So if you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear? This cop is plainly using her power to search as a threat, openly admitting that she can’t use anything she can find but she plainly regards the threat that “you can be pulled out of the car and I can search you if you really want” as a tool to compel compliance with her “voluntary” interrogation. If she’s using it as a threat, any claim that no harm is done by the search is entirely specious. She’s not threatening to search them so much as she’s threatening to humiliate and demean them under color of authority.
Posts Tagged politics
In the report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation, the Hon R Finkelstein, QC made the following statement: (From section 6.76 of the report)
” In the United States, free speech is given primacy among rights, and therefore the potential harm caused by restrictions on speech is thought to outweigh the potential harm caused by speech that is not restricted. In Australia free speech does not necessarily have the same primacy”
Could it be that our lack of a bill of rights is the reason that a respected Australian jurist treats freedom of speech with open contempt?
On the Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation: Part Four.
Suppression Of Dissenting Voices
In order to determine the purpose of a political initiative such as the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation (IIMMR) it is important to examine both who is responsible for the initiative and what prompted them to proceed with that initiative. The Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation was the result of a campaign by the Green party, led by Federal Senator Bob Brown.
The Opening for Sen. Brown to call for the inquiry was the phone hacking scandal in Britain in which the now defunct newspaper “News Of The World” committed criminal acts in the pursuit of news. But what is the connection to Australia? News Of The World is owned by “News International” which is, in turn, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s “News Corporation”. There are several News Corporation Newspapers, notably, “The Australian” and “The Daily Telegraph” who have embraced editorial policies that oppose Sen. Browns vision for Australias future. In particular, on the Green parties belief in and proposed solutions for the threat of global warming.
Having been initiated as a result of conflict between News Corp and Sen. Brown over global warming, it is unsurprising that the IIMMR focused on reportage and commentary by The Australian and The Daily Telegraph on the subject of global warming and the Gillard governments response to global warming. In section 4.31 through 4.42 the IIMMR deals with this subject. In doing so, it gets to an inauspicious start. Quoting from “A skeptical climate”, a report published by the Australian Centre for Independent journalism, claiming that “overall, negative coverage of government policy outweighed positive coverage by 73 per cent to 27 per cent” and that ” negative coverage across News Limited papers (82 per cent) far outweighed positive coverage (18 per cent)” Finkelstein manages to leave out crucial information: these numbers omit neutral coverage of the subject. From the same report: “The Australian gave far more space to the coverage of climate change than any other newspaper. Its articles were coded 47% negative, 44% neutral and 9% positive”
The report contains a table showing reportage of Julia Gillards policy response to climate change:
|The Daily Telegraph||65%||27%||8%|
|The Courier Mail||57%||26%||16%|
|The Northern Territory News||53%||29%||18%|
|The West Australian||45%||33%||22%|
|Sydney Morning Herald||42%||23%||36%|
This paints a very different picture to the one preferred by Finkelstein: “Its headline finding was that, overall, negative coverage of government policy outweighed positive coverage by 73 per cent to 27 per cent”. Why omit neutral reportage from the statistics? Perhaps because doing so is less supportive of the conclusion the IIMMR was intended to obtain?
It is entirely proper, when government makes a proposal which will enormously increase that governments power, that the press should respond in a profoundly skeptical manner. Part of the purpose of the press, discussed in the IIMMR is for the press to act as a check on government. Nor is there any shortage of coverage on this subject from various perspectives, from negative through neutral to positive. In my opinion and on the basis of the information found in “A Skeptical Climate”, the Australian public was well served by the press on this subject. The suggestion that the Australian public was insufficiently exposed to material supportive of Julia Gillards policy response to climate change is entirely unsupported by facts.
The use of “A Skeptical Climate” by the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism is questionable in itself. From “A Skeptical Climate”:
“The words used to describe issues also frame the terms in which an issue is discussed. The carbon emissions reduction policy was originally referred to as the carbon pricing policy, although the Opposition leader Tony Abbott from the beginning referred to it as a ‘tax’. Under questioning, Julia Gillard agreed at a press conference announcing the policy on February 24 that the policy would be “effectively like a tax” (7.30 Report, 24 Feb, 2011). From then on, the word ‘tax’ was used more frequently than ‘policy’. This framing of the issue as a ‘tax’ tended to encourage a perception that the policy was aimed at individual consumers rather than large companies.”
This attempt to paint the use of the word “tax” in reference to the Gillard government’s response to climate change as somehow misleading unveils the publication’s partisan agenda. Gillard herself admitted that the policy whould be “effectively like a tax” and the claim that large companies would be the only entities affected by carbon pricing not only puts the authors of the report firmly in the left wing class warfare camp but is a bold faced attempt to mislead the reader into believing that individuals would not be affected by increasing the expenses borne by large companies. We are expected to ignore the fact that increased business costs get passed on to individuals by way of increased prices.
So why use, in an independent report, a publication so plainly committed to a partisan left wing perspective on the subject? It seems to me that the reason can only be that the individual using such a publication shares that perspective.
The above is all very interesting (to me, at least) but what on earth does it have to do with the title of this blog “Suppression Of Dissenting Voices”? It goes back to the fairness doctrine discussed, then airily dismissed with a perfunctory handwave by Finkelstein. I quote Bill Ruder, a public relations specialist for the Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson administrations who in the book “The Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the First Amendment” (New York: Random House, 1976) is reported to have said: “Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”.
The CATO institute has published a document titled “Broadcast Localism and the Lessons of the Fairness Doctrine” by John Sample. I quote from that document: “In a report to the Democratic National Committee, the leaders of the campaign proudly noted: “Even more important than the free radio time was the effectiveness of this operation in inhibiting the political activity of these right-wing broadcasts”
Which brings me to section 9.49 of the IIMMR “An enforceable right of reply is a desirable reform for the media. There are no significant moral or policy objections to such a right and while there are arguments against making a right of reply enforceable, the advantages of enforcement outweigh the disadvantages of leaving the matter in the hands of the very body that published the adverse material in the first place.”
An enforceable right of reply is a means that has, in the past, been used by the left to suppress political speech by right wing commentators. It seems obvious that it would be used as such once established here in Australia. Small wonder Bob Brown and the Green party are in such a hurry to implement the reccomendations of the Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation.
On the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation Part 3: Unexamined Assumptions
In section 2 of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation (IMMR), from section 2.14 up to section 2.51 the report examines rationales for the maintenance of free speech. Covering 12 pages in all, Finkelstein covers various rationales for the maintenance of free speech.
- The search for truth, also called the marketplace of ideas
- Democratic discourse
- Self fulfillment and autonomy
- The fourth estate
Each of these rationales are discussed in detail with copious references to philosophers both alive and dead. They are then subject to criticism, almost as if the rationales are being examined then discarded as inadequate or flawed.
Finkelstein then proceeds to justify regulation of speech with bald assertion on his own authority and that of one Professor Stone, who made a verbal submission to the Inquiry. There is no search for historical justification from respected philosophers or revered public figures, there is no search for critics of the ideas which justify regulation of speech.
The implication is clear, at least to me. Finkelstein regards regulation of speech to be a default position, which must be disproven before his “court” rather than the reverse. That advocates of free speech stand in the position of prosecutor, burdened with the requirement that they prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt while advocates of regulation stand in the position of the defendant, required only to create in the receptive mind of the judge the seeds of reasonable doubt. Once again, Finkelstein has shown that he is steeped in the morality of government. That he regards as normal and proper the threat and initiation of the use of force. That restraining the state from exercising the use of force requires justification rather than that it is the use of force which requires justification.
Finkelsteins unexamined assumption is this: it is freedom that must justify itself, not regulation. Am I alone in finding this deeply frightening? Is it paranoid that this strikes me as a terrible harbinger of what the future holds for the Australian community?
On the Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation Part 2: Online Publications
Getting down to specific elements of the IIMR (the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation) with which I take issue, I begin with section 6 of the executive summary. Finkelstein comes to the conclusion that the existing mechanisms for regulation of media are not sufficient to achieve the degree of accountability desirable in a democracy in part because online publications are not subject to the existing mechanisms. This is only partly true, the legal constraints that cover newspapers and mainstream media are equally applicable to online publications. For the rest, the justifications tendered in the report for regulation of the media can be found in section 9 of the IIMR. Section 9 addresses the subject of whether persons subject to adverse comment in the media should have a “right of reply” or if there should be a broader “right of access”. Many of the arguments found in this section are far less applicable in the online environment than is the case with print or television media.
- Access to means of distributing information in the online environment are accessible to people with minimal financial resources.
- There is no lack of diversity of information sources in the online environment
- Because of 1. and 2. there is no reason to suppose that readers need to be “made aware of competing versions of events and different opinions”
- There is no real need to “maximise freedom of speech” in the online evironment. The online environment is nothing but freedom of speech and attempting to maximise it by compelling people to say things with which they do not agree for this purpose defeats the purpose of free speech.
In my honest opinion, the true reason to desire to regulate online publications is not so much to ensure that the public has access to online publishing, because plainly, we do. It is rather, to ensure access to an audience. Am I, an obscure blogger without a single regular reader so far as I am aware, entitled to the audience held by NineMSN or by the Sydney Morning Herald website? It seems silly to suggest. Or at least, I would feel silly suggesting it.
In my last post, I referred to an article by David Baldash which attacks the TEA Party for the political opinions of a libertarian in the apparent belief that the two political groups are indivisible. One comment he made caught my attention upon re reading the article: “The Right constantly cries about the Left “indoctrinating our children!” and yet extremist Tea Party movies and children’s books, and things like anti-Muslim children’s coloring books are becoming the norm for right-wing nuts.”
Yes, Mr Baldash, your political opponents are taking up your own tactics. If you don’t like it, perhaps it would have been wise not to put that tactic on the table in the first place. Too late now though. The djinn is well and truly out of the bottle and all that remains is to see what chaos results when both the left, the right and the libertarians try to indoctrinate children at the same time.
David Baldash at the New Civil Rights blog is of the opinion that the Tea Party supports pornography and legalization of “drugs from marijuana to heroin.” In addition to gay marriage.
There is one thing I agree with Mr Baldash regarding his article though. The last two sentences: “Oh boy. You can’t make this stuff up…”
Which brings us to the title of my post. No, I’m not calling the Tea Party or its supporters ignorant. David Baldash is in lots of company in his appalling (deliberate?) ignorance of what the Tea Party actually stands for. The TEA Party has come to be regarded on the left as the repository of All That Is Evil ™ thus, if the left thinks it’s evil… Well, obviously that’s what the TEA Party stands for.
Would it really kill them to listen to what folks in the TEA Party have to say for themselves instead of listening to the words that left wing politicians put in their mouths? But this would make for an honest discussion. Which the left is conspicuously unwilling to engage in.