Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Australia Censorship Facebook Politics Your Rights Online

Aussie Politician Threatens To Contact Employers of Satirical Article "Likers" 195

Posted by samzenpus
from the what-not-to-do dept.
Chuq writes "Tasmanian Liberal candidate for Bass, Andrew Nikolic, was the subject of a satirical article by NewExaminer on Facebook. Nikolic didn't like it, which is understandable. However he then went to considerable lengths to identify the people who liked the article, find out their employers (via their Facebook profiles) and 'name and shame' them on a follow-up post on his own page. Andrew Nikolic has a history of poorly handling conflicting views on his Facebook page, resulting in creation of another page, 'Andrew Nikolic blocked me.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Aussie Politician Threatens To Contact Employers of Satirical Article "Likers"

Comments Filter:
  • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Monday May 07, 2012 @09:34AM (#39914697)

    Doesn't he know that a real politician gets his enemies back in *secret*?

  • by Trepidity (597) <.gro.hsikcah. .ta. .todhsals-muiriled.> on Monday May 07, 2012 @09:40AM (#39914757)

    NOTICE TO SLASH DOT USERS

    All posts on this article will be taken to constitute mockery of Tasmanian Liberal candidate for Bass, Andrew Nikolic, and the Slash Dotters in question will be dealt with accordingly.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 07, 2012 @09:49AM (#39914839)

    As far as I'm concerned, any politician who gets in a hissy fit over political satire simply doesn't have the balls to be a politician, regardless of any actual policies. Move over and make way for someone who can take a bit of criticism.

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday May 07, 2012 @10:16AM (#39915065) Journal
      In his defense, a childish sense of spite, narcissistic fury in defense of self-image(ideally delusional), and spiteful vindictiveness in the face of criticism are very strong qualifications for most positions of authority...

      Combine that with running on the 'war hero with strong ties to extraction industries' platform and a dose of good, old-fashioned Values, and we could have a real winner!
      • by rtb61 (674572)

        In this case it is far more likely a future professional politician in it purely for the kick backs. Once he was in with his chance to get rich quick, he freaked out when he saw threats to his future profit potential.

        This kind of over reaction is mostly driven by greed. As another ex-military officer he has become accustomed to basically be able to destroy people who were insubordinate as a politician clearly he is carrying on like a moron and not woken up to who is for whom.

        In Australian terms he has

      • by rrohbeck (944847)

        Sounds like we need more 4 year olds in office.

    • by mjwalshe (1680392)
      yes i think Loise Mensch handled some troll on twitter quite well - basically told them to F off she doesn't bully esialy.
  • Cyberstalking ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by redelm (54142) on Monday May 07, 2012 @09:53AM (#39914873) Homepage

    I don't know what qualifies as cyberstalking under 'stralian law, but this looks like it might qualify. I don't know any law that limits cyberstalking to just one target. Digging out an employer is quite an intrusion, obviously intended to intimidate.

    Of course there will be some Parlimentary Privilige, but I believe that applies only to comment on the floor, not elsewhere.

    • by Nidi62 (1525137)
      Seeing as how he hasn't even been elected yet, would any privilege even apply?
    • by sg_oneill (159032) on Monday May 07, 2012 @10:17AM (#39915073)

      My best suggestion is to tell him on his Facebook page [facebook.com]. He probably doesn't read slashdot!

    • I don't know what qualifies as cyberstalking under 'stralian law, but this looks like it might qualify.

      Isn't the whole point of facebook to collect your own collection of friendly cyber-stalkers?

    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      I don't know what qualifies as cyberstalking under 'stralian law, but this looks like it might qualify. I don't know any law that limits cyberstalking to just one target. Digging out an employer is quite an intrusion, obviously intended to intimidate.

      Perhaps. But if the information was there on the web page, then really, it's the liker's fault for making that information public.

      The internet is a harsh mistress - because what separates it from life as we knew it is two things:

      1) It never forgets Something yo

      • by redelm (54142)
        [cyber]stalking is not about using illegal means to gather information. It is about using otherwise legal information in a threatening or intimidating way. The key is the _threat_, not otherwise easily classified as assault or blackmail. That is why it is a new and controversial offense.

        Of course, Phazbuch makes it ever so much worse by default privacy settings that help them build a network and show off a product at the risk of user privacy. MS does the same.

        • by Hentes (2461350)

          [cyber]stalking is not about using illegal means to gather information.

          Yes it is [wikipedia.org].

          It is about using otherwise legal information in a threatening or intimidating way.

          That's called, surpisingly, intimidation, and only applies in case of possible physical harm.

  • At first I thought that we had slashdotted facebook, but thinking about it further it seems that facebook has already taken the page most likely to be offensive and problematic offline.

    Either that, or the submitter typed the wrong URL.

    I must admit I was perhaps guilty of some morbid curiousity to see what sort of naming and shaming was going on.

    • by Nerdfest (867930)

      If having a decent sense of humour and an interest in politics (one seems to actually require the other) is "shaming", he can continue to his heart's content. I think most will know who should actually be embarrassed his behaviour.

  • by BeerCat (685972) on Monday May 07, 2012 @09:56AM (#39914893) Homepage

    According to his own page (https://www.facebook.com/AndrewNikolic4Bass/posts/327230677345451), "I have removed my response on this issue from Facebook"

    Which means that the link up top no longer works.

    • by tqk (413719)

      According to his own page (Andrew Nikolic [facebook.com]), "I have removed my response on this issue from Facebook"

      That's it?!? No apology for having no sense of humour? No apology for threatening to report FB Likes to employers? No apology for having blown innocuous criticism way out of proportion when he's running for a seat in the legislature? What's he going to do in candidate debates? Bring a gun?

      • by idontgno (624372)

        That's it?!? No apology for having no sense of humour?

        I think it's evidence of a well-balanced personality. His absolute lack of humor is very well offset by his complete lack of shame. That's a winning combination for a wanna-be politician, too. Now, if only he could scrape up some charm from someplace...

  • by samazon (2601193) on Monday May 07, 2012 @09:59AM (#39914927)
    Having worked on a political campaign.... It's getting more and more difficult to keep the "nastygrams" away from the candidate and his/her family these days. When you're on the trail especially, it's important to make sure that (a) your candidate stays focused and (b) your candidate's family and friends know that lashing out against these attacks makes the candidate look worse. It's hard to do that when everybody's Facebooking away at home with private accounts (and fake accounts... sigh...) - suffice to say, if any politician reacts like that to something so petty on Facebook, what other unreasonable reactions will s/he have?

    $0.02 - Nikolic needs a better campaign manager, if s/he is letting him do this kind of crazy shit.

  • by GameboyRMH (1153867) <gameboyrmhNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday May 07, 2012 @10:00AM (#39914937) Journal

    I'd hate to see what Tasmania's conservatives are like 8-(

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 07, 2012 @10:03AM (#39914961)

      he's a "big L" Liberal.

      Confusingly in Australia, the Liberal Party are the conservatives and the Labor Party are the liberals (with the Greens to the left of them).

      Of course, our Liberal Party would probably be to the left of the US's congressional democrats on most issues..

      --Q

      • by tgd (2822) on Monday May 07, 2012 @10:18AM (#39915099)

        he's a "big L" Liberal.

        Confusingly in Australia, the Liberal Party are the conservatives and the Labor Party are the liberals (with the Greens to the left of them).

        Of course, our Liberal Party would probably be to the left of the US's congressional democrats on most issues..

        --Q

        That's the real issue. The US is so conservative, our labels don't sync up well with the rest of the world, especially in the last 25 years. Case in point: Reagan's positions would make him center or left of center in the *Democrat* party these days. The US right has more in common now with the Taliban than what was traditionally considered "conservative" for most of the US' history.

        • by OzPeter (195038)

          The US is so conservative, our labels don't sync up well with the rest of the world, especially in the last 25 years.

          I don't think its a case of labels not matching up, but of the GOP (conservatives) being a conglomeration of several different groups. You have fiscal conservatives shoulder to shoulder with social conservatives as well as neocons (if they are a separate group)

        • Nixon would be a far-left Democrat today but I think Reagan would still be very much in the Republican party...he was a borrow-and-spend pro-war social conservative (although we'd probably just call him a bigot by today's standards, socially he was off today's charts to the right) just like Bush Jr. Fiscally though he would be a centrist, leftish among Republicans today, but I don't think the Democrats would have him.

          • by Genda (560240)

            I'm sorry but Ronny (a sweet guy personally) worked for the large corporate interests. He had been a business spokesman (some say shill, but I suspect he was sincere about his beliefs in Corporate America) since doing commercial for "20 Mule Team Borax Laundry Soap" back in the 50s. He was neither the best actor (see "Bed Time for Bonzo") nor the brightest light that shined (see 'Catsup is a vegetable"), but as politicians go, he was warm, persuasive, and could read his scripts like they were his own words,

        • by H0p313ss (811249)

          That's the real issue. The US is so conservative, our labels don't sync up well with the rest of the world, especially in the last 25 years. Case in point: Reagan's positions would make him center or left of center in the *Democrat* party these days. The US right has more in common now with the Taliban than what was traditionally considered "conservative" for most of the US' history.

          I enjoy pointing out that a century ago you could destroy a Canadian politician's career by labeling him an "American Sympathizer" in the media.

        • by whoever57 (658626)

          That's the real issue. The US is so conservative, our labels don't sync up well with the rest of the world, especially in the last 25 years.

          I think it is worse than that. I think the divsions between US parties are in a different dimension to the divisions between parties in different countries.

          What are some of the big issues dividing the Dems and Repubs: Abortion rights, gay marriage, etc. They are social issues, not economic issues. In other countries these things are not discussed in the context of

          • by Genda (560240)

            That's because men like Karl Rove (Turdblossom to his friends) engineered huge social wedge issues to get the Religious folk all up and pissy. As soon as someone with a real issue like the destruction of the middle class began to talk, certain conservative candidates could go "Abortion... Boogah, boogah, boogah" or "Homosexuals... Boogah, boogah, boogah" and in a predictably Pavlovian response the forebrains of folks with strong religious views would shut down in the flood of adrenalin that shot out of thei

          • by xaxa (988988)

            What are some of the big issues dividing the Dems and Repubs: Abortion rights, gay marriage, etc. They are social issues, not economic issues. In other countries these things are not discussed in the context of political affiliation. .

            Exactly. The current government in the UK (which is mostly the Conservative party (305 MPs), with a few Liberal Democrats (57)) is being accused in the conservative media of focussing too much on social issues, like gay marriage.

            But the argument is not that gay people shouldn't be able to get married -- I'm not certain, but I think the proposal for change has come from the conservative part of the coalition government. Instead, some bits of media are complaining that debating time in Parliament should be

        • As European, I find it highly amusing what is decried as "socialism" in the US these days. For Cthulhu's sake, the Democrats are not even a member of the Socialist International and would get laughed out of the room if they'd try to join. Well, ok, they let the German SPD stay, but that is more for historical (or rather hysterical, as in laughter) reasons than for anything else...
          • And the members of Socialist International aren't even that socialist. In Denmark, we have two significant political parties that are even further to the left than the Social Democrats, who are members of SI.

            The Socialist People's Party (SF) and the Red-Green Alliance (Enhedslisten), and SF is even part of the current government.

            American politics are fucked up. The commienazifascistabortionmurderers in the Democratic Party would be well at home alongside the Conservative People's Party around these parts.

        • That's why we have the term "Goldwater Republican." Goldwater was an economical and governmental libertarian, and trashed the Republican party when the religious right started taking over. His legacy is mostly left in the American Libertarian party and the non-religious, fiscally and governmentally conservative wing of the Republican party.

          Also don't forget our liberal base has moved to the left quite a bit and become more radical. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson were to the right of much of the Democrat

      • Yeah, the Labor Party are getting less liberal every day.

      • by Genda (560240)

        Yes, there are actually only three real liberals left in Washington D.C., and they're kept in a glass case at the Smithsonian. Here the liberals are mild Social Conservatives, the middle-of-the-road are Libertarian, and the conservatives are escaped Mental Patients and Religious Fanatics (or both.) Somehow over the last 30 years, corporate interests have found a way to only fund folks who were politically further and further right of center, so that at this point the center is further right than the far rig

      • he's a "big L" Liberal.

        Confusingly in Australia, the Liberal Party are the conservatives and the Labor Party are the liberals (with the Greens to the left of them).

        Of course, our Liberal Party would probably be to the left of the US's congressional democrats on most issues..

        --Q

        Of course you upside-downies would do that. I'm surprised you haven't fallen off the planet yet.

  • Since the satire story is not directly linked.. just go to the "On Facebook" link above and down to May 3rd... It's the only post that day... Lets see if we can get it over 100,000.... It's only 67 right now....
  • by Hentes (2461350) on Monday May 07, 2012 @10:07AM (#39915005)

    You are free to express your opinions, but there are a few things to keep in mind. If you support an opinion by 'liking' it, you are basically supporting it with your name. It's like signing a petition: you surrender your anonymity in order to give more weight to the statement. But that will also mean that others disagreeing with you might like you less in the future, which is why you should only give your name to something you really agree with. This guy basically just republished the data others made publicly available on Facebook, which he is also free to do.

    • by OzPeter (195038)

      You are free to express your opinions

      Actually no. There is no such thing as "free speech" in Australia.
       
      And "freedom of speech" varies by country around the world: Freedom of speech by country [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Actually no. There is no such thing as "free speech" in Australia.

        Of course there is. Free speech is a human right, not something granted by the government. If free speech is abridged, it's a human rights violation. Ergo, there is free speech in Australia, but there may also be human rights violations in Australia.

      • You are free to express your opinions

        Actually no. There is no such thing as "free speech" in Australia.

        This is pure bollocks.

        http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/choose-australia/about-australia/five-freedoms.htm [immi.gov.au]

        you need to do some reading.

        Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write what we think privately or publicly, about the government, or about any topic. We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest.

        What you're not allowed to do, is write false information, for example saying "OzPeter is a pedophile" without proof would be illegal if it were not an example.

        It's great that we Australians don't take ourselves to seriously, because when they do (like the parent has) they are normally full of shit.

  • Who else? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Daetrin (576516) on Monday May 07, 2012 @10:20AM (#39915119)
    "Tasmanian Liberal candidate for Bass, Andrew Nikolic"

    So who do the Liberals have running for lead singer, guitar and drums?
  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Monday May 07, 2012 @10:25AM (#39915171) Homepage
    Wow, nice way to bust "macho Australian" and "tough vet" stereotypes in one fell swoop. Please let him be a "defence of marriage" type as well, those are always the funniest when they get busted trawling for trade in airport bathrooms.
  • by msobkow (48369) on Monday May 07, 2012 @10:38AM (#39915301) Homepage Journal

    Some politicians think it applies only to people who agree with them.

    • by Skapare (16644)

      What? Think? I didn't know they could do that. Are you sure? Are they self-aware?

  • Straight from the mouth and Facebook page of a Australia Liberal politician.
    "it's probably best you relocate your interaction to sites more suited to your ideological perspectives. This is a supporter's site for a Liberal Campaign after all." - Andrew Nikolic

    When a Liberal politician openly admits that he has no interest is listening to or even allowing you to continue talking about issues that he disagrees with (and even continually threatens those who disagree with him [earlier in that same comment he thr

  • ""Tasmanian Liberal candidate for Bass..."

    Interesting. Is there a candidate for Perch? What about Walleye?

    • I was going to be impressed that they elect their bass players, rather than just picking them out of a bar. I wonder if they elect lead singers, too?

  • Nikolic's profile [andrewnikolic.com] on his campaign site seems to almost entirely given over to describing his military experience. A decent military record is certainly a positive trait, yet a bit strange when overplayed to the exclusion of almost everything else. Did he miss his chance for a position in Myanmar, and is now settling for Tasmania?

A CONS is an object which cares. -- Bernie Greenberg.

Working...