It's south Australia, how many of them have computers even? where's charged? :p
probably most people don't give a shit.
Printable View
It's south Australia, how many of them have computers even? where's charged? :p
probably most people don't give a shit.
I encourage step number 1: GET ANGRY!
Not like the French though because mass burning cars doesn't do sh*t.
Just give fake credentials.. what are they going to do if everyone just puts down Michael Atkinson, post code.. something. What's FAIL in numbers?
[quote=Zytek_Fan;924867]I encourage step number 1: GET ANGRY!
Not like the French though because mass burning cars doesn't do sh*t.[/quote]
This. Burning cars has never accomplished as much as getting drunk and flashing people anyways.
[quote=pimento;924869]Just give fake credentials.. what are they going to do if everyone just puts down Michael Atkinson, post code.. something. What's FAIL in numbers?[/quote]
holy shit everyone do this
[quote=clutch-monkey;924872]holy shit everyone do this[/quote]
That was my thought but it said the moderators were responsible and could be fined $5,000 so I figured it was a no go. Give it a try though.
It's not up to the moderators to validate what we tell them, so they should be fine.
Would someone mind explaining to me the limits of free speech in Australia?
[quote=Zytek_Fan;924888]Would someone mind explaining to me the limits of free speech in Australia?[/quote]
You know.. I have no idea. I think we have it, but yea.. not sure what the details are. The main arguement with this is that it's not impinging free speech, you just have to own up to what you're saying.
[quote=Zytek_Fan;924888]Would someone mind explaining to me the limits of free speech in Australia?[/quote]
'Free Speech' in Australia is governed by the rules of libel.
Basically this means that you can say your mind, as long as you preface it with the proviso of "I think" which disclaims your rant into the realm of personal opinion, rather than (it being) a (potentially libelous) statement of fact.
Otherwise you might (rightly so imo) find yourself in court.
Eg:
"Zytec is a %$#@" (fact)
vs
"I think Zytek is a %$#@" (opinion)
[quote=IBR]The SA law - which could also apply to talkback radio - differs from federal legislation, which preserves the right of internet users to blog under a pseudonym.[/quote]
What supposed 'right' does an internet blogger, or anybody else for that matter, have to freely malign or traduce or defame or libel an innocent party?
And why should faceless cowards be unaccountable for their (often incredibly damaging) accusations?
I figure this isn't really appropriate for the official video thread, so I'll put it here... to break some minds.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCMhKcjktPM[/ame]
And then start this one from about a minute in.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1m8a4Jl4ZI[/ame]
[quote=nota;924898]
What supposed 'right' does an internet blogger, or anybody else for that matter, have to freely malign or traduce or defame or libel an innocent party?
[/quote]
why not? ACA manages to do it with a straight face, lol.
[quote=Zytek_Fan;924867]I encourage step number 1: GET ANGRY!
Not like the French though because mass burning cars doesn't do sh*t.[/quote]
Burning cars in 2005 might not have achieved much, but the car burning and rioting in 2006 was extremely effective.
The French actually have a history of effective rioting. France seems to have this ability when labour comes up to band together and put on huge strikes, protests, and riots and actually change government policy.
It's a roundabout way of democracy working through action outside traditional power channels; "the people" ruling the government and therefore themselves may be illusory, but people scaring the government into changing it's mind - that is real and can be rather effective.
[quote=Kitdy;924944]Burning cars in 2005 might not have achieved much, but the car burning and rioting in 2006 was extremely effective.
The French actually have a history of effective rioting. France seems to have this ability when labour comes up to band together and put on huge strikes, protests, and riots and actually change government policy.
It's a roundabout way of democracy working through action outside traditional power channels; "the people" ruling the government and therefore themselves may be illusory, but people scaring the government into changing it's mind - that is real and can be rather effective.[/quote]
You do bring up a good point.
In a real democracy, the government should be scared of the people, not the people scared of the government. Unfortunately these days in America, the government isn't scared of the people.