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."
Daily Show (Score:2, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? I thought the whole point of Parliament was to be ridiculed and denigrated?
Re:not really surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
First, despite what the evidence found around Bondi Beach might suggest, New Zealand is not officially part of Australia.
Second, draconian privacy laws are a good thing. That would mean harsh penalties for companies breaching individuals' right to privacy. I don't think this is what you meant... But it's actually pretty accurate.
Third, on the internet laws... If you host a porn site in Australia, and someone complains, and the complaint is upheld, your site can be taken down. You are completely free to host the same content outside Australia. Australians are free to view the content wherever it's hosted. That, really, is about it.
(Until last November I was head of tech support at a small Aussie ISP, so I have some familiarity with the laws involved.)
Have the people in government gone insane? (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand that people in government feel some shame about their corruption and dishonesty, and would like to keep as much of their activities secret as possible, but have they lost all conscience and connection with the people? Also, do they not imagine how making certain laws might make it easier to expand the laws to the point of oppression of all?
I am amazed and scared by the ideas that have it in to law in countries that I have long considered as ADVANCING freedom! I used to regard the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc, as promoting freedom and democracy around the world, BY EXAMPLE. Now the theme seems to be "spy on everyone" and "no anonymity" for the citizens, but "forbid criticism" and "enforce secrecy" for the governments.
a sign of weakening democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
As democracy weakens, states clamp down on their critics and introduce more extreme punishments for transgressors.
This sounds like a good example of this kind of action - sadly it seems to be getting more common across the world, not just in NZ.
Hmmmm (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Free Speech Vs. NZ? (Score:5, Insightful)
News? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Old News (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, napkin-arse, guess what? You're so wrong with your statement, it almost overflows into the "Correct statements" category! Were you by chance on a re-education trip to Russia, China, or North Korea recently? That would certainly explain you idiotic attitude to the whole "freedom of expression" thingie, the whole concept of which has apparently has been erased from your memory in the Paycheck/Spotless Mind style.
Even if satire is useless, which it is not, people in a free society are expected to be free to satirize as much as they want, even if some dumbasses in the parliament (or on
> Insulting people is not equal to criticism.
No, but a lot fun can be had when both are done at the same time, and there ain't a goddamn thing you can do about it!
He's actually right... sort of. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, a free press is nonetheless less dangerous than a government that controls the press -- as he himself proved to anyone who was paying any attention whatever.
So Glad I'm Livin' in the U.S.A. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Old News (Score:3, Insightful)
In politics ridicule is often not what the other side makes of an issue, it's more often what someone makes of himself or his issue.
Throughout history and in many nations and cultures there has been a very constructive place for satire, quite a few bad politicians have been toppled by the satire (and ridicule) their actions provoked.
Re:It may be influenced by recent BBC failures (Score:3, Insightful)
Not sure where the miners strike comes in to the current kerfuffle: there has been a recent storm-in-a-teacup about a slightly misleading trailer for a documentary that purported to show the Queen throwing a hissy fit. There has also been the startling revelation that competitions using premium rate phone lines exploit the gullible and vulnerable (NB: the independent broadcasters have been caught red-handed bending the rules too).
Call me cynical - but the shocker for me is not the revelations about the deceptive practices of the broadcast media, but how many people (including media and politicians, not just the blokes down the pub) are acting all surprised about it! People should get their heads around the fact that mass-media journalism is about telling a story - and any resemblance between that story and the truth is a happy coincidence.
I'm pretty sure that the one thing the BBC are not is party politically biased - they seem to attract equal flack from all sides of the political spectrum. While they were (allegedly) manipulating that footage of the miners to show a pro-government message, they were also (e.g.) doing a pretty good job of evading the govrenment's attempts to censor the IRA. Ask a Thatcherite what they think of the BBC and you'll almost certainly hear terms like "liberal elite", "political correctness" and "left wing bias". The BBC journalists do like nailing political scalps to the mantlepiece, but I see no clear preference for red scalps over blue ones.
The trouble is with bias is that you tend to ignore it when the story you hear matches your own beliefs. Also, bear in mind that the current "BBC on the ropes" story is one that many elements of the UK media - including the Murdoch-owned press - are very keen to believe. The real disappointment with the BBC is that while the commercial outfits have an excuse for chasing the lowest common denominator, the BBC could be so much better.
(As for the miners strike - you have a bunch of angry/scared miners on one side, a bunch of angry/scared police on the other side. Both groups would have included a handful of testosterone poisoning victims angling for a fight. Any ensuing violence was the joint responsibility of the two egomaniacs exploiting these groups for their own political ends. A couple of decades down the line, with the political map rewritten anyway, we should be worrying about not allowing such a situation to happen again - but that's tricky and complicated and doesn't contain a good enough story. So we argue about who started the inevitable fight.)
Re:Daily Show (Score:2, Insightful)
Damn, I'm glad I live in the U.S.A., where we hold our Government in the highest contempt on a daily basis, and have people like Jon Stewart, Lewis Black, and the folks at SNL and Fox to entertain us with it.
Between Skippy the Boy President, Darth Shooter, Pinched Face Nancy "No Really, I'm not a Communist" Pelosi, Hillary "I'm going to ignore the fact that I've been cuckholded so I can win the Grand Chancellorship...er...Presidency" Clinton, we have lots to ridicule and show contempt for.
I thought New Zealand was closer to Australian and U.S. in freedoms, not Zimbabwe and Canada.
Re:Free Speech Vs. NZ? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's way too simplistic a gambit for you to play the "race" card in this discussion in order to imply the other side does. Certainly in some contexts, one might say that US immigration laws are: "ignored" by unscrupulous sweatshop companies; and "unenforceable" when poor immigrant workers sneak in and are hired by these companies, and the sheer number of these workers makes it impossible to deport them. Failing to enforce the law is not a retreat from cries of racism, it's laissez-faire economics combined with a surrender to the magnitude of the problem. And it's convenient for the governments of the day to look the other way and let the companies (and consumers) benefit from the situation, instead of providing legal status to these workers.
I would argue that the real racism here is the exploitation of undocumented immigrant workers, not any attempts to enforce the laws and deport them.
Re:Hmmmm. (Score:2, Insightful)
- RG>
Re:Hmmmm. (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, We should note that there is a difference between stealing IP and general theft or some violent act and politically motivated crimes that are both non violent and don't rise above issues of speech. It is in international law that the US agreed to where they are supposed to offer safe harbor from people like this. Typically, it has been done with countries who are hostile to the US or our allies but there is nothing to suggest we would be any different. Especially considering NZ's position on the war in Iraq.
Re:Old News (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Old News (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Daily Show (Score:1, Insightful)
Blockquote (Score:2, Insightful)
What the parent was trying to do is something rarely seen on slashdot: making fun of both sides of the aisle.