NZ MPs Outlaw Satire of Parliament 282
mernil writes "New Zealand's Parliament has voted itself far-reaching powers to control satire and ridicule of MPs in Parliament, attracting a storm of media and academic criticism. The new standing orders, voted in last month, concern the use of images of Parliamentary debates, and make it a contempt of Parliament for broadcasters or anyone else to use footage of the chamber for 'satire, ridicule or denigration.' The new rules are actually more liberal than the previous ones, but the threat of felony contempt is new."
Re:not really surprising (Score:3, Informative)
Old News (Score:5, Informative)
Good lord, this is very old news.
The local TV stations have already said they'll ignore it [tv3.co.nz] and certain politicians have already been backing down from their high horse.
It is unlikely this "law" will have any actual effect on the satirisation, ridicule, or other general highlighting of how usless our MPs actually are.
Ultra Vires (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Free Speech Vs. NZ? (Score:5, Informative)
That said, it's very unlikely that anything of the sort will come of it. It's just not worth the trouble for them, especially since the media are so pissed about it now.
Re:Free Speech Vs. NZ? (Score:5, Informative)
Most local New Zealand media sickens me (Score:5, Informative)
As a New Zealander I've found this very disappointing. Normally I associate New Zealand as having a very open and non-corrupt national government with an open information policy (written into law through New Zealand's Official Information Act), and without too many layers of bureaucracy. I'd much rather have an environment where the media is free to take what pictures they like. To put it in context though, the main section of New Zealand's television media, which is most directly affected by this, really is hopeless. Personally I think the un-professionalism of many of the journalists has really encouraged parliament to add some limitations, appropriate or not.
There are only two major providers of television news in New Zealand -- one state-owned (TV1) and another private (TV3, owned by CanWest). Neither actually invests in quality journalism any more. They invest in news that can double as entertainment to sell commercials in a prime-time entertainment slot. The way they advertise their own news programmes makes this obvious, and on television there's no alternative. TV3, in particular, spends a lot of time trying to stress how much better it is than TV1. Any story that has anything to do with that is promoted to the front of its bulletin.
Most reporters are young and inexperienced, with the experienced journalists having either lost their jobs, retired or moved overseas for better opportunities. A lot of reports seem to be more about making sure people know who the reporter is and adding superlatives, annoying clichés, metaphors, and background music that just distract from the actual information. The only reason I bother to watch locally produced television news programmes in New Zealand these days (with a few exceptions) is to get some pictures, but I cringe at the commentary that comes with them. Many of those who are left have an attitude where they like to claim they're hugely important, but in general they're not actually providing quality journalism to back it up. I've found it quite sickening watching this whole thing play out, because the media that's kicking up such a storm isn't actually demonstrating that it's worthy of the right it's wanting.
I'm quite amazed when I flick over to BBC and see something like Hard Talk [bbc.co.uk], which is just amazing in comparison to what we have locally produced. I really wish we could have that kind of quality in a local production, but I suspect the country just isn't large enough to have the resources for a reliable media.
If you are in New Zealand, try listening to MediaWatch [radionz.co.nz] on National Radio (or stream it if you prefer). Personally I think it's one of the most insightful commentaries on the New Zealand media available. (The show on 1st July actually covered this issue.)
From the Horses Mouth... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates
Basically, this is a sessional order, and will be reviewed after the next election, if not sooner. Based on current popular opinion, it won't last...
Methinks this was introduced because, as others have pointed out, it's much easier for New Zealand's TV stations to fill the 10 minutes between ad breaks with name-calling and napping politicians than it is to actually do some proper journalism. Seriously, the journalism here is so pathetic; with this order in place, TV3's "political editor", Duncan Garner, is screwed.
Also, what Jon Stewart did on the Daily show, as far as I can tell, isn't in breach of the order. Satire of the politician is fine, however showing images of them picking their nose isn't...
Its still legal (Score:2, Informative)
Its still legal to make satire, and ridicule politician. You just can't use footage taken from inside the Beehive (The New Zealand parliament)
So making fun of them, while using footage of them outside is perfectly legal, and i belive thats how the Australians have adapted the most part.
I am however greatly bothered by the fact that this is what i consider abuse of power, and rather nasty form of censorship of the actions of our goverment.
Contrmpt of parliament (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Have the people in government gone insane? (Score:2, Informative)
Seeing one issue and lumping us together with other governments which have extremely repressive laws is uncalled for.
There is no forbidding of criticism in the law. What is being banned is images taken within parliament being used for satire. Criticism of goverment policies and actions is very different. If you lived here, you would have seen the hours of satire (MP's napping, pulling fingers, swearing at each other...) which was shown both before and after the law came into affect. And what is the punishment for breaking this law? They'll ban your cameras from parliament for a few weeks. Hardly even a slap on the wrist. ALL of our major media outlets have openly said they will ignore the law, and already have.
We have no laws which relate to your "spy on everyone, no anonymity for citizens, enforced secrecy for goverment" view of us. In fact, leadership in the opposition party changes very quickly whenever the leader starts talking about allowing things like nuclear powered vessels into our waters (see Bill English, Don Brash) . There are things we in New Zealand feel very strongly about, and the political parties back down very quickly when they come up against us.
Re:Daily Show (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.ifilm.com/video/2878949/show/17676 [ifilm.com]
Re:Hmmmm. (Score:5, Informative)
1. Murder; attempted murder, comprehending the crime designated under law in the United States as assault with intent to commit murder.
2. Manslaughter.
3. Aggravated wounding, injuring or assault; wounding or injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
4. Unlawful throwing or application of any corrosive or injurious substances.
5. Rape; indecent assault; sodomy.
6. Abortion.
7. Unlawful sexual acts with or upon children under the age specified by the laws of both the requesting
and requested parties.
8. Procuring sexual intercourse.
9. Willful abandonment of a minor under the age of six years when the life of that minor is or is likely to be injured or endangered.
10. Bigamy.
11. Kidnapping; child stealing; abduction.
12. Robbery; assault with intent to rob.
13. Burglary; housebreaking or shopbreaking.
14. Larceny.
15. Embezzlement.
16. Obtaining property, money or valuable securities by false pretenses or by conspiracy to defraud the
public or any person by deceit or falsehood or other fraudulent [*3] means, whether such deceit or false-
hood or any fraudulent means would or would not amount to a false pretense.
17. Bribery, including soliciting, offering and accepting.
18. Extortion.
19. Receiving and transporting any money, valuable securities or other property knowing the same to
have been unlawfully obtained.
20. Fraud by promoter, director, manager or officer of any company, existing or not.
21. Forgery, comprehending the crimes designated under law in the United States as the forgery or false
making of private or public obligations and official documents or public records of the government or
public authority or the uttering or fraudulent use of the same; uttering what is forged.
22. The making or the utterance, circulation or fraudulent use of of counterfeit money or counterfeit seals
and stamps of the government or public authority.
23. Knowingly and without lawful authority, making or having in possession any instrument, tool, or
machine adopted and intended for the counterfeiting of money, whether coin or paper.
24. Perjury; subornation of perjury.
25. False swearing.
26. Arson and damage to property, utilities, or means of transportation or communication by fire or ex-
plosive.
27. Any malicious act done with intent to cause danger to property or endanger the safety of any
person in connection with any means of transportation.
28. Piracy, by statute or by law of nations; mutiny or revolt on board an aircraft or vessel against the au-
thority of the captain or commander of such aircraft or vessel; any seizure or exercise of control, by force
or violence or threat of force or violence, of an aircraft or vessel.
29. Malicious injury to property, comprehending willful damage to property under New Zealand law.
30. Offenses against the bankruptcy laws which are punishable by more than three months' imprisonment.
31. Offenses against the laws relating to the importation, exportation, supply, or possession of narcotics
including dangerous drugs; abetting offense against corresponding law in another country.
32. Unlawful obstruction of justice through bribery of judicial officers; corruption and bribery of heads
of government departments or members of the Congress in the United States, or Ministers of the Crown
or members of Parliament in New Zealand; corruption and bribery of law enforcement officers or government
officials; fabrication of evidence; conspiracy to bring false accusation; corrupting juries
and witnesses by threats, bribes, or other corrupt means.
Unless they REALLY try to stretch number 32 here, my guess would be "no", although IANAL.
Re:probably not aimed at TV stations (Score:1, Informative)
It's the other way around here - the policiticans cannot afford to antagonise the media. MMP ensures party strenghts in parliment are on a knife-edge, and the third parties have a very real presense.
Your average New Zealander is of the opnion that our policians don't need the help of the media to look stupid.
(Just the other day, one of them was shown by the media to be outright lying to them and to the public. The media based pressure is so strong, he's been kicked out of his party - I can assure you Prime Minister Helevonivich wouldn't have done so if it was't for media pressure.)
Re:not really surprising (Score:3, Informative)
I was head of tech support for a small Australian ISP for years. There are strict privacy regulations covering what you can and cannot (mostly cannot) do with user data. There are no regulations requiring ISPs to restrict access to web sites. Nor is there any technology in place to enforce such a thing at a national scale.
Here's a good summary of what the laws actually say. [oznetlaw.net]
Websites hosted within Australia can be the target of a take down notice if they are rated X or RC (refused classification) by the OFLC (censors).
Websites hosted outside Australia can be rated by the OFLC as well. In this case, they cannot be the target of a take down notice because the ABA has no jurisdiction. Instead, the site is added to the lists provided by companies producing internet filtering software. Internet filtering software is installed by the user, and is not required by any part of the legislation.
From that page, here's a list of the actual responsibilities of ISPs:
The extent to which as an Australian ISP you are required to filter content? You have to tell your customers that content filtering software is available, and you have to sell such a program to your customers on request. (You can do that via a third-party; you don't have to stock the software yourself.)
Re:Most local New Zealand media sickens me (Score:3, Informative)
I have to admit that regardless of what else they churn out, the BBC's produced some of the best television journalism I've seen. My favourite example is a 1981 Horizon interview with Richard Feynman. [bbc.co.uk] The entire clip (about an hour from memory) is just Richard Feynman continuously talking about his ideas and his life. No screen-time at all was wasted in showing an interviewer. Someone was obviously behind the camera to ask questions and guide topics, but those parts were edited out.
Granted that he wasn't a hostile interviewee which would (usually) make things more difficult, but I can't imagine ever seeing anything that even approaches that in local television.