Posts by Don Christie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
you have to wonder exactly what they are trying to achieve, given the complete lack of evidence of any effect needing remedying.
"They" are trying to achieve transparency in democracy.
What makes it difficult in this day and age is that there are so many means of communication and these are changing so quickly that you end up with a dogs breakfast trying to make reasonably encompassing legislation.
-
Just been looking for the "free speech coalition" mentioned on Radio NZ.
Thanks to wikipedia I see this organisation is rather broader minded than I first suspected.
-
insider...many thanks for taking the time to answer.
Regarding candidate meetings
It may not rule them out but may restrict the way they work. For instance if you attended and asked a question in which you said "do/don't vote for 'x'", you might have to state your name and address as well to legalise the statement.
Ok. So what we are saying is candidate meetings may still take place, audiences can still ask questions, BUT if they say "vote for/vote against" they *may* have to make a statement of identity...er, if they are also spending over $1000 in the electorate and pulling a donkey out their arse at the same time :-)
This seems a far cry from the "meet the candidates" events would be banned free speech dies" talk.
Again, feel free to correct me, I certainly don't trust parliament to draft sensible legislation.
-
Graeme Edgeler pointed out in comments here yesterday, it would rule out meet-the-candidates meetings
I asked this question before...how does it rule out these meetings?
Given Graeme said this I am willing to believe there is a reason even if I have not grokked it yet. But a lot (most) of the commentary about the bill seems to be based on selective quoting of bits without also quoting the context and caveats.
I still don't believe (having read the quoted bits) that megaphones are covered by the attribution thing and even if they are, transparency in a democracy is good, right?
-
But I am pretty sure that some less reputable opponents than David wouldn't mind a press story or two getting the wrong end of the stick.
Sigh.
-
I'm not sure why DPF thought anonymous comments would be caught,
I'm not sure either. But I am pretty sure that some less reputable opponents than David wouldn't mind a press story or two getting the wrong end of the stick.
-
On the blog posting issue I see the following comment from another site (The Standard)
Section 5 (2) says “The following are not election advertisements: …. 5 (2) (g) “The publication by an individual, on a non-commercial basis, on the Internet of his or her personal political views (being the kind of publication commonly known as a blog).
This is specifically allowing what DPF has told us is not allowed.
I read this a saying if an anonymous poster wants to post a comment here or on Kiwiblog, they can. So I am not sure where DPF gets the "you can kiss your anon posters goodbye" position from. As far as I am aware people who post comments here or on Kiwiblog are doing so on a non-commercial basis. Surely not even the EBs pay D4J for his comments :-)
Then again IANAL nor have I read the bill but it does seem hard to justify some of the claims that are out there right now.
-
It pretty much makes meet the candidate evenings completely illegal.
How? Because the candidates are not allowed to remain anonymous?
Seriously, I am confused by these suggestions and am interested in the mechanics of how these things are no longer allowed.
Even the megaphone example - if the march organisers give their details once in a public forum would the march stopped?
Not saying the world is perfect just looking to find the hammer blow to democracy promised by The Herald and others.
-
DPF - just read your (very fast) analysis. You object to press political releases being attributed is in electronic format:
Press releases that advocate for or against a party are still defined as election advertisements. If you e-mail out a press release, you’ll need to include your address on it.
What? Why is this a problem to you?
I can understand that there are objections to the bill as with most bills. I can believe it has areas that are badly drafted and incoherent. Seems our politicians delight in that.
But your objections seem to be very scatter gun, I struggle to differentiate the critical from the fluff.
Or is attributing press releases to real people really a death blow to democracy?
-
And all the placards also need your name and address on them.
DPF - are you sure this is new? There have always been tight controls over that sort of material has to be attributed during election campaigns. If new, it sounds more like a clarification than a death knell.
I am very happy with National's new stance opposing anonymous donations, maybe they could do a deal with like minded parties to force an amendment through to that affect.