Posts by Tim McKenzie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I run a news media publication on the the internet and I have a Qantas Media Award to prove it.
You have a good point there. However, there is no exception for less talented (or even just differently-focussed) bloggers, whose blogs contain only opinions and paid advertisements, but not news.
By the way, I think I'm starting to see where DPF might be coming from, with regard to anonymous comments on blogs. The exception someone pointed out earlier was:
(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).
Anonymous comments on blogs are 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 comment on a blog.
Your exception, on the other hand---
(da) any editorial material, other than advertising material, published on a news media website that is written by, or selected by or with the authority of, the editor or person responsible for the website solely for the purpose of informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers:
---doesn't cover anonymous comments, either, unless they're written or selected by you, or selected with your authority. I don't think the Public Address System, as currently set up, involves you "selecting" comments.
So, DPF might be right after all; depending on the content of our comments, we might need to give our real names and addresses, too.
And you'll need to be careful about (da), too; make sure you don't try to persuade your readers---you're only allowed to inform, enlighten, and entertain them.
Tim
<>< -
But it looks like a stupid error in trying to cover the change to align the definition of broadcasting with the one in the Broadcasting Act. (What did the previous definition say? Did it include the use of loudspeakers etc?)
The change they're referring to here is the inclusion of (i) after (h) in the definition of "publish" in section 4:
**publish** in relation to an advertisement,
means to—
...
(i) bring to the notice of the public in any other mannerI don't think they were being very careful when they wrote that.
Tim
<>< -
Section 53, which is unamended has this paragraph:
Sorry, that's not what I meant to say. Section 53 was amended, but the paragraph I quoted wasn't.
I'm not sure why DPF thought anonymous comments would be caught, but Russell's own posts on Hard News might be caught, since he sells advertising. IANAL either.
Tim
<>< -
Personally, I don't see what is wrong with election year being fought between registered political parties who have candidates up for election and policies for voters to look at and mull over.
Freedom of expression isn't meant to be just for the political establishment. It's meant to be for everyone, in order to keep the political establishment honest. The original bill systematically put greater restrictions on third parties than it did on members of the political establishment. I'm honestly impressed by how much it has improved, but it's still not good.
If we're going to accept restrictions on our freedom of expression, there had better be a really good reason. Has anyone actually got any evidence that spending money on advertising is able to make significant numbers of people vote for arbitrarily insane parties or candidates?
DPF's submission analysed the $/vote for advertising in previous New Zealand elections, and found wildly varying figures. His statistical analysis wouldn't exactly get published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, but surely it was enough to put the burden of proof where it should have been all along---with the people who want to restrict freedom of expression.
Tim
<>< -
Can someone please explain these publishing rules and how they differ from previous?
Anything you "publish" (as defined) cannot be anonymous? The various $$ amount limits have nothing to do with it?Section 53, which is unamended has this paragraph:
(1) No person may, during a regulated period, publish or cause or permit to be published any election advertisement unless—
(a) the advertisement contains a statement that sets out the name and address of the promoter of the advertisement; and
(b) the promoter is entitled to promote the advertisement.The next paragraph goes into how much you're allowed to spend before you have to register as a third party, and other ways you can be "entitled to promote the advertisement". So, no; anonymity here has nothing to do with how much you spend, or even if you spend anything at all.
The chant will start to fall down when a hundred people call out their own name and address at the same time.
Yes, it would be difficult to keep the rhythm.
Tim
<>< -
Everybody is happy except the poor sorry viewer on the other side of the world.
You think you've got it bad? Here in Ontario, I'm in the right time zone, but can I watch the cricket? No. I don't think it was on any TV I had access to even when Canada was playing! The web-sites that let you watch it only do so if you're a resident of their country (e.g. the UK or Australia), for copyright reasons---presumably because the ICC somehow makes money from my inability to watch the cricket.
I've been reduced to watching the statistics on cricinfo and occasionally getting a glimpse on BBC World's sports updates.
Perhaps I've got slightly more useful things done, but I'm not going to let that stop me from having a good rant about it.
Tim
<><