4 ms·

"Senator Conroy has conceded that greater transparency is needed in terms of how content ends up on the blacklist, but last night he again refused to make the b

by pmccool 17y ago

"Senator Conroy has conceded that greater transparency is needed in terms of how content ends up on the blacklist, but last night he again refused to make the blacklist itself public, saying it would provide people instant access to the banned material." This was the most interesting quote in the whole article for me. There is a parallel with the taboo on swearing, it being impossible to perpetuate the taboo on swearing without breaking it. The difference is that the taboo on swearing has always been there. People just work around it. My feeling is that this law will end up the same way - no more useful than any other irritating quirk. I'm skeptical that it will impede political speech, or free trade or whatever in any significant way. This doesn't mean I'm in favour of the law, though - it strikes me as a complete waste of time.

nopassrecover 17y ago
The government has been using existing powers to try and block political opposition and the current ban list does ban sites on issues like euthanasia and gay rights. On top of that I am told that the technology, depending on how it is implemented, may compromise SSL. These seems significant impediments to freedom of speech and potentially trade.
- pmccool 17y ago
  My logic there is that impeding political speech makes the law vulnerable to legal challenge. My opinion is that such a challenge would succeed, hence my view that, one way or another, it will stay out of areas like trade and political speech.
  - nopassrecover 17y ago
    Only if those provisions are explicitly protected by the text of the constitution. Since the Engineer's case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineers_Case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineers_Case) the High Court has favoured a literal interpretation of the constitution. Having said that, cases in the early 1990s established an implied but limited right to freedom of political communication so hopefully you're right.
    - pmccool 17y ago
      Yeah, I think someone will do the obvious thing with this law: find some obviously-political thing on the blacklist and ask the courts to apply the test from Lange/Coleman v Power (which build on the early-90s cases you mention). So yeah, here's hoping their argument gets up.

by pmccool 17y ago

nopassrecover 17y ago

The government has been using existing powers to try and block political opposition and the current ban list does ban sites on issues like euthanasia and gay rights. On top of that I am told that the technology, depending on how it is implemented, may compromise SSL. These seems significant impediments to freedom of speech and potentially trade.

pmccool 17y ago
My logic there is that impeding political speech makes the law vulnerable to legal challenge. My opinion is that such a challenge would succeed, hence my view that, one way or another, it will stay out of areas like trade and political speech.
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  Only if those provisions are explicitly protected by the text of the constitution. Since the Engineer's case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineers_Case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineers_Case) the High Court has favoured a literal interpretation of the constitution. Having said that, cases in the early 1990s established an implied but limited right to freedom of political communication so hopefully you're right.
  - pmccool 17y ago
    Yeah, I think someone will do the obvious thing with this law: find some obviously-political thing on the blacklist and ask the courts to apply the test from Lange/Coleman v Power (which build on the early-90s cases you mention). So yeah, here's hoping their argument gets up.