NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems like of late, the Australian government has decided that any book or film that advocates terrorism will be henceforth banned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6551003.stm

I find this bit to be interesting.



As the Australian Society of Authors put it: "We can't refute what we can't read".


But the government has dismissed these concerns, saying public safety overrides the issue of free speech.

Who wants to bet they could expand this to "anything we, the government, don't agree with"?

Meh, we lost freedom of speech A while ago. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law) (If we ever had it to begin with....we don't have a bill of rights)

We're not allowed to publish comments advocating violence against certain groups (Alan Jones exempted), so I don't see banning books that condone blowing one's self up and a few a civilians with you as any real shift policy.

I don't think the ban is a great idea, but it isn't a big leap from hate laws either.

Australians are fairly apathetic. They tend not to care about their rights being eroded. Legacy of the "She'll be right, mate." ethos of Australia. Most of my friends have no idea about the sedition laws, or this law. And they don't care for me trying to tell them about it. They think I'm weird.

Don't worry, this november(ish) Rudd and the Unions will save us from Howard's twisted conservatism.

Plus, I pride myself on being seditious in every way possible.

I don't think the ban is a great idea, but it isn't a big leap from hate laws either.

Not really, but think of it this way. They can interpret the law to mean any literature that espouses anti-establishment tactics. Or just anti-establishment sentiment.

There has to be a specific incitement of violence, which is different to saying you disagree with Australian institutions. I can say I don't like the government without making any violent reference.

Seems like of late, the Australian government has decided that any book or film that advocates terrorism will be henceforth banned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6551003.stm

I find this bit to be interesting.




Who wants to bet they could expand this to "anything we, the government, don't agree with"?


[sarcasm]
Oh noes! The government doesn't want terrorists running rampant! God forbid terrorist propaganda be banned! :eek: Who cares if Muslims run around killing everybody as long as we are a bunch of brats with rights thats all that matters.[sarcasm/]

This is the same Bush-licking Australian government that banned Henry Rollins for reading a book on Islam. Go figure.

Meh, we lost freedom of speech A while ago. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law) (If we ever had it to begin with....we don't have a bill of rights)

New Zealand are actually considering getting rid of the sedition law finally. Not sure if they're close at all over the ditch. It only happened here when someone got charged with it and we were all reminded that it existed.

[sarcasm]
Oh noes! The government doesn't want terrorists running rampant! God forbid terrorist propaganda be banned! :eek: Who cares if Muslims run around killing everybody as long as we are a bunch of brats with rights thats all that matters.[sarcasm/]

Terrorist propaganda? Who decides what terrorist propaganda is? The government has deliberately worded this law to enable it to interpret any statement it does not like as an advocation of terrorism.

I thought our society was above book-banning. I was under the impression that that was what made us different from the fundamentalist regimes oppressing their people. Guess I was wrong. Must be because they're all evil Muslims hell-bent on destroying our pure European race.

That sedition law is truly scary, but what's even more scarier is that I could easily be convicted on some of the stuff in it. But I spose so could half of Australia.

Seems like of late, the Australian government has decided that any book or film that advocates terrorism will be henceforth banned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6551003.stm

I find this bit to be interesting.




Who wants to bet they could expand this to "anything we, the government, don't agree with"?
That does it...I henceforth despise the Australian government...Aussies, you'd better shape up, and soon.

New Zealand are actually considering getting rid of the sedition law finally. Not sure if they're close at all over the ditch. It only happened here when someone got charged with it and we were all reminded that it existed.

Not. We instituted it a few years ago to somewhat widespread support. :rolleyes:

That does it...I henceforth despise the Australian government...Aussies, you'd better shape up, and soon.

We're trying, believe me.

If Soviet Forces in pursuit of aggressors entered Australia, Australian workers would welcome them. Australian workers would welcome Soviet Forces.


That's it, I have just broken the law. Please arrest me now.

[sarcasm]
Oh noes! The government doesn't want terrorists running rampant! God forbid terrorist propaganda be banned! :eek: Who cares if Muslims run around killing everybody as long as we are a bunch of brats with rights thats all that matters.[sarcasm/]

I kind of expected you to show up sooner or later. Come back once you've finished reading the article and realizing the implications. But if you don't have the reading patience, I'll just summarize it for you.

Australian government: "Anything we declare capable of inciting terrorist actions are hereby banned"

Which means anything from Harry Potter to the Anarchists cookbook so long as they can claim that a terrorist at some point was influenced by it.

I kind of expected you to show up sooner or later. Come back once you've finished reading the article and realizing the implications. But if you don't have the reading patience, I'll just summarize it for you.

Australian government: "Anything we declare capable of inciting terrorist actions are hereby banned"

Which means anything from Harry Potter to the Anarchists cookbook so long as they can claim that a terrorist at some point was influenced by it.

Which means copies of Aladdin will skyrocket in value simply because it's "terrorist literature."

Which means copies of Aladdin will skyrocket in value simply because it's "terrorist literature."

Open Sesame is the secret password used by terrorists to communicate you know. I suppose we can't buy "Al Quaida and forty Jihadists" now ...
Have to settle with "George and Johnny's most excellent war" now

Australian government: "Anything we declare capable of inciting terrorist actions are hereby banned"

How do you come to this conclusion?

To begin with the courts would determine what what incites a terrorist act and what doesn't.

It would be similar to the sedition laws, the courts define what is seditious, within the context of the legislation.

Until any of these grave predictions I always hear about actual come to fruition I, and the majority of the country, aren't going to care because nothing is happening that is actually infringing on our rights. Sad, but true.

But the government has dismissed these concerns, saying public safety overrides the issue of free speech.

Sounds like something Mussolini or Hitler would say. Not trying to Godwin, but there is an eerie similarity. Not saying Australia will devolve into fascism, but still creepy nonetheless.

Sounds like something Mussolini or Hitler would say. Not trying to Godwin, but there is an eerie similarity. Not saying Australia will devolve into fascism, but still creepy nonetheless.


And this use of "National Interest", whatever that is ...

How do you come to this conclusion?

To begin with the courts would determine what what incites a terrorist act and what doesn't.

It would be similar to the sedition laws, the courts define what is seditious, within the context of the legislation.

I don't see the legislation saying the courts would decide. Just giving more powers to censors.

This is an amendment to the Classification Act 1995, which is administered by the Classification Review Board, which is independent of the government. The board can not be instructed to act by the government, however the government can change the laws in which the CRB operate.

If it is believed the CRB as had made a decision inconsistent with the rules laid out by the government, then this is for the High Court to determine.

I don't see the government banning political criticism. To do this it would have to change the Act very specifically, so that it can force the CRB to act, while not drawing the wrath of the High Court.