New South Australian Law Forbids Anonymous Political Commentary During Election Season

from the freedom-of-speech-also-includes-anonymous-speech dept

A bunch of folks have sent in the news of a new law in South Australia that forbids any anonymous political commentary leading up to elections. Literally, the law reads:

“A person must not during an election period, publish material consisting of, or containing a commentary on, any candidate or political party, or the issues being submitted to electors, in written form, in a journal published in electronic form on the internet or by radio or television or broadcast on the internet, unless the material or the program in which the material is presented contains a statement of the name and address (not being a post office box) of a person who takes responsibility for the publication of that material.”

Apparently, things like The Federalist Papers would not have been welcome in South Australia. It’s clearly a method of censorship, though, of course, the guy behind it, Michael Atkinson, is spinning it as the opposite of censorship: “The real point of this legislation is not blocking or censoring freedom of speech — it’s just making sure freedom of speech is attributed to the right person.”

Reader cofiem points out that Atkinson has a bit of a history as being technologically reactionary, such as his strong support for banning video games that he feels are too violent even for adults. Cofiem also points to some of the legislative history behind this, which includes Atkinson making it clear that this law should apply to “blog sites, Wikipedia and internet newspapers” but thankfully he does “not want to go into twittering because that is too much like individual communication over a mobile phone. So, that is where we are putting the boundary.” Phew. Each political Twitter won’t need to be accompanied by your address.

That same report suggests that Atikinson has aimed this legislation at a particular online publication that he does not like:

It is being supported by Atkinson in the most appalling way — the news reports quote him apparently frothing at the mouth about ‘Adelaidenow’, which the law seems implicitly to target;

Nice use of elected office to try to stifle the ability of your critics to speak freely.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “New South Australian Law Forbids Anonymous Political Commentary During Election Season”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Brendan (profile) says:

Vowed to Repeal the Terrible Law

Atkinson has actually already responded to the massive public outcry on this stupid law, and has vowed to repeal it “retroactively, immediately following the elections.”

I’m not sure how strong this man’s word is among our down under friends, but I don’t see why he can’t stop the bad law _now_.

Mark says:

Re: Re:

Well, it may not be repealed yet, but the Atkinson is already backing down from this law.

“From the feedback we’ve received through AdelaideNow, the blogging generation believes that the law supported by all MPs and all political parties is unduly restrictive. I have listened. I will immediately after the election move to repeal the law retrospectively… It may be humiliating for me, but that’s politics in a democracy and I’ll take my lumps.” (

I think the best part of the linked article is how Atkinson tried to defend the law.
“I’ll give you an example: repeatedly in the AdelaideNow website one will see commentary from Aaron Fornarino of West Croydon. That person doesn’t exist,” Atkinson said on the air. “That name has been created by the Liberal Party in order to run Liberal Party commentary.”

And of course, the smackdown

This morning, AdelaideNow took great delight in posting a picture of Fornarino posing with a Mac and his young daughter. He’s a second-year law student who moved to the area last year and “lives in a flat on Port Rd, about 500m from Mr. Atkinson’s electorate office.”


i have a better idea

a section for anonymous and one for people who aren’t scared to make there views known.
PROB is way this world is going i want anonymous cause what repercussions are there for your views and these political types can and are at times very nasty people.

after all almost all of them consider lobby money not to be a bribe.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“heck france = australia = iran = china

and dont worry ACTA will balance out the rest of us to it all…..”

Er, given your equation above, will ACTA give me free reign to drink wine all day long, cook absolutely everything on a barbeque, grow the world’s ugliest beard, and refuse to pronounce “L”‘s correctly?

Because if so, I may have to change to supporting ACTA….

Richard (profile) says:

I had heard the same thing Brendan, although now that I think about it, it’s a very clever move by Atkinson… by saying he’ll do it after the election, does that then make it an election issue, so therefore we can’t have anonymous talk about it?
I also want to know if these conditions extend to politicians themselves, if they now have to post their home addresses every time they make a comment to the media?

Michial Thompson (user link) says:

What's wrong with making people responsible for their actions

Why not make idiots responsible for their actions? Too many cowards use annonomous as a way of not taking responsibility for their actions.

I think laws such as this would hold more people responsible for their actions and would probably make it easier to trace lies both about and from politicians

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: What's wrong with making people responsible for their actions

Besides the fact that there are plenty of legitimate reasons for wishing to remain anonymous…do you really think that a country’s finite law enforcement resources should be spent monitoring every relevant website for political based comments, checking to see if they were anonymous or if they provided their details, checking to see if those details are correct, and then filling out all the mindless bureaucratic paperwork that will inevitably be involved?

Anony1 says:

by Anonymous Coward
Australia isn’t killing dissenters.

It’s true, but for me at least, the implied comparison related directly to free speech. There may be similarities in other areas of government policy, and others may differ significantly. My point was simply that policies like this are in line with some implemented by Iran, or China, for instance. Yes there have been attempts at censorship in America, but Australia has been implementing quite a few restrictions in terms of the internet/speech recently.
The UK is similarly placed, but not as bad, IMHO.

@Chris: EXCELLENT point.

Anonymous Coward says:

Did you know that it’s cheaper to comment anonymously on the interent than it is to force everybody to post as themselves? True story.

I wonder if there will still be anonymous cowards in ten years? You know, if it’s cheaper, for everyone involved, to remain anonymous than it is to post as yourself.

Who pays for that global enforcement? Is it everyone? Is everyone in agreement that anonymity is bad for the network? The only people I see really complaining are politicians and 20th century distributors and a few cranks.

Will they pay for it?

btr1701 (profile) says:


I wonder if this guy understands that the vast majority of the internet isn’t subject to South Australian law? Apparently not, as the article mentions that he thinks this law will apply to Wikipedia, which I feel safe in guessing is not physically based in South Australia.

Makes me want to research and anonymously comment on a South Australian election issue from my comfy home in Virginia and see what Mr. Atkinson thinks he can do about it.

Yeebok (profile) says:

As for the law this relates to, I heard about it yesterday on Twitter. I live in NSW (mid east coast) rather than SA (mid southern coast) though. Since we don’t have free speech actually written down as a right anywhere (I think at most it’s implied) – his comments about that particular paper were pretty inflammatory though. I think “den of identity theft” was one phrase (and adding addresses everywhere would only worsen that ..)

So far as the filter and related stupidity goes, that seems to be progressing “nicely” – however there’s starting to be a bit of a backlash about it. Sadly much of the public as with any country don’t understand the finer points of the issue or think it won’t bother them. At election time the filter was to be opt in, so some may think it won’t apply.
As comment 1 has said, Atkinson has stated he will repeal the law after the election, but as I commented earlier this implies he thinks he’s guaranteed a seat. Due to political alignments, the confused old duffer’s actually pretty safe which is a big worry.
To add to the points added by Cofiem, he is also the *sole* force behind us not having an R18 games rating. (To change the classification rules all attorney generals – 1 per state, ie 7 – have to agree unanimously).
I am not sure what rating Alien Vs Predator got in the US or other countries (I assume R or 18/21 age requirement), here the unmodified version will be available to 15 year olds. (The game was refused classification (banned), the developer refused to soften it, so they suddenly realised since it was scifi the violence wasn’t a problem) That’s a separate issue, but that’s one platform people are campaigning against him on. The classification board can only rule within the guidelines they have, obviously.

Add the internet filter, and sadly the comparisons to Iran and China much as I find them distasteful, are a fair comparison. I think on the whole, their politicians seem to know more about the inter-webs than ours.

Anony1 says:

How is killing dissenters not related to free speech? It’s simply the most extreme form of censorship possible.

@nasch: Apparently, you’ve misread me here. Obviously stifiling dissent through killing is the most extreme form of censorship. I was simply saying that by comparing Australia to Iran (or China), I wasn’t implying that they are on an equal footing as the methods used. Killing someone is most definately more than a step farther than the law in question here. So killing dissenters is related to free speech, but the comparison related to free speech restrictions via the law, not killing. The lengths that some countries are willing to go to, in order to achieve censorship are in general, not practiced in most democracies. BTW, that’s called spelling it out. Sigh…

Soap says:

Dangerous stupidity...

Did anyone else notice the inherent danger in having your name and address plastered everywhere along with political statements one way or another…

Wait till someone supports a hot topic like late term abortion or Muslim rights and watch his house get firebombed by someone who disagrees.

Great concept, lets show people who want to hurt you where you are.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...