As with all socialists, communists and regressors who claim the upper level of all philosophical, intellectual and historical (hysterical) awareness, that appears to be straight out of Orwell's 1984 tome. As far as I can tell, it's their bible, their holy script (they have nothing else) as we witness their continual abeyance to emulate and introduce precisely what Orwell was warning against. Copious examples are already visible in not only feminism and it's lies and false information but also in the AGW saga and hoax, where forgery, cheating, stealing and dishonesty is now hailed as the norm and the opposite claimed to be just what it isn't. Orwell's warning of the "truth will be lies and the lies will become the truth" has surfaced as well as his warning about rewriting history to suit the current doctrine is a normal function for feminists and AGW scientists alike, world-wide..
But as with the majority in power, those mere words have to be ignored as all those deceitful actions can be undertaken if is claimed to be for "The Greater Good", Hotfuzz anyone..
As for the arbitrary figure below, that would put this blog off the web as this blog does more than that per week. This site has almost achieved that total in (15,000) one single day, thanks to all of you..
The report acknowledges the threshold of “15,000 hits” is arbitrary, but maintains a ”a line must be drawn somewhere”.The left wing lunatics are offended by the truth and are offended about everything that does not proceed out of their own deceitful mouths. How childish is that. Why don't people grow up..
I have lost count on the amount of times that this blog has been maligned, threatened, tried to shut it down and continually harassed which is why I was forced to change the commenting procedure as the traffic and abuse was just beyond the pale. So the hypocrisy continues..
Even an online site read just by your relatives is threatened
Andrew Bolt – Saturday, March 03, 12 (09:21 am)
A government-funded policeman for the media. What could possibly go wrong - I mean, apart from the murder of free speech and the death of dissent?
Yet complacancy rules in those too close to power. For instance, ABC favorite Alan Kohler is certain that people with his own outlook will get to define and suppress “bad” journalism:
I consider much of the climate alarmism of the past decade - the wilful suppression of alternative views, the peddling of irresponsible ans baseless scares, the sliming of dissenting scientists - to be very bad journalism indeed, with very damaging financial, political and emotional consequences, far more serious than the consequences of the hacking of a film star’s phone. Is Kohler comfortable with me taking over the proposed media super-cop, or is that a job reserved only for People Like Him? And who, in fact, has most to fear from this super-cop being used to shut down debate: the sceptics or the alarmists?
But here is the true measure of this assault on free speech: even a news site read just by just a handful of friends and relatives of the writer could be “regulated”.
Yes, that is how intrusive, unrestrained and overmighty this proposed government-backed media policeman would be. It would cover even on-line news sites with as few as 15,000 hits a year - the kind of traffic that could be generated by a readership no bigger than an extended family:
It’s easy to say that only the guilty need fear the consequences. But who the hell has the right to define “guilty”? Since when was free speech a threat - and a bigger threat than controls on it?
Can even “responsible” free speech flourish when the the process of regulation is the punishment? Already it is easier for me and you to shut up about some subjects than to be forced to justify our statements to a tribunal, generally staffed by people of hostile political views.
Just this aspect of the report defines for me the essential nature of the Finkelstein inquiry’s bid for “control” of what’s written and broadcast - its gross impertinence, deep intrusiveness and only arbitrarily defined restraint on its passion to control the free speech of others.
And be warned. In writing even this I have taken a professional risk. In no genuinely free society should I be scared to speak like this. Nor should you.
Defend free speech while you still have what’s left.
UPDATE
Professor Bunyip gives an example of how the Press Council already cracks down on opinions it finds “distorted” from those it prefers. Behold your future.
It is so shameful, so embarrassing, so astonishing that this kind of thing is now proposed in Australia. It is a fundamental attack on one of the most charming, important and enduring characteristics of Australia - the tradition of free speech that has nurtured the larrikin and the teller of unpopular truths. That has exposed charlatans and tormented politicians too full of their self-importance.
PRINT and online news will come under direct federal government oversight for the first time under proposals issued yesterday to create a statutory regulator with the power to prosecute media companies in the courts.
The historic change to media law would break with tradition by using government funds to replace an industry council that acts on complaints, in a move fiercely opposed by companies as a threat to the freedom of the press.
The proposals, issued yesterday by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, also seek to widen the scope of federal oversight to cover print, online, radio and TV within a single regulator for the first time.
Bloggers and other online authors would also be captured by a regime applying to any news site that gets more than 15,000 hits a year, a benchmark labelled “seriously dopey” by one site operator.
The head of the review, former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein, rejected industry warnings against setting up a new regulator under federal law with funding from government.
Yet complacancy rules in those too close to power. For instance, ABC favorite Alan Kohler is certain that people with his own outlook will get to define and suppress “bad” journalism:
PUBLISHERS and practitioners of quality journalism should have nothing to fear from regulation, as it provides a distinction between serious journalism and the foot-in-door end of the market, one independent publisher says in response to the Finkelstein review.“We”?
Alan Kohler is ... chairman of Australian Independent Business Media, publisher of Business Spectator and The Eureka Report…
“Media and journalism is a funny industry where you have someone of the quality of Paul Kelly . . . called journalists while someone who hacks a phone for celebrity gossip is also called a journalist. This sort of regulation might reinforce the importance of great journalism and put more pressure on what we would consider bad journalism.
I consider much of the climate alarmism of the past decade - the wilful suppression of alternative views, the peddling of irresponsible ans baseless scares, the sliming of dissenting scientists - to be very bad journalism indeed, with very damaging financial, political and emotional consequences, far more serious than the consequences of the hacking of a film star’s phone. Is Kohler comfortable with me taking over the proposed media super-cop, or is that a job reserved only for People Like Him? And who, in fact, has most to fear from this super-cop being used to shut down debate: the sceptics or the alarmists?
But here is the true measure of this assault on free speech: even a news site read just by just a handful of friends and relatives of the writer could be “regulated”.
Yes, that is how intrusive, unrestrained and overmighty this proposed government-backed media policeman would be. It would cover even on-line news sites with as few as 15,000 hits a year - the kind of traffic that could be generated by a readership no bigger than an extended family:
The report acknowledges the threshold of “15,000 hits” is arbitrary, but maintains a ”a line must be drawn somewhere”.That comes to just 41 hits a day, which could be racked up by, say, 10 interested people, clicking a few pages each. And what this tiny band write for each other is now to be policed by men from the government, acting on complaints from activists, busybodies and the eagerly aggrieved.
It’s easy to say that only the guilty need fear the consequences. But who the hell has the right to define “guilty”? Since when was free speech a threat - and a bigger threat than controls on it?
Can even “responsible” free speech flourish when the the process of regulation is the punishment? Already it is easier for me and you to shut up about some subjects than to be forced to justify our statements to a tribunal, generally staffed by people of hostile political views.
Just this aspect of the report defines for me the essential nature of the Finkelstein inquiry’s bid for “control” of what’s written and broadcast - its gross impertinence, deep intrusiveness and only arbitrarily defined restraint on its passion to control the free speech of others.
And be warned. In writing even this I have taken a professional risk. In no genuinely free society should I be scared to speak like this. Nor should you.
Defend free speech while you still have what’s left.
UPDATE
Professor Bunyip gives an example of how the Press Council already cracks down on opinions it finds “distorted” from those it prefers. Behold your future.
