Press Council Manifesto - Sounds Like A Further Clamp On Australian Press

Press Council chair vows to fight for press freedom and disclosure standards for native ads The chair of the Australian Press Council David Weisbrot has pledged to fight for press freedom and create a new model for defamation laws to help protect freedom of speech in Australia following the passage of recent terrorism Bills through Parliament. Speaking to an audience at the Melbourne Press Club today, Weisbrot, who has headed the APC since March, said “times have changed” and the APC’s role “in advancing freedom of the press” cannot be “largely restricted to its complaints-handling function”. “Freedom of speech and freedom of the press may have a strong cultural hold in Australia, but they rest on flimsy legal foundations,” Weisbrot said, in an address in which he also outlined plans for disclosure requirements around native content. “Unfortunately, the traditionally fine balance has been tipping steadily against freedom in recent times. We’ve had 40 ‘anti-terrorism’ laws passed, often with insufficient Parliamentary scrutiny of the potential effects on free speech and press freedom.” Outlining amendments to the ASIO Act – the new metadata retention laws – which Weisbrot describes as a “crushing blow to investigative journalism and freedom of the press” he said: “In these circumstances, it is not sufficient to hope that publishers will be successful in resisting these incursions, and the Press Council must take a stand in favour of free speech and press freedom liberty.” As such, Weisbrot said the APC must “actively work to diminish private or civil obstacles to investigative reporting, press freedom and free speech” thus pledging to lead a process, to culminate in May, “to develop a Model Uniform Defamation Law for Australia of which we can finally be proud”. In his speech Weisbrot also outlined the APC’s plans to develop and provide education and training programs for working journalists, cadets and others on the APC’s standards and on emerging issues such as metadata retention, secrecy laws, whistleblower laws and anti-terrorism laws. “We urgently need to move away from the system of punishing individual transgressions in our industry and feeling that such action alone maintains high standards across the entire profession,” he said. “While the need to identify and sanction poor practice will remain, there are much better strategies for achieving industry-wide improvement, and reassuring the community that this is the case.” Weisbrot also outlined draft proposals for specific standards reporting of family violence, reporting of child sexual assault, respectful reporting around LGBTI individuals and issues, respectful reporting around race and religion and labelling/disclosure requirements around sponsored or native content “so as not to mislead readers about the nature of the material”. He is also looking at drafting standards on the appropriation and publication of online photos and the “‘right to be forgotten’, with the need to balance the relevance of stale/sealed/expunged convictions versus the improper alteration or erasure of history”. The APC chair also pledged to broaden the council’s membership, looking to engage with the multicultural press. “The current leadership of the Council is strongly committed to engaging with the multicultural press in Australia and encouraging the Council’s inclusiveness, both in terms of formal membership as well as in access to Council programs and activities,” Weisbrot said. Miranda Ward http://mumbrella.com.au/press-council-chair-vows-to-fight-for-press-freedom-and-disclosure-standards-for-native-ads-310574 --------------------- David Weisbrot Emeritus Professor of Law and Honorary Professor of Medicine at University of Sydney David Weisbrot AM is an Emeritus Professor of Law and Honorary Professor of Medicine at the University of Sydney, and a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Law.  David was President of the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) from 1999-2009, where he led 15 major national inquiries, including the landmark inquiries into the Protection of Human Genetic Information (Essentially Yours) and Gene Patenting and Human Health (Genes and Ingenuity). [here] --------------------- COMMENT All of the above sounds like bad news to me. Forget the fluff about 'freedom of press'.  This is like those US operations that are euphemistically named the opposite of the aggressive acts they involve. Maybe the news should go underground like those blackmarket sites.  LOL

LIB-LABOR Stasi State: Mandatory Mass Surveillance of Australians & TPP

Mandatory data retention passes Australian parliament Summary: The government and Labor have jointly ensured that the telecommunications data of all Australians will be retained for two years for warrantless access by law-enforcement agencies. By Josh Taylor | March 26, 2015 -- 07:40 GMT (18:40 AEDT) Follow @joshgnosis The Australian government has relied on the votes of the Labor opposition to pass legislation on Thursday that will force telecommunications companies to retain customer data for two years for warrantless access by law enforcement. The legislation -- which will see call records, assigned IP addresses, location information, billing information, and other customer data stored for two years -- passed the Senate on Thursday with the support of Labor senators. The government and Labor shot down over a dozen amendments from the Greens, and several amendments from crossbench senators including those from David Leyonhjelm, Dio Wang, and Nick Xenophon. The amendments would have forced the data to be held in Australia, would have required warrants for all accessing of the data, and would have limited the storage to three months -- bringing Australia closer into line with international standards. Instead, the government agreed to a number of amendments from Labor, including requiring a warrant for accessing the data of a journalist for the purpose of identifying a source. The government will appoint a "public interest advocate" to argue on behalf of journalists -- who won't be aware that their data has been sought by law enforcement. There was also intended to be an amendment limiting access to the data for the purposes of civil litigation, but Attorney-General George Brandis on Thursday admitted that through third-party access orders and subpoenas, data could be made available through the court for cases such as copyright infringement. In the end, the Bill was condemned by Leyonhjelm, and Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, but ultimately passed 43 to 16. The Bill will need to be returned to the House to agree to the amendments, but with a government majority this is a mere formality. The legislation passed without the Australian public knowing the cost of the scheme to telcos to build systems to store the data, nor how much the government intends to contribute to the set-up. Earlier in the week, Brandis revealed that the cost per customer per year for the operation of the scheme will be $4, but the cost of building the systems, contained in a confidential PricewaterhouseCoopers report, remains unknown. Brandis said the government's contribution will be detailed in the Budget in May. Telecommunications companies will be given 18 months after the legislation is passed into law to get systems in place in order to comply with the legislation. Armed with a degree in Computer Science and a Masters in Journalism, Josh keeps a close eye on the telecommunications industry, the National Broadband Network, and all the goings on in government IT. Follow @joshgnosis http://www.zdnet.com/article/mandatory-data-retention-passes-australian-parliament/ COMMENT This isn't what a democratic government is for; this is a totalitarian state in action. Note: (1) MASS surveillance; and (2) WARRANTLESS access to data.  The Liberals and the Labor party have sold out every single Australian with this data retention legislation. Data retention is not only a totalitarian violation of civil liberties; it also exposes all Australians to third-party legal action (based on evidence obtained from data retained by internet service provider Stasi deputies). Personal data of Australians will not even be retained on Australian soil and there is no provision for regulating the destruction of that data: WHAT HAPPENS TO DATA THAT IS STORED AFTER THE MANDATORY RETENTION PERIOD? The new laws do not prescribe any rules for the de-identification or destruction of the retained data after the expiry of the two-year retention period. [Lexology] Furthermore, Australian taxpayers will foot the bill twice over for the 'privilege' of having their civil liberties pissed trampled on by bent, corporate serving politicians, aiming to maintain an iron grip on the freedom of all Australians, as taxpayers shall pay for:  (a) the undisclosed federal government contribution to this totalitarian surveillance scheme; and (b) the service provider costs that shall pass onto consumers. The driving force imposing this totalitarian state in Australia, is the practical alliance between the Liberals and their Labor Party sidekicks. Imagine what politicians are hiding from the public when they're targeting journalists with surveillance and secret probes into forcibly collected data. This isn't about national security; this is about control:  control of the press and control of the people, by politicians who serve American and corporate interests, without regard for public welfare or standards of acceptable conduct - which is why whistleblowers, and whistleblower publishers such as WikiLeaks, are important.  Just look at the Trans-Pacific Partnership 'free trade' agreement ('TPP') that government has hidden from public view during several years of negotiations.  What a rort.  They're negotiating away Australia's rights and democracy, and on a course to assign national sovereignty to the very corporations that politicians serve. It's thanks to WikiLeaks - and NOT these corrupt government actors, who dodge transparency and accountability - that the public has even come to know the contents of the SECRET TPP document.  So what does that tell us about the political order in Western democracies, and what does that say about government witch-hunts, criticism and propaganda unleashed at the independent publisher, WikiLeaks, and Julian Assange? The Lib-Labor Stasi, corporate-serving practical political alliance, is about to sell out Australia by signing up ALL Australian as subjects of the TPP (unregulated trade) agreement, which is a vehicle for corporate management of federal, state and local policies.   Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Investment Chapter WikiLeaks Link - here ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TPP a corporate-managed FTA Signs away democracy & sovereign rights [12:26]  https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qaY46i0ECw8  VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT NEXT ELECTION )))   BILL SHORTEN   (((  2009 audition to US Consul General * Criticises Union Movement * #WikiLeaks - here. VOTE THE BASTARDS OUT NEXT ELECTION Hmmmm ... think I might get a bit melodramatic when I come across news that particularly annoys me. I've come back to edit 'pissed on' to 'trampled on'.  LOL

TWITTER CENSORSHIP - CABLEDRUM / WIKILEAKS

TWITTER CENSORSHIP COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. CABLEDRUM https://www.cabledrum.net/news/twitter LINK “The WikiLeaks Supporters Forum” at wikileaks-forum.com website, the pseudo forum: Mark Goeder Tarant’s anti- #WikiLeaks anti- #WLsup Operation intensifies on #Twitter (Update 15/03/2015)

USG - Google Investigation of WikiLeaks Staff - Broad Attack on Free Speech & Free Press

Google, gag orders and WikiLeaks: who’s lying? Jeff John Roberts    Feb. 2, 2015 - 6:26 AM PST The political fallout of WikiLeaks has passed, but the fury of law enforcement has not. More than four years after the organization published a trove of U.S. diplomatic cables, federal agents continue to wage a secret legal campaign to put the screws to those responsible. This month, a new twist to the story emerged as lawyers for WikiLeaks accused Google of betraying its users by secretly turning over their communications to the Justice Department. Google shot back that it did all that it could, but the government stifled the company with gag orders. The dispute suggests someone is not telling the truth but, at a deeper level, points to the problem of secret rabbit holes in the U.S. justice system that obscure the existence of criminal investigations. [ ... ] ... the biggest liar in the Google-WikiLeaks affair: the U.S. government, which claims that national security requires it to disregard even the most basic principles of procedural justice by scrubbing the very existence of certain dockets — including ones that appear to have no obvious tie to security. Keep in mind that the secret court orders related to the Google-WikiLeaks conflict are not about disrupting potential terrorist plots. Instead, they represent a process for the Justice Department to search the correspondence of people who consider themselves to be journalists, and to use gag orders to ensure it takes years to learn a search has taken place at all. This is just the latest spread of a shadow justice system that serves to breed paranoia and distrust. Whether you believe Google or WikiLeaks, their current dispute wouldn’t exist in the first place if the Justice Department scaled back its use of secret investigations. “Central to this whole question, is not just Google, but the federal government,” Ratner said. “This entire investigation, including the search warrants, is a broad attack on free speech and free press. It should have never begun, and certainly should have ended long ago.” EXTRACT ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE https://gigaom.com/2015/02/02/google-gag-orders-and-wikileaks-whos-lying/ COMMENT An example of the US government misusing the law to target and punish foreign journalists exercising free speech and freedom of press. PS   The impact of US secret investigations campaign against these journalists would have an implication for all journalists, including Americans.

Media Lens Org

MEDIA MEDIA "assumption that human institutions are in possession of Absolute Truth belongs 2 era of The Inquisition, not to serious debate" Media Lens Aim 2 bring awareness 2 systemic failure of the corporate media to report the world honestly & accurately> http://www.medialens.org/  ----------------------------------------------------- COMMENT The Media Lens site looks like an interesting one to check out.

Turkey - No freedom of press / freedom of speech

Turkey Deports Journalist for Criticizing Government on Twitter

By SEBNEM ARSU and ROBERT MACKEY

February 8, 2014 8:29 pmFebruary 10, 2014 6:16 pm

ISTANBUL — Turkey deported an Azerbaijani journalist on Friday for “posting tweets against high-level state officials,” according to an Interior Ministry order obtained by his newspaper, the English-language daily Today’s Zaman.

The journalist, Mahir Zeynalov, was “put on a list of foreign individuals who are barred from entering Turkey,” the newspaper reported, one month after Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan filed a criminal complaint against him for tweeting links to articles about a corruption scandal involving Mr. Erdogan’s government. According to the complaint, Mr. Zeynalov “committed a crime by exceeding the limit of criticism.”

As his followers on Twitter observed the drama in real time, Mr. Zeynalov and his wife, the Turkish national Sevda Nur Arslan, appeared at Istanbul’s Ataturk Airport early on Friday and surrendered to immigration officials. The couple had decided to leave the country on their own terms before the police showed up at their home. 

FULL @ SOURCE

SOURCE - here.

Deported?  OMG.  Over tweets?

Turkey's not big on press freedoms then.



 

John Prescott - Accused of Trivialising Holocaust

Telegraph Article

Accused of Trivialising Holocaust
 

Lord Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, has been rebuked by the most senior body representing British Jews after likening Gaza to a concentration camp.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews said the comparison, made in the Labour peer’s Sunday newspaper column, was “deeply offensive” and “trivialised the Holocaust.”

It warned that “playing the Nazi card” in relation to Israel “scratches deep wounds by invoking painful collective memory of the Holocaust.”

The Board called on Lord Bassam, the Labour chief whip in the Lords, to initiate misconduct proceedings against Lord Prescott.

It comes as a three-day ceasefire begins in Gaza following an intensive bombardment by Israeli armed forces.

...

Extract only

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11005105/Lord-Prescott-accused-of-trivialising-Holocaust-over-Gaza-remarks.htm

........................................................

John Prescott.  Working class.  Former trade unionist.  Deputy Prime Minister under Tony Blair.  Labour politician.  

Board of Deputies of British Jews

Main representative body of British Jews (aka Anglo-Jews), established 1760 by Sephardi congregation (Spain & Portugal origins) to deal with urgent political matters and interests of Jews in Britain and in colonies.

Main reference point for government, media and others.  

Board affiliated with:  "World Jewish Congress (WJC), the world-wide umbrella organisation of Jewish communities".

Former Lord Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, had a spot of bother with the BDBJ over some remark made to a journalist.  Livingstone's another Labour politician, who sounds a bit of a maverick.  

What's interesting is that there appears to be some division within the Jewish community:

"On 5 February 2007, a group of prominent British Jews, such as Nobel laureate Harold Pinter and lawyer Sir Geoffrey Bindman, launched an organisation called Independent Jewish Voices to counterbalance what they perceive as uncritical support of Israel by major Jewish institutions in the UK, criticising particularly the Board of Deputies of British Jews."

[source:  wikipedia]

........................................................

Protection of the 'deeply offended' vs freedom of thought and freedom speech?

Should be interesting to see what transpires.

USA - National Security - Intelligence Agencies - Carte Blanche

CIA spying on its own “internal channels” for whistleblowers Posted on July 28, 2014 McClatchy reports that the Central Intelligence Agency may be “intercepting the communications of officials who handle whistleblower cases.” The Senate Intelligence Committee’s classified 6,000-page report into the CIA’s post-9/11 interrogation programme is still yet to be published and the Committee has already accused the agency of illegally spying on that probe. Now it has emerged that the CIA retaliated against an official who cooperated with the Senate investigation, and Senate members emailed one another to accuse the agency’s inspector general of failing to investigate that retaliation – and the CIA has obtained at least one of those emails. As McClatchy writes, “The email controversy points to holes in the intelligence community’s whistleblower protection systems and raises fresh questions about the extent to which intelligence agencies can elude congressional oversight.” If the Senate cannot investigate the CIA independently and free of retaliation fears, who can? How can intelligence agencies be held accountable if they even intercept communications into their own operations? ... Thomas Drake’s criticisms of US warrantless wiretapping Drake subsequently blew the whistle to the media, and before the government’s case collapsed just days ahead of trial, he was facing an Espionage Act charge that could have imprisoned him for decades. Similarly, Edward Snowden made enquiries within the NSA about the legality and morality of that agency’s mass, unchecked surveillance. He spoke up at least ten separate times — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has in fact released one of Snowden’s emails. When he was ignored, Snowden was compelled to give documents detailing the NSA’s spying programs to investigative journalists. Insufficient security or insufficient democracy? The Insider Threat programme and the stated attitudes of the very officials responsible for facilitating internal channels draw a picture of a US administration that is deeply hostile, not only to disclosure of government information, but to internal criticism of its activities from those charged to carry them out. Famously, President Obama has overseen the prosecution of more Espionage Act cases than all previous presidents combined. The majority of those cases concern individuals trying to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. Within their number include cases, like that of Thomas Drake, where employees have tried to make their case within the ‘official channels’ ostensibly created to facilitate internal whistleblowing. It is ironic that the United States has responded to disclosures of illegality and abuse, not by subjecting its programmes to democratic input or ensuring that future whistleblowers have better options, but by cracking down on those who speak up and the journalism they enable. The US administration has treated whistleblowers as an issue of insufficient security rather than insufficient democracy. ...EXTRACTS ONLY...full article @... https://couragefound.org/2014/07/cia-spying-on-its-own-internal-channels/

Doesn't sound too good when agencies under the US government appear to be able to do whatever they want.

AUSTRALIA - PRESS GAGGED - SUPPRESSION ORDER 'SUPER-INJUNCTION' - WIKILEAKS - CORRUPTION SCANDAL COVER UP

Social media users could be charged for sharing Wikileaks story Date July 30, 2014 - 12:55PM Julian Assange, Wikileaks publisher, described the Victorian Supreme Court suppression order as 'unprecedented'. Social media users could land themselves in legal hot water if they share Wikileaks' reporting of a secret suppression order made by the Victorian Supreme Court. The wide-ranging suppression order was published on the group's website on Wednesday and was quickly shared on websites including Twitter and Google+. Fairfax Media's report of Wikileaks' action created a strong response on social media, and was shared thousands of times within minutes of the exclusive report's publication. It is against the law for Australian media organisations to publish the contents of the suppression order. Media lawyer Peter Bartlett, from Minter Ellison, said anyone who tweets a link to the Wikileaks report, posts it on Facebook, or shares it in any way online could also face charges. Using a hashtag such as "Wikileaks" is not in breach of the order but any mention on social media of the information detailed in it, such as people's names, is banned. Mr Bartlett said it would be difficult to prosecute Wikileaks and its publisher, Julian Assange, given they are outside Victoria. Mr Assange remains at the Ecuador embassy in London where he has been given political asylum to avoid being extradited to the United States in relation to the leaking of secret US documents. However, any Victorian social media users, or the person who gave the documents to Wikileaks, may be easier to find and prosecute. "Unless someone within Australia somehow authorised or was deemed to have published that suppression order on Wikileaks it would be difficult to find someone to prosecute," Mr Bartlett said. "The person within the state of Victoria who has sent the suppression order to Wikileaks themselves has breached the suppression order so if police could find that person they could prosecute them." Mr Bartlett said he did not know of any person being prosecuted for sharing a court order on social media. A case involving former Manchester United player Ryan Giggs sparked debate in England about the effectiveness of court orders given the prevalence of social media. Giggs went to court to try to stop The Sun newspaper from publishing details of his extra-marital affair. The court initially banned the publication of his identity but the court's order was then widely disseminated through social media and tweeted by about 500,000 people. Giggs' case against the newspaper was eventually thrown out of court and no one was charged in relation to the tweets. The Victorian Supreme Court has been contacted for comment. SOURCE - BRISBANE TIMES - HERE.

First of all, the government uses 'national security' grounds to obtain a court 'super-injunction' suppression order to gag media coverage on some kind of international corruption scandal involving the Australian government, and THEN the press is gagged AND every Australian is threatened with imprisonment -- for the sake of this government cover up -- according to WikiLeaks.

Bloody, hell.   It would help knowing in advance which information can get you in strife.  Not clear to some (namely blogger) ... Doh!  

Will let you know how gaol was, if I've breached anything.  LOL. 

Anyway, this is democracy, freedom of press and freedom of speech at work in Australia.

----------------------------------------------------
P.S. 

What is the point of these gag orders when overseas press is reporting pretty much on the contents, the issue and on prior arrests of overseas people?

True or False? - Freedom of Press

TWITTER

LOL ... Been thinking I might need my head checked because I'm suspicious of everything I see in the media and cynical about every organisation I come across, surfing news and politics. 

But irrespective of who owns the medium or the quality of the mainstream message, I think there is no alternative to defending the freedom of the press.

Preserving freedom of press hopefully also means preserving freedom of information, freedom of speech and allowing everybody to have a voice, should they wish to use it.

UK - SILENCES POLITICAL DISSENT

DAVID WARD:   Careful ... That mug he's holding may be a 'weapon of mass destruction'!

David Ward, a Liberal Democrat MP  TWITTER The big question is - if I lived in #Gaza would I fire a rocket? - probably yes — David Ward (@DavidWardMP) July 22, 2014 [HERE]

Some old guy in UK politics tweets, expressing his opinion or his emotions on some trivial communications medium -- and political opportunists immediately jump on this to grandstand about a supposed 'incitement to violence'.

Oh, let's behave as if this puny old man or his twitter followers are armed to the teeth and represent a 'terrorist' threat, while we all deny who is being terrorised at present.

Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi has written to Metropolitan Police, calling for an investigation into Mr Ward’s actions “as a matter of urgency.”   The remarks were immediately condemned by other MPs, including the Conservative party chairman Grant Shapps, who referred to it as an “incitement to violence” and “completely irresponsible.”   The Labour Party also hit out, saying Ward’s comments were counterproductive to achieving peace in the region. [HERE]

Counterproductive to achieving peace in the region?  Are you kidding me?

Like anything this guy has to say is going to make a difference to Israel or to Palestine one way or the other.

What are these people on?

And check this out:

This will be the second disciplinary probe that Mr. Ward faces. He was temporarily suspended by the party in July last year after he called Israel an ‘apartheid state’ and refused to apologize. [HERE]

Hello?  Doesn't this give anybody the creeps?

Ward is being attacked, punished and silenced for expressing his dissenting political opinion.

Japan - UN HRC - 'Hate Speech' Legislation

Japanese officials order removal of war memorial for Korean labourers Petitions complained that monument erected by a friendship society in a public park in Gunma prefecture was anti-Japanese Justin McCurry in Tokyo theguardian.com, Wednesday 23 July 2014 20.22 AEST [PHOTO -  Toru Yamanaka/AFP] Comfort women protest Japanese women hold portraits of South Korean, Chinese, Philippine and Taiwanese former comfort women who were sex slaves for Japanese soldiers during the second world war, in a protest in Tokyo in 2007. Local authorities in Japan have demanded the removal of a monument in memory of the tens of thousands of labourers forcibly recruited from the Korean peninsula during the second world war. [...] Many of the 600,000 ethnic Koreans living in Japan are the descendants of labourers who remained in the country after its defeat in 1945.

Commemorating the use of forced labour is causing similar controversy in other parts of Japan. In Nagasaki, a row has erupted over a proposed monument to Korean victims of the atomic bombing ... The controversies are being played out against a rise in anti-Korean sentiment in Japan, fuelled by disputes between Tokyo and Seoul over territory and Japan's conduct during its 1910-1945 occupation of the Korean peninsula. The UN human rights committee has called on Japan to do more to clamp down on hate speech directed at Koreans during demonstrations in Tokyo and other cities. The committee, which noted that there were more than 360 such demonstrations and speeches last year, mainly in Korean neighbourhoods in Tokyo, is expected to make recommendations to Japan on Wednesday, possibly including the introduction of legislation against hate speech. ... officials from both countries met in Seoul to discuss Japan's use of as many as 200,000 mainly Korean and Chinese women as sex slaves before and during the war. Japan recently ruled out a revision to a 1993 official apology... The prime minister, Shinzo Abe, is one of several prominent conservative politicians who have questioned claims that the imperial Japanese army coerced the women – euphemistically referred to as comfort women – into working in frontline brothels. Source - The Guardian - here.

------------------------------------------------
COMMENT

It's supposed to be commemorative but it's not merely commemorative; it's a political statement also -- even if that's not the intention.

Political or commemorative, it shouldn't matter.

But it's obviously rocking the boat over in Japan.

Even so, the anti 'hate speech' legislation proposed by the UN is legislation to silence disapproval.

But isn't that kind of like trying to legislate to produce an altered perception of reality?

GAZA - French Internet Censorship

GAZA - FRANCE - INTERNET CENSORSHIP

Published time: July 21, 2014 Moderators of French websites have been overwhelmed by a storm of hatred over the Israeli incursion into Gaza. The latest conflict has triggered outbreaks of violence in France between the country’s Jewish and Muslim populations. While Parisian protests over Israel’s operation in Gaza descend into violence and clashes, the internet has seen an explosion of hate speech related to the conflict. French law bans racist, anti-Semitic or discriminatory messages, but moderators have been hard-pressed to keep up with the rise in hateful comments. Representatives from companies that monitor online content told AFP that they normally block 25 to 40 percent of comments, but since the Israeli incursion this statistic has shot up to up to 95 percent. They say the nature of the online hate comments is very specific to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as both parties seek to monopolize websites with their hate messages. "On the pro-Palestinian side, identical messages are posted on dozens of sites. On the pro-Israeli side, there are fewer messages but they are better organized," said Jeremie Mani, head of Madagascar-based company Netino that trawls through millions of comments every month. "This sickening content is peculiar to this conflict. The war in Syria does not trigger these kinds of comments.” ... SOURCE - RT News - here.

---------------------------------------------
COMMENT

Not a lot in the way of freedom of speech or freedom of press in France.

Australian politicians & law enforcement - Make headway towards controlling social media

Financial Review Twitter move to Australia "imminent": Julie Bishop PUBLISHED: 11 Jan 2013 11:35:00 | UPDATED: 15 Jan 2013 08:45:28 Negar Salek, James Hutchinson and AAP Social networking giant Twitter is being tipped to open its first Australian corporate office “imminently” as part of plans to help combat cyber bullying and deepen ties with the federal and state governments. Federal politicians have for months been lobbying the company to launch a full-time presence in Australia and make it easier for police officers to engage with the company. Speaking after a visit to Twitter’s US headquarters on Friday, deputy opposition leader Julie Bishop said she understood the move was “imminent”.  [Now Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party government - here.] “That’s what they told us today - they’d be opening an office in Sydney,” she said. “Facebook has a presence in Australia and it’s clear Twitter is about to establish one.” Ms Bishop said it was “essential” for social networking companies to deepen ties with Australian governments and authorities. Earlier, Ms Bishop tweeted that she was at Twitter headquarters in in San Francisco as part of the Australian American Leadership Dialogue.”There are 400 million tweets/day with most tweets posted in Jakarta!”. [AALD - NGO-charity] Twitter did not immediately confirm the move. Cooperation Twitter has seven international offices with the latest being in Paris. A new Australian corporate presence is likely to have a strong commercial motive, with Australians keenly embracing Twitter over the past six years and currently sending about 1.4 million tweets per day. But it is also likely to ease cooperation on issues such as cyber bullying and online abuse as well as enhancing relationships with all levels of government. It comes after a series of high-profile cases of cyber bullying, including rugby league star Robbie Farah being abused by a troll on Twitter. [SMH - September 10, 2012 - here.] Communications Minister Stephen Conroy branded the company “arrogant” in September after he unsuccessfully tried to contact the company to discuss the Farah case and ways to combat cyber bullying. “They just believe they don’t have to take any notice of the Australian public, any notice of the Australian laws, and they think they can behave this arrogantly,” he told Nine Network last year. Facebook, too, has come under pressure to extend its relationship with Australian authorities. Victoria police chief Ken Lay this week met with a Facebook executive to discuss his concerns about hate pages, and Facebook’s threat to high profile prosecutions. A spokesman for Senator Conroy told AAP on Friday that he would welcome a permanent Twitter presence in Australia. [Conroy - Labor Party - here.] But Prime Minister Julia Gillard said an Australian office may not speed up negotiations over taking down offensive material. [Former PM] “It hasn’t been so much a question of location of the organisation, as opposed to the will to address the issue,” she told reporters in Sydney on Friday. “We will be urging the bodies that have some control over content to have policies, not to stop people from having a genuine conversation or anything like that, but some of the extremes that have caused real harm to try and deal with that conduct.” Twitter has had no full-time offices in Australia since launching in 2006 despite launching an official Twitter handle, @TwitterAU, last October. Senior Twitter executives visited Australia in late 2012 as part of a scoping study. SOURCE - Financial Review - here.

Replace keyboards with handcuffs: Police Minister NSW Police Minister Michael Gallacher said at a press conference in Sydney this morning that Twitter trolls should have their keyboards replaced with handcuffs. "Honestly, these clowns who hide behind their keyboards in their mothers' basements thinking that they can send offensive messages ... we've got to empower police with the ability to replace their keyboards with handcuffs, grab them by the ears from mummy's basement and take them down to the local police station and make them understand the offensive matters that they continue to raise on the internet [bear] a terrible price." Mr Gallacher said NSW Police did have some powers to take action against online abusers, but there needed to be some support from the federal government in making the legislation tougher. Source - SMH - September 10, 2012 - here.

--------------------------------------
COMMENT

So if I have this straight, there are some people in the community who are offended by tweets (or content of facebook pages) and the Australian politicians and law enforcement were (and presumably still are) lobbying to find means to curtail freedom of expression on these internet mediums.

Of course, it's all in the name of defending from cyber 'bullying'.

Politicians on both sides of the fence are, of course, happy to do what they can to bring about controls.

Julie Bishop's remark is disturbing:

Ms Bishop said it was “essential” for social networking companies to deepen ties with Australian governments and authorities.

On the contrary, I believe it's essential for social networking companies -- and the internet -- to be independent of interference from the government and all its branches.

As for 'hate' sites, one man's hate site is another man's truth.  Who is to determine what is, or is not, acceptable content?  Once that door is ajar, it's wide open to government censorship of content.  So good luck preserving freedom of expression and freedom of information.

Now the nanny state wants to step in and guard against online social media users being 'offended' by remarks, and this is all in aid of defending the thin skinned from cyber bullying and 'hate'?

No way.

Ultimately, this is about politicians and government seeking control of a communication medium and control of freedom of expression and freedom of information.

Twitter didn't take long to come around to the politicians' lobbying. 

Nine months later Twitter Australia headquarters was born:

Twitter opens local headquarters     The Australian     September 02, 2013 12:00AM TWITTER has appointed a country manager for Australia and will officially open its local headquarters in Sydney this week, as the US social media giant pushes to build its advertising business in more markets ahead of a rumoured public offering. Recently, Twitter started offering its so-called "promoted products" in Australia, with businesses paying to have promoted tweets pushed into users' timelines, promoted accounts included in "who to follow" recommendations and "promoted trends" appearing on the popular topics list. Twitter won't divulge how many Australian advertisers it has signed, although it said National Australia Bank and Qantas were among the brands that have used the platform for marketing. ... However, the platform has at times proved problematic for brands. Qantas saw one promotional campaign became a PR fail when users hijacked its hashtag "#QantasLuxury" to make fun at the airline's expense. "You always have episodes of bad behaviour, especially on open platforms," Mr Rao said. "(One benefit) from having people on the ground ... is our teams can actively work with organisations in Australia to understand best practices so we can manage accounts on the platform in the best way possible." ...extracts only...full @... SOURCE - The Australian - here.

The Australian's article is all about the business/advertising side of things, save for revealing that the #QantasLuxury hashtag wound up being the butt of Twitter jokes. 

Was Qantas offended?  Was this a form of online bullying?  Was it a form of cyber hate?  And did the NSW police minister ensure all those responsible were held accountable?  Did all those Twitter basement-dwellers bear a terrible price?  And has the police minister replaced their keyboards with handcuffs?