing. Has power so seduced him that he would now stoop to trashing our most fundamental rights to save his miserable Labor Government from well-deserved media criticism?

    Next Finkelstein will quote Chomsky and Che

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/next_finkelstein_will_quote_chomsky/

    Andrew Bolt – Thursday, March 08, 12

    The Finkelstein media inquiry relied heavily on far-Left activists for ammunition against the media’s right to publish freely and the public’s right to read as they pleased:
    CAMPAIGNING papers! The Finkelstein report into media regulation quotes from a study:

    IN December 2011, the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism published a report on media coverage of climate change policy in Australia. One of the conclusions reached in the report was this: “The two biggest News Ltd tabloids—the Herald Sun and The Daily Telegraph—have been so biased in their coverage that it is fair to say they ‘campaigned’ against the policy rather than covered it.” It went further: “Evidence in this report suggests that many Australians did not receive fair, accurate and impartial reporting in the public interest in relation to the carbon policy in 2011. This suggests that rather than an open and competitive market that can be trusted to deliver quality media, we may have a case of market failure.”
    Who wrote the report? From Finkelstein’s footnotes:

    WENDY Bacon, A Sceptical Climate, Media Coverage of climate change in Australia (2011).

    Wendy Bacon, the would-be lawyer? The NSW Law Reports summarise the case of Bacon (1981):

    FACTS:Wendy Bacon is a fervent activist. As part of her campaign against the establishment, she protests, is frequently arrested, and is willing to disobey the law if her ideas about social justice demand it. She admits that legal ideals are subordinate to her personal view. On one occasion, she protested the censorship of a magazine by walking into the court wearing nothing but a profane costume. On another occasion, she is alleged to have obtained bailment for a friend from an unscrupulous source, which was subsequently forfeited due to non-attendance. To further her activities, Bacon applies to be admitted to practice. Issue: Is Wendy Bacon a fit and proper person to be admitted to practice? Decision: Not admitted.

    To be fair, however, I suspect Ray Finkelstein – completely inexperienced in the media – actually relied on journalism professor Matthew Ricketson to supervise the industry research. I’m not convinced that would be wise.

    UPDATE

    On Bacon’s questionable measurement of “bias” and her blindness to that of the Left

    On the green-sponsored “independence” of Bacon’s research.

    Column – Don’t let the warmists swim out of this one

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_dont_let_the_warmists_swim_out_of_this_one/

    If Rinehart has such power over the media, why is it so hard on her?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/if_rinehart_has_such_power_over_the_media_why_is_it_so_hard_on_her/

Comments are closed.