Slashdot Log In
Australian PM Has Parody Site Shut Down
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Mar 17, 2006 09:52 AM
from the ah-to-breath-the-free-air-of-australia dept.
from the ah-to-breath-the-free-air-of-australia dept.
babbling writes "The Australian Government has shut down a parody website that mocked Australian Prime Minister John Howard. The website featured a satirical speech that 'apologised' for the Iraq war. The site was down for two days before a phone call from Melbourne IT advised the owner that it had been shut down 'on the advice from the Australian Government'. A mirrored PDF copy of the "apology speech" is available."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Dumbest article quote (Score:4, Insightful)
Not bloody likely.
Re:Dumbest article quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Dumbest article quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Dumbest article quote (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dumbest article quote (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dumbest article quote (Score:3, Informative)
That is unfortunately true
We have really only one historical civil uprising, the Eureka Stockade, [ballarat.com] which basically was crushed and didn't change very much at all. At least when I went through school, it wasn't taught as part of Australian history.
To add insult to injury, the "Queen's Baton" (the Commonwealth Games' poor impression of the Olympic Torch) was run right through the centre of what many people see as a sacred site.
Given that the
Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT (Score:5, Informative)
For example, some time ago there was a similar issue (reported here [theregister.co.uk]) about the UK Gov's "Preparing for Emergencies" site (the real one is here [preparingf...ies.gov.uk], the parody one here [preparingf...cies.co.uk]). There was some fuss about it at the time, but basically the UK Gov cocked up by not registering the .co.uk domain along with the .gov.uk, and there was no case to answer in law, because of the "fair use" clause.
Similarly, whitehouse.org [whitehouse.org] and whitehouse.gov [whitehouse.gov] coexist. Indeed, there are probably hundreds of parody sites that work in a similar way.
Now, when I read the story, the quote from Bruce Tonkin at Melbourne IT set off my BS alarm. His claim that Melbourne IT reacts quickly to issues like this is simply not true. If you're involved in the anti-spam or anti-scam business, you'll know that Melbourne IT are one of the domain registrars of choice for phishers and spammers. In fact, Melbourne IT's procedures are so slack that they infamously transferred the panix.com domain [theregister.co.uk] to a third party without authorisation last year. The site was offline for several days because Melbourne IT don't work weekends. You'll see that Bruce Tonkin offered another bullshit excuse there too.
So, don't just blame the "Australian government" for this, as it's unclear who exactly intervened. A large part of the blame for this has to fall on Melbourne IT and their pisspoor procedures.. I bet they'd believe ANYBODY who rang up and claimed to be from the government. Shucks, perhaps I should give 'em a call and pretend to be John Howard.. although my English accent might give me away, though probably not.
Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT (Score:5, Interesting)
Not just that. They've also been accused of facilitating [blogspot.com] 419 fraud.
So, don't just blame the "Australian government" for this, as it's unclear who exactly intervened.
Better: Blame the "Australian government" for this, along with Melbourne IT. John Howard has lied to the Australian Public again and again.
He's currently under investigation for his role in collusion with [theage.com.au] Saddam's regime under sections.
Parent
Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also rather counter productive since it gets a lot of people looking at whatever all this fuss is about.
Parent
Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also bad press. Anyone/thing that can look at themselves and make fun of themselves or accept a good making-fun-of always comes out looking better in the end. In fact, they'd be smarter to publicize that they support the proprieter's free speech rights.
Trying to stifle speech, on the other hand, never, ever looks good.
Parent
Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT (Score:5, Insightful)
The current Australian government's reputation doesn't help them though...
Particularly they have a very poor reputation as far as "supporting civil liverties on principle" is concerned. It is one of the few governments that is entirely happy for the US to keep its citizens who are terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay (on the grounds that that way Australia doesn't have to deal with them). Their attitude towards assylum seekers is notorious worldwide. And the opposition aren't actually much better - they have just successfully campaigned to remove accountability for controversial drug approvals from the Health Minister [who might have to justify himself to the Australian people] and pass it to an entirely unaccountable "panel of experts". I wonder how long before John Howard realises that so long as you pass all the unpopular decisions to an unaccountable "panel of experts" then no voter can ever reasonably complain about anything you do!
Parent
Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not true and you know it. Didn't your mother tell you not to tell lies? The health minister had a right wing Christian agenda. That's why many people in his own party voted against him.
Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT (Score:5, Insightful)
For non Australians, what *actually* happened, was that the Health Minister had veto power over a *single* drug - the abortion pill RU486 - and that veto power has been removed. The only reason the Health Minister even had such a veto was because several years earlier the Government had traded it for the support in Parliament of a Christian fundie independent MP, since at that time they needed it to have legislation passed.
The situation has *nothing* to do with "accountability" and everything to do with anti-abortion agenda of the Christian Right. Parent post should be modded "-1, Blatant Misinformation".
Parent
Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly. Here in the awesome USofA such things are protected. You are free to openly disagree with the President and his policies with NO WORRY of retribution. In other countries doing things like that would get you fired from your job, put on the nofly list, or even worse they dig up dirt on you and your family in an attempt to embarass or discredit you if you try to tell the truth.
Parent
Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT (Score:5, Informative)
Except that political retribution happens here anyway. After the Venezuelan govt made inexpensive fuel available to poor Americans, the VZ fuel company CITGO is being put under a microscope by Congress.
Some Venezuelans who normally teach in the US have had their visas revoked, [democracynow.org] or their classes held-up. Government agents swaggering by your office saying "We have derrogatory information on you". "Blah Blah TERRORISM Blah Blah...", which is the new codeword for "We're not accountable to the Constitution".
If US efforts to dispense aid met with investigations by politicians, or US teachers were prevented from teaching abroad, the foreign country would be labeled "totalitarian" (except if you are fascist like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan-- then you get to buy ad time on our airwaves for propaganda).
Parent
Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT (Score:5, Insightful)
http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/ms
Parent
Re:Parodies, "fair use" and Melbourne IT (Score:3, Funny)
Some constructive suggestions for the site:
1. A "How To" page for using a turbin as a cooler for beer
2. A "How To" page for showing when president Bush is lying, (his lips are moving...).
3. A "How To" for watching sand as the wind blows.
4. A "How To" for looking at dead civilizations in Iraq
5. An aussie-english to aribic translation page?
"hay mate, where can I get a
Re:Parody... (Score:5, Informative)
Parody isn't the only "fair use." "Fair Use" is a legal standard established in title 17 of the US code. Basically it says that reproducing a copyrighted work without authorization is permissible if it is considered to be for "fair use." To determine whether a usage is fair or not, there are four tests that can be applied:
Works of parody are usually given pretty broad latitude as being permissible under the first category.
However, pretty much none of this is applicable to the Australian issue, since, to my knowledge, Australia doesn't have a fair use doctrine. In fact, according to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], the only countries that do are the US and the Phillipines. In Australia, I think the legal test would be "fair dealing" [wikipedia.org]. If the wiki is correct, parody does not appear to be a provision of that doctrine.
Parent
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY (Score:4, Funny)
And there I was thinking parodical works were protected
Google cache (Score:5, Informative)
Why can't people take a joke any more? (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians are in the public eye, and should expect satire and public attention. No one forced them to be politicians. Danish cartoons causing bloodshed, and now this. Does the Australian government think its people so dumb that they can't distinguish parody from sincerity?
What a miserable miserable world we live in.
Problems with this issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Now look down at the bottom. There's a copyright link which, like a lot of other links on the site, actually leads to the official website's copyright page. By doing that, and by not having anything anywhere on the page that identifies the authors in any other way, they may well have actually assigned copyright (I'm not familiar with the intracies of Australian copyright law). In that case, as the copyright owners (if not the authods), they were completly within their rights to insist that the piece be removed.
There's satire, and then there's impersonation. To me, for something to be protected even if satirical there would have to be some way, other than a personal evaluation of the content of the attributed text, for them to be able to tell that they're not looking at a "true" website. It can be evocative of the original, but should not be too easily mistaken for it. In the same way that, in the 'States, Saturday Night Live can use the presidential trappings for a "Press Conference" but if they were to broadcast a) without a laugh track, and b) using a body double instead of a "regular" actor, and c) react accordingly - they'd get in trouble too.
Parent
Some people have no sense of humour (Score:3, Insightful)
Politicians should grow some thicker skin in Oz. Hard to imagine a more thin skinned bunch, what next, censorship, oh, wait, that's exactly what it is.
50 years ago, March 17th, 1956, Fred Allen, born May 31, 1894 in Cambridge MA to irish catholic parents, famed comedy writer and radio comedian, died of a heart attack while walking his dog.
I'll toast him with a pint of Guinness. Thanks Fred, for all the laughs.
It doesn't look like satire to me (Score:5, Interesting)
However, the PDF document looks "offical" enough to possibly be the "real thing".
If this is satire, it's not translating well. It's no surprise the government wanted it taken down.
Re:It doesn't look like satire to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It doesn't look like satire to me (Score:3, Funny)
Will you be running for President?
Oh yes it does. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Oh yes it does. (Score:3, Insightful)
Backfire! (Score:3, Insightful)
It would have been better to request that the material clearly be labelled "parody" or "fiction", because some wankers might be confused and think Howie is a nice guy.
I'm glad to see... (Score:5, Funny)
I love the Austrailian people and I hope that the US will liberate them from their repressive government sometime soon.
I'd rather (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me use an analogy... If I have some food on the corner of mouth after I eat, I hope my friends will tell me about it, and not just ignore it because some guy down the hall spilled his entire meal on his tie.
People from around the world point out our flaws because we're disappointing them. After we did so much to liberate the world from tyranny in the 20th century, they want us to continue in the 21st. And if we don't meet that benchmark, then they want to tell us to get better.
Parent
Tired of John Howard and the like? VOTE THEM OUT (Score:5, Insightful)
People know censorship when they see it.
People do not like being censored.
I suggest if you are an Aussie and this bothers you, vote John Howard and his friends out of office.
Re:Tired of John Howard and the like? VOTE THEM OU (Score:5, Insightful)
We would, but there's nobody to vote into office. All we can chose from is a bunch of near-identical lying pricks.
Parent
Re:Tired of John Howard and the like? VOTE THEM OU (Score:3, Interesting)
Free speech in Austrailia? (Score:5, Insightful)
This wouldn't happen in the USA because we have free speech. Except if a lesbian is offended, then it's sexual harrassment. Or on campuses with a speech code. Or it you want to advertise cigarettes. Or alcohol. Or if you want to run political ads, then it might violate campaign finance reform, even if it's exactly like this John Howard web site.
So this wouldn't happen in the USA in the early 80s. We sort-of had free speech back then.
Re:Free speech in Austrailia? (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you tell the difference between criticisizing an individual, and generalizing about a minority? No?? I could tell...
Re:Free speech in Austrailia? (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe the first ammendment prevents the government from abridging free speech, not lesbians nor campuses.
Re:Free speech in Austrailia? (Score:3, Funny)
Chilling. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I've looked at the PDF [richardneville.com] of the satire website, comparing it with the real deal [pm.gov.au], and I have to say that the two are extremely similar....virtually identical with the exception of content. In this light, the reason offered by Bruce Tonkin, the chief technology officer of Melbourne IT, holds a bit of water: Upon closer observation, however, this reason leaks like a sieve. The parody websise is not a direct copy...far from it, since the content is radically different. This reason also conveniently glosses over the rather important fact that the Melbourne IT was ordered to yank the website by the Australian Government.
Mr.Tonkin goes on to say: Phishing??? Phishing for what??? This claim is patently ridiculous.
The reason Melbourne IT yanked the website is pure and simple: they were told to by the Government.
Our fundamental human rights are being slowly whittled away...not only in America, but around the world. There is no save harbor. There is nowhere to hide from the oppression. Concerned citizens have to make a stand now...not because it is the right thing to do, but because they have no other option, finding themselves with their backs against the wall.
Re:Chilling. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an easy enough misunderstanding: a phishing site looks like a genuine site, but isn't.
Parody sites look like genuine sites too. That's the general point of parody.
Yes, he's missed the point that phishing is about data capture not misinformation but I wouldn't rag him too hard, he's in the right ballpark.
"The right ballpark"????? For Chrissakes....he's the chief technology officer at Melbourne IT [melbourneit.com.au]. If he doesn't fucking understand what a phishing site is, Melbourne IT Needs a new CTO.
What's more likely? That a CTO of a major ISP actually doesn't understand the concept of a 'phishing site', or said CTO is prevaricating because the Government is breathing down his neck? You do the math.
Parent
Satire (Score:3, Insightful)
Copying material for satire is probably legal in this case, but he should not have misrepresented ownership of the text he wrote.
As an Australian ... (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, for the Aussies reading this
But yeah
Johnny gets tough! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well at last he's doing something about sedition [news.com.au] instead of just talking about it. I'd better stop thinking freely.
Any Australian would know this is a fake speech because the Mr Howard is pathologically unable to apologise for anything.
Our politicians have lot to learn (Score:3, Interesting)
Atleast people in India seems to elect a sensible PM. Our politicians have lot to learn. May be Indians elect educated people to the top post(current president used to be a scientist). Especially in US, we have elected an idiot to the top post and enitre world is affected by him. No wonder world hates us.
Rights vs Laws (Score:4, Insightful)
Only ourselves to blame (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Only ourselves to blame (Score:5, Informative)
The Australian Constitution does not have any express provision relating to freedom of speech. In theory, therefore, the Commonwealth Parliament may restrict or censor speech through censorship legislation or other laws, as long as they are otherwise within constitutional power.
The above page also states that Australians do not have free speech under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights either.
Parent
The internet upsets a free society (Score:3, Interesting)
Perspective of an Australian (ex) Lawyer (Score:5, Informative)
Take Down notices don't turn up as often as you'd think but even if one wasn't issued, when the Government called Melbourne IT, you can bet that they said "how high"..
Fair use. Yes, Australia has Fair Use exceptions within their copyright regime and they extend to the use of copyrighted material for the purposes of satire. This site clearly falls within the exception.
Further, Australians have an "implied right" of "freedom of political communication". Basically, the Australian Consitution "implies" that Australians have the right of free speech insofar as that speech relates to politicians and the political process (ie because your speech relates to the election of government and by extension politicians, you are free to say what you want - approximately accurate nutshell). It's actually quite restricted and has failed as a defence (it's not a positive right like the US right, only a defence) on a number of occasions, most notably when a satirical song was created about an Australian politician called Pauline Hanson by a satirist called Pauline Pantsdown. It was an hilarious satire using Pauline Hanson's own words but mixed up & rephrased (definitely worth googling).
I gues that the end story here is that the Australian Govt. have done themselves NO favours. Requesting the site be taken down was always going to make the press and was always going to go against the Govt. End result is better publicity for his piece.
And it's not bad - gets the tone right and doesn't resort to the usual "nah-nah-nah" that passes for political satire in Australia.
Pretty much spot on, content included.
And could someone do the guy a favour & mirror the PDF?
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
We'd all do better off without such hateful speech.
Betterment through censorship is a one step forward-two steps backwards maneuver.