A-G backs down ... but not out

Attorney General Atkinson has backed down but won't resign report the ABC and Adelaide Now

For me and probably many South Australians the question now is how can we have confidence in Mr Atkinson as chief law officer of the state when he appears to be thumbing his nose at the basic principles of Westminster democracy and even Premier Rann. That he could falsely claim that that one of his online critics doesn't exist beggars belief.

Update 4/2/2010

At least we now know that at next month's election a vote for the ALP is a vote for Michael Atkinson as Attorney-General (probably) for the next four years, even though as The Advertiser/ Adelaide Now said in an editorial yesterday "Lawyers and Left faction luminaries Patrick Conlon and Jay Weatherill could walk seamlessly into the job tomorrow."

And today "Singapore on the Torrens", an editorial in The Australian , makes some good points

A little more civility on the internet would be no bad thing, but that's no reason for the nanny state approach adopted by the South Australian government. The decision by Attorney-General Michael Atkinson to introduce laws to censor free speech in the blogosphere was ill-conceived at every level. That Mr Atkinson was forced to back down and promise to repeal the laws says much about the value users put on an open web: outraged consumers had flooded sites to complain.

.....

South Australian politicians are increasingly taking Singapore rather than Westminster as their model by resorting to legal action where political redress would be more appropriate. ..Surely the ballot box, not the courts, is where an opposition should be brought to account.

......

The internet is a robust and immediate forum - a modern-day version of the town square meeting at its best. It relies on the freedom of ordinary people to join a public conversation without fear their details will be collected by a central bureaucracy. Australian users are well equipped to filter the web: they do not need the state to do it for them.

Attorney-General's hamfisted attempt to censor internet make SA look foolish

At the behest of Attorney-General Mr Michael Atkinson the South Australian Parliament has amended s116 of the Electoral Act to require that all comments made on the internet during state elections are accompanied by the maker's name and address(not post office box). Even though both major (and perhaps most minor parties) supported the move it has many of the trademarks of Mr Atkinson's hamfistedness.

The Advertiser's website Adelaide Now has led the chorus of protest , quite properly highlighting the appalling insensitivity of Mr Atkinson's comment that the Adelaide Now website was "not just a sewer of criminal defamation" but also "a sewer of identity theft and fraud". For video of his media conference see here .

Of other media comment Hendrik Gout on the InDaily website makes the point that while the Attorney has the power to pursue those who fall foul of his amendments the Labor Party is still able to accept anonymous donations.

The comparisons with China have already been made and no doubt will continue to be. How embarrassing to be a South Australian.

Update 3 February

AG Atkinson has backed down.

South Australia's Attorney-General Michael Atkinson admits he misjudged public opinion on the state's attempt to curb political comment on the internet.

Mr Atkinson says he will repeal a law which would have meant that anyone posting comment or blogs during an election period would have had to give their real name and postcode.

Opponents had branded the law an attack on freedom of speech, and Mr Atkinson says he listened to community concerns in his decision to overturn it.

Better late - and where freedom of expression is at issue a day is too late - than never.
.

Australian media on back foot with online polls

In today's Crikey Thomas Hunter asks "Australian Test team: do we really hate them?" and claims, on the basis of online polls conducted by The Age, The Herald Sun, The Daily Telegraph, Today Tonight and Fox Sports, that the Australian cricket team is on the nose.

Some commenters have pointed out that such polls are statistically dodgy. OK, but why are they so common nowadays?

Others say that people from overseas (code for Indian diaspora) can vote and thus skew the results. If so, why don't the pollsters break down the responses according to country of origin?

IMO a problem with polls (online or other) is their wording. Adelaide Now (aka The Advertiser online) ran one recently, posing the question: "Do the Australian cricketers play within the spirit of the game?".

The results are published in today's Advertiser (p79):

• Yes, they always do: 288 votes (12%)
• Yes, but in the heat of battle things aren't always clear; 464 votes (19%)
• No, they'll do anything to win: 1500 votes (63%)
• No, in the professional era there is no such thing: 128 votes (5%)
  

Dan Lato , the blogger/ columnist, comments (in print but not online):

This week Adelaide Now 's coverage of the aftermath of the Sydney Test has gone global as is obvious by the poll we ran this week. Indians are passionate about their cricket and the stirring online defence of their team is testament to the devotion they have to Indian players.

Questions for Mr Lato: (1) how many Indians voted in the poll, (2) how does he know?, and (3) if he does know why doesn't he come out and produce the figures?

Crossposted at Nudges and Deflections.

The sorrow of Burma

It's hard to imagine what's going on in Burma aka Myanmar but, thanks to the courage and determination of many people inside the country with the technology and internet access, we in the outside world have been kept reasonably well informed of developments.

At least until now. After holding their fire for a few days the government has moved both on the streets of Rangoon aka Yangon and in cyberspace. The international media, including the BBC , ABC and Al Jazeera , are trying to keep up with developments but it's becoming increasingly hard to do so, at least for the moment because the government has, or is trying to, cut off internet access to the outside world.

Some bloggers, such as ko-htike have been reporting from the virtual (and real) front line, but they too are now finding it hard to keep posting:


Burma time 14;28

Thousands of protester are on the street of YGN, now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear All,

I sadly announce that the Burmese military junta has cut off the internet connection throughout the country. I therefore would not be able to feed in pictures of the brutality by the brutal Burmese military junta.

I will also try my best to feed in their demonic appetite of fear and paranoia by posting any pictures that I receive though other means (Journos!! please don’t ask me what other means would be??). I will continue to live with the motto that “if there is a will there is a way”.

We probably need to lobby the Chinese government or UN envoy to Burma to ask the junta to switch on the Internet. Please!

And this:

This ..... so, who is making violent.