The War On Media Freedom

Bill Muehlenberg comments on proposed changes to restrict freedom of speech in Australia:

The Australian Labor/Green government has proven to be no friend of freedom. Along with the various Labor state governments, we have seen many freedoms being whittling away. All sorts of legislation, such as vilification laws, anti-discrimination laws, and so on, have all taken their toll on freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion.

Now things are set to get a whole lot worse. The government has just released some proposals, based on a 400-page report by former leftist judge Ray Finkelstein. It wants to seek draconian powers to clamp down on the media, including even such things as blog sites and Facebook. Bloggers such as Andrew Bolt and myself for example could be directly targeted and silenced.

A report in the Weekend Australian makes for frightening reading. It begins this way:

“Print and online news will come under direct federal government oversight for the first time under proposals issued yesterday to create a statutory regulator with the power to prosecute media companies in the courts.

“The historic change to media law would break with tradition by using government funds to replace an industry council that acts on complaints, in a move fiercely opposed by companies as a threat to the freedom of the press. The proposals, issued yesterday by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, also seek to widen the scope of federal oversight to cover print, online, radio and TV within a single regulator for the first time.

“Bloggers and other online authors would also be captured by a regime applying to any news site that gets more than 15,000 hits a year, a benchmark labelled ‘seriously dopey’ by one site operator. The head of the review, former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein, rejected industry warnings against setting up a new regulator under federal law with funding from government.

“The major newspaper companies were unanimous in opposing a statutory regulator under federal law, with Kerry Stokes’s Seven West Media declaring it was inconsistent with the notion of a free press. Media companies also warned that government funding for the new regulator would undercut the workings of a healthy democracy, with APN News & Media bluntly opposing any increase in regulation.”

Not surprisingly the Greens are fully in favour of such restrictive and freedom-inhibiting measures: “Greens leader Bob Brown urged the government to establish its new media watchdog so it could enforce standards across print, online, radio and television platforms by the end of the year.”

Now I have not yet read the 400-page report, and it is early days yet. But already many are expressing their concerns. Andrew Bolt for example says this about the 15,000 hits blog concept:

“That comes to just 41 hits a day, which could be racked up by, say, 10 interested people, clicking a few pages each. And what this tiny band write for each other is now to be policed by men from the government, acting on complaints from activists, busybodies and the eagerly aggrieved.

“It’s easy to say that only the guilty need fear the consequences. But who the hell has the right to define ‘guilty’? Since when was free speech a threat – and a bigger threat than controls on it? Can even ‘responsible’ free speech flourish when the process of regulation is the punishment? Already it is easier for me and you to shut up about some subjects than to be forced to justify our statements to a tribunal, generally staffed by people of hostile political views.

“Just this aspect of the report defines for me the essential nature of the Finkelstein inquiry’s bid for ‘control’ of what’s written and broadcast – its gross impertinence, deep intrusiveness and only arbitrarily defined restraint on its passion to control the free speech of others.

“And be warned. In writing even this I have taken a professional risk. In no genuinely free society should I be scared to speak like this. Nor should you. Defend free speech while you still have what’s left.”

Obviously I have some vested interests in all this. I of course have a blog and it certainly gets more than 15,000 hits a year – way more. So CultureWatch will also be subject to the government censors. The truth is, there exist plenty of secular lefties who would love to see this site permanently shut down, along with many other sites.

If Big Brother gets involved in this process of weeding out politically incorrect speech then we are all in trouble big time. This certainly will be the end of democracy and free speech in Australia. This is of such great concern that already groups have been formed to resist this statist move. One such group is Free Speech Australia which can be found here: www.FreeSpeechAustralia.com/

As it says on its homepage:

“Freedom of speech is VITAL for any democracy to function. The right to speak freely without fear of prosecution or government censorship is at the core of our society. Yet freedom of speech in Australia is now under serious threat.

“A government-commissioned report just announced plans to create a multi-million dollar super-regulator to control not just mainstream media in Australia, but websites, private blogs and even Twitter and Facebook as well! Under this proposal, any online site that involves the ‘public dissemination’ of information that gets more than 40 hits a day will be subject to Big Brother censorship and regulation!!!

“Even worse, the SuperRegulator ‘would not have to give reasons for its decisions’ and the decisions ‘would not be subject to appeal.’ This super-regulator is a threat to people on all sides of the political spectrum: This is not a matter or right or left – this is a matter of right and wrong.”

This is very scary stuff indeed; real Big brother stuff – something every one of us should be greatly concerned about, and willing to speak up about before we no longer have the right to speak out.

Bill Muehlenberg is a Melbourne based author who lectures part time in ethics, theology and philosophy. He has an interactive blogsite called CultureWatch. 

Comments

[Robert Mcjannett]

1.

Bullshit, they are hacking and tapping phones and publishing stolen in formation in Australia. I have proof of it.

[Robert Mcjannett]

2.

We don't need a regulator we need news limited and 7West closed down and then problem solved.

[Ralf Schumann]

3.

Greetings comrades in the Democratic People's Republic of Australistan!

Of course we need more thought control in this country. Just imagine every Tony, Bill and Andrew were allowed to be saying what they want, poisoning the hearts and minds of innocent children with all this liberal, libertarian and conservative hate speech.

Just wait until Comrade Minister Conroy has his centralised NBN internet filter in place and Dear Leader Julia and Uncle Brown can set the Comintern agenda as to what constitutes Goodspeak and Badspeak, then you free speech ratbags will learn quick enough how to get your two brain cells to goosestep. You should have learned by now that Socialists are always more equal than everyone else. The glorious Soviet Union and mighty Warsaw pact did not fall, it just improved tactic.

So let's all chant: What do we want? Totalitarianism! When do we want it? Now! And once again...!

[Chell]

4.

I disagree strongly with Bill Muehlenberg on several issues, but I find myself in furious agreement with him here.

From the Finkelstein report:

'If a publisher distributes more than 3000 copies of print per issue or a news internet site has a minimum of 15 000 hits per annum it should be subject to the jurisdiction of the News Media Council, but not otherwise. These numbers are arbitrary, but a line must be drawn somewhere.'

Apart from 15,000 'hits' per annum being a tiny number, the use of the term 'hit' surely betrays the ignorance of the author. Hit != page view != visitor != unique visitor.

I hope the Opposition will take a firm stand against this latest proposal for censorship.

[Grumpyoldman2]

5.

Of course free speech should be banned. That is the only way socialists and communists have ever fixed it. The other way is to make it an offence not to speak, as in many items of Australian Legislation already.

Just one more reason to amend our Constitution to include an Australian Bill of Rights before our politicians remove them all and before Fabianists get an International Bill of Rights together that gives our remaining Autralian rights away.

[dante]

6.

Someone once said “the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew”. This very famous person was using free speech, skillfully managed Nazi propaganda, gave raise to the Holocaust and plunged the World into WWII.

Given the condition and provided the lack of control on the media with regard to content and ethics then history will be repeated. That is what is at stake and that is why we need to defend the right of everyone and not just a few.

Shock-jocks in our airwaves already are inciting the public against Islam and ‘the flood of refugees arriving by boat’, we have our share of politicians with a hatred agenda (e.g. Ms Hanson), people on this site have commented very despairingly about Islam, we had our Cronulla.

As a nation we need to put a lid on this to ensure we continue to live peacefully and with minimal civil unrest. Liberty and freedom carry associated duties and responsibilities. If these are missing we have anarchy and the law of the jungle. We must prevent another Hitler from raising to power.

If as a society we don’t approve of making pornography freely available, how can we allow something potentially more damaging to our society to be published without any form of control?

[Chell]

7.

What rot. Haven't you heard of Godwin's law?

Leaving aside the issue of boat people, one can hardly blame Australian shock jocks for Islam's poor reputation: its loopier practitioners are more than up to that task - see http://thereligionofpeace.com/

[bluebell]

8.

Dante prefers to concentrate on the more romantic/benign aspects of Islam than to confront the ugly truth of where this religion is heading. The recent atrocities in Homs should be generating pure outrage within the Muslim communities inside the West and Islamic countries themselves.

Plenty of murderous outrage over stupid cartoons of Mohammad by Danish artists, but barely a whimper over the beheading of a 7 month old baby in front of it's mother in the city of Homs.....go figure.

[james]

9.

A misconception here of course. The real purpose is to stop the likes of Murdochracy Inc. from printing error in regards government. This has been done successfully in Canada bringing misinformation to rein. These laws regarding lies, slander, bigotry, misreporting, should be strengthened in a free open society. Murdoch need to get his facts straight and such legislation is a step in the right direction. This has nothing to do with the suppression of free speech. To say so is a twist of the facts, thanks again Bill.

[bluebell]

10.

Yet our PM can lie repeatedly through her teeth with no accountability - I say set up a political watchdog to oversee their behavior as well - cuts both ways.

[bluebell]

11.

No outcry over this coming from our Muslim citizens either.....I bet they are silently gloating.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/digger-graves-destroyed-by-islamic-mob/story-e6frg8yo-1226288770267

[John Mc]

12.

So according to our resident left-wing idiot, apparently Hitler promoted free speech as a weapon in support of his cause. Despite the extreme freedom of speech that we all know existed in Nazi Germany, those who opposed Hitler apparently couldn't overcome his clever arguments on the Nazi equivalent of 'Q&A', hence his rise to power. Violence, especially violence quelling free speech, actually had nothing to do with it. Contrary to popular opinion The Night of the Long Knives was actually a public debating session with the grand prize being a set of ornamental steak knives, which Hitler won through his witty one-liners. The Night of the Broken Glass was actually a Barmitzvah that got out of control after someone spiked the kosher wine despite Hitler's public announcements protesting that the destruction of private property is indeed not free speech, further enhancing his public image.

.........do you ever get to a point where you think we've already won the intellectual debate, and all that's left to do is vote these losers out once and for all in a final coup de grace?

[Grumpyoldman2]

13.

Back into your inferno Dante. Free speech will not be controlled by banning or regulating it. All but one of the previous "-isms" have already tried but never learned to leave it be. Judaism, Christianism, Catholicism, Muhammedism, Communism, Socialism and now even Climatism is having a go. Bhuddism followers have not pursued speech regulation and I suspect never will because theirs is a way of life not a religion.

The ones whose freedom of speech ought to be curtailed are our witty, verbose, abstruse, comatose politicians. Speech is difficult when one's head is in the sand.

[dante]

14.

I'm afraid you are totally wrong. Hand in hand with freedom of speech comes responsibilities. Words harm people, they have caused wars, they have resulted in injustice.

Freedom of speech is not and cannot ever be an absolute in a civilised society.

Eatock v Bolt case clearly identified that the "demand [that] those exercising free speech rights accept the responsibility of getting their facts right". Bolt did not appeal because he knew he would lose.

Those of us that are prepared not to harm people with our words have nothing to fear from any regulations. Only cowards that haven't the courage to be accountable for what they say are afraid of regulations.

[Lillith]

15.

Damn, that was brilliantly well put...!

[dante]

16.

bluebell you are a racist hypocrite. Atrocities have been committed by all, but I assume that atrocities committed in the name of Christ are not atrocities in your little f..d up world.

[dante]

17.

WOW, a person with some sense visiting and commenting, congratulations ... there are so few of us on this site, but our combined IQ by far outstrip the regular here, people like bluebell and kraka and other whose combined IQ hardly reach 3 digit ... but only a good day ...

[dante]

18.

What gives you the right to offend all muslims? How would you know if they are gloating? Would you be gloating if christians ahd perpretated the same thing on Muslim's graves?

Now that I think of it you probably would. Normally people jump to conclusions and accuse others only because that is EXACTLY what they would do if given the opportunity.

You are disgrace to the human race, shame on you!!

[dante]

19.

Being called 'a left-wing idiot' by you is a compliment because it distinguishes me from you, and that is so fantastic you would not believe. I wouldn't want to be like for all the gold in the world.

Now, let me correct you. Hitler did not promote free speech, he simply used to come to power. I was simply indicating to you (but how silly of me to assume thick head like yours could even remotely understand it!) that uncontrolled free speech can lead to disastrous consequence. With free speech comes responsibilities.

[dante]

20.

You maybe a grumpy old man but not a wise one.

In the words of Helen Pringle
1. Freedom of speech is not an absolute.
2. Speech as well and as much deeds can perform. Words can do things. Words can do things even more effectively than deeds in many cases. Even the lack of words, as in Jane's chilling phone calls late at night, can do things.
3. Words can enact harm, and not simply cause harm to happen.

The speech that cause harm is the form of speech we human with a degree on empathy and intellect want to control ... but you need not worry too much about it. I believe old and senile people should be left alone to contemplate their immenent entry into my parlour!!!

[bluebell]

21.

Get it through your thick left wing head......ISLAM IS NOT A RACE!

On the other score....tell me which atrocities have been committed evoking Christ's name. Name one. Yes, western soldiers have committed crimes out of pure revenge and frustration because of what Muslims have done. I have yet to hear a western soldier evoke the name of Christ then kill.

Muslim major screamed 'Allahu Akbar' before slaughtering 13 at Ft. Hood

[bluebell]

22.

(How would you know if they are gloating?)

When you have dealt with Muslims as long as I have you instinctively know that many would be....silently gloating that is.

Besides, who gives rats what you think. This country is being deliberately flooded with the bastards, and within another 20 odd years they are going to be a fracking HUGE problem. You socialist filth have flooded the West with people of this religion. A religion that doesn't tolerate 'the other' and wages endless war in order to advance their numbers...either by persuasion, force or taxes.

Now scream racist again.....and tell me which race I am supposed to have offended, chimp!

[tee]

23.

Exactly how many Muslims have you personally dealt with Bluebell just to clarify your statement. Or are your dealings with Muslims vicarious viz a viz other's opinions on websites you frequent?

[Chell]

24.

I commend you for being upfront in your call for selective censorship - most censorious leftists (and censorious rightists, for that matter) try to be more circumspect.

Your attitude brings to mind the case of a 20-year-old in England who is serving a 4-year jail term for setting up a Facebook event called 'Smash Down in Norwich town' during the London riots last year. He didn't actually smash up anything mind you, just wrote some stupid things on the internet. I guess you would agree with him being prosecuted.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/11181/

[bluebell]

25.

How about living 6 months in Pakpattan, Pakistan. Or actually living on Mosque grounds in suburban Melbourne. Or having relatives who are in this faith. Does that qualify?

Don't ask for more details, because you won't get them.

[Robert Mcjannett]

26.

Bullshit, they are hacking and tapping phones and publishing stolen in formation in Australia. I have proof of it. We don't need a regulator we need news limited and 7West closed down and then problem solved.

[tee]

27.

One can learn much in six months. Were you occupying the mosque grounds when you were living there? Do your relatives think you an infidel?

[bluebell]

28.

They tried to convert me while in Pakistan, and yes, they think of us as Infidels. In fact the husband of that relative placed a Koran beside my bed every night and told me that if I rejected the words of Mohammad, the final prophet, I would be destined for Hell. Happy now?

Muslims, by and large think they are superior to the Infidel - just ask Keysar Trad.

[bluebell]

29.

There is plenty of paranoia going on inside Muslims communities - they thrive on gossip, and target anybody within the community they deem as doing anything un-Islamic. They viciously targeted one girl, because gossip had it that she had a pregnancy termination. The power of the community is all enveloping. Any anglo saxon convert is not fully trusted as they could be ASIO spies. Their words, not mine.

[tee]

30.

Yes the infidel-believer dichotomy is quite strong in Islam. But just as strong in fundamentalist Christian groups, they'll try and convert you too, and also tell you are going to hell if you do not believe. I also found much suspicion in Muslim countries which I put down to historical factors especially in those that had been illegally colonized by European powers.

[John Mc]

31.

I was simply indicating to you (but how silly of me to assume thick head like yours could even remotely understand it!) that uncontrolled free speech can lead to disastrous consequence.

The fact you don't understand that curtailing free speech always leads to disastrous consequences proves you know nothing about human history. The fact you don't know that human civilisation is progress towards freedom of speech, and moving away from free speech is a step back to the dark ages, proves you are the sort of person who should be ridiculed every time you open your pathetic yap. That's the service we provide for you!

With free speech comes responsibilities.

All freedom comes with responsibilities. You can't have civilisation without it. That's the left-wing mistake: you think can legislate the need for people to be responsible. You can't, it doesn't work and it's never worked.

[bluebell]

32.

Yes, so it would seem. So paranoid they feel the need to destroy war graves. At least Gaddafi respected the last resting place of a fallen warrior. Some of these people are infiltrating into the West with the same mindset. Gillard and co are NOT vetting these current gate crashers like they should. About 10 years ago a friend of my mothers was married to a Syrian.....he was arrested by the Federal Police. Turns out he was a Syrian spy targeting Syrian dissidents and reporting back to Syrian HQ. He merely married her for cover. Of course our dumbsh*t politicians never let on to the Australian people that the rats are already here undermining everything this country stands for.

[tee]

33.

John could you be confused, as Bill is, to what 'free speech" really means?

[tee]

34.

Bill writes: "This certainly will be the end of democracy and free speech in Australia. This is of such great concern that already groups have been formed to resist this statist move. One such group is Free Speech Australia which can be found here: www.FreeSpeechAustralia.com/" But isnt this a Menzies House run page and why didnt he tell us that?

[John Mc]

35.

Why don't you tell us what freedom of speech means, Tee?

[skyrail5]

36.

mmm i would love to see this proof from a convicted crimminal

[skyrail1]

37.

yer gr8 idea close them down then the people who do put in there tax return can pay for them to be on sickness benfits because they have some kind of made up truma or better still with all the time you have off you can try and sue every one that comments on you

[bluebell]

38.

This will be the end of free and fearless speech as we know it. Australia is an island continent - so make no mistake, we are being USED as a test case by those that despise democracy and free speech. This under the guise of 'media standards'.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/media-superregulator-recommended-20120430-1xuc5.html