I'm still giggling at: "Apologies to Russell for going the way of The Listener in terms of subject matter. The good news is that my house hasn’t made me fat."
I'm going to quote myself (because no one else will do it!) from something I wrote in 2008 ( http://thomasbeagle.net/2008/06/03/a-climate-change-manifesto/ ):
"That humanity would rather ride the spiralling corpse of the current ecosystem down into the abyss than voluntarily give up the modern consumer life style."
The sad thing for me personally is that I've had a kid since then and when I contemplate their future I feel our collective failure even more keenly.
Damn all Aucklanders and their oh-so productive feijoa trees!
(I think we're going to get two wee feijoas on our Wellington trees this year. Maybe next year...)
I wish I could think up something witty to say about your "Social Media Export" typo.
It seems wrong that Slater can't get the same protection that journalists get when he's acting as a journalist.
It seems especially unfair that any "journalist" republishing wire pieces and industry PR in a newspaper will have those same protections, purely because of their publisher.
The NZ Council for Civil Liberties is not the monolithic body of group-think that you obviously imagine. :)
That was a good article and I generally support the idea of "more free speech". I think I'll have to read it again to pick out some of the arguments.
But one immediate comment I have is that I didn't really notice people proposing to boycott the advertisers on the Radio Live show. What I did see was more of a "Do you really want your company to be associated with these people's ideas?" and the advertisers responding, either out of cowardice or principle, "Actually, no, we don't want to be associated with this."
You could respond that this is just a question of semantics, that the impact is the same, but I think it's an important distinction because there was no threat to the advertisers.
I'm still kind of annoyed that @techliberty got its highest number of retweets (55+) for linking to your article rather than from any of our own work. :)
I guess the first part of the article nicely disposes of ex-GCSB head Bruce Ferguson's claim that the GCSB only provided assistance to Police by seconding staff to them.
I suspect Key has also miscalculated in one other major way - this issue isn't going away. Normally when you pass a law the debate dies out and people move on. The electorate's memory is short, etc, etc.
But Snowden and Dotcom should keep the issue hopping along. (The TICS Bill should keep the technorati going for a while too.)
Snowden (or Greenwald) still apparently has a lot more documents to release. This should keep the issue of govt spying going in the international media - plus there's still a good chance that some of those releases might further explore the relationship between the NSA and the GCSB.
Kim Dotcom has proven he's good at getting media attention and he still has a high profile court case - plus various accusations against John Key, the GCSB and others. There's obviously a lot to go on with here.
Then there's TICS, various other little sordid spying stories like the Henry investigation, etc, etc.
Each time these issues come up the media will be mentioning the GCSB, and the electorate will be reminded that John Key and the National govt expanded their powers rather then trying to rein them in.
The opposition may find that spying is the gift that keeps on giving.