Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
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.
That's a distinction important in attributing things correctly in the blogosphere, but not one you could argue in court (such an argument wouldn't play well in a defamation case, for example). Comments are part of a blog site like letters to the editor are part of a newspaper.
OTOH, I'm looking at this as an internet-based news media publication site. I have invited comment (and earn money, not enough lately, from page impressions generated by it) as do the Herald and Stuff. Honestly, I don't think there's an issue here.
-
I can comment to my heart's desire, so far as I can see:
**News media**
We recommend amendments to clause 5(2)(c) and (d), and the insertion of new clause 5(2)(da), to make it clear that editorials, news and current affairs programmes, and news media publications on the Internet were exempt from the definition of election advertisement. The news media play an important role in any democracy, and we consider unnecessary restriction on news publications to be undesirable.
My right to report and comment is further emphasised elsewhere in the text. I run a news media publication on the the internet and I have a Qantas Media Award to prove it. So far as I can see, my commercial status is irrelevant.
-
But DPF is right, it didn't used to cover oral speech [p.s. DPF: the word you're looking for is "oral" - with speech/mouth, not "verbal" - with words]. It now does. It's stupid, but as he points out, the Select Committee's commentary makes clear that it now intends megaphones to be covered. It pretty much makes meet the candidate evenings completely illegal.
Fair enough. 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?) I presume they were looking to cover those annoying campaign vehicles with loudspeakers.
-
The bill actually extends the definition of publishing to include using a meagphone on a protest march. And this is not an accident - it is clear is is deliberate. If you shout "Down with National" into a megaphone you need to also shout your name and home address.
My understanding was that transmission by loudspeakers etc was previously already covered in the definition of broadcasting, but now that that definition has been synchronised with the one in the Broadcasting Act, it is covered elsewhere in the wording.
But even if you're right, I can't see how I'd spend the $1000 required for a statutory declaration by shouting into a megaphone, let alone the $120,000 third-party spending limit.
-
Righto, here's Radio NZ's report:
A Parliamentary select committee has recommended substantial changes be made to the Electoral Finance Bill.
Parliament's Justice and Electoral Committee has tabled its report on the bill, saying clauses on the definition of third party advertising should be removed because they are too broad and confusing.
The committee says the bill is not intended to capture all issues-based advertising and promotions and deleting the specific clauses will make that clear.
It also recommends increasing the spending limit on those groups still caught by third party advertising rules from $60,000 to $120,000.
The report also suggests a new clause to make it clear that Government agencies are not entitled to engage in election advertising, a concern that was raised by the National Party.
The report also says amendments should be made to require that a person who contributes more than $1000 to a political party must identify themselves to the party or their financial agent.
If they make multiple donations which exceed $10,000, the party must disclose that person's identity.
Overseas donations must not exceed $NZ1000 unless the donor is a New Zealand citizen or registered to vote.But the Government's intention to have campaign finance rules apply from January, rather than for just three months before an election, is unchanged.
In a minority report, National opposes the committee's view.
National says it opposes the bill because it has not been developed with cross-party support, it potentially breaches the Bill of Rights and many of its clauses - particularly extending the election period for the whole year - are flawed.
The ACT Party also makes a minority report in which it states its opposition to the Bill.
In a third minority report, the Green Party says the recommended regime for anonymous donations is too loose.
I'm inclined to agree with the Greens, although it's interesting how much of the supposedly well-informed speculation in the newspapers turns out to be correct.
Meanwhile, here's the NZPA story after the Herald's done its job on it.
-
Personally I'd feel more comfortable with FF and SST and whoever else, if they did, maybe as a political party.
Yeah, I've been trying to form my thoughts around this: I like I'd appreciate the ability to know a bit more about these groups.
-
I just hope you are not lumping all 'Christian Conservatives' into the 'Exclusive Brethren' club. As a christian conservative myself, I would not want to be associated with what many would class as a 'cult'.
No, the Brethren were out there. I was referring to the lobby that the Maxim Institute helped orchestrate, including Maxim's NZ Votes "education" campaign, which purported to be non-partisan, but, as The Hollow Men revealed, had been developed in concert with some National Party people. (This shouldn't have been a surprise: its shonky don't-vote-for-small-parties-if-you-want-to-change-the-government message was only going to help one party.)
In saying that though, I think the lobbying the Brethren did at the last election was OK, except they that they tried to be non-transparent which is devious and (dare I say it ) unchristian. Also, I do believe that Family First are quite open about who they are. Not that I am a member in any way.
You couldn't be if you wanted to: they don't have a membership. Although when Bob got the boot from Radio Rhema and set up Family First last year he was boasting of an initial budget of $150,000.
-
b) as one of its much-loved sons I'm quite likely to sweep various "Best in Wellington" categories - would you mind accepting them on my behalf, ta?
I'd be honoured. Although I did vote for you ...
-
I voted!
-
Late in the day of the October 15 "terror raids", Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury made a post to Tumeke in which he said that he knew some of he facts of the story and that the country would get "very, very, very angry" when they emerged.
Even though Bradbury wrote that "I don't believe for one moment what will be revealed is anything more than stupid arrogant boasts" the post triggered a furious backlash from some of his "activist friends", including the appearance of a "disinfo Bomber" who has repeatedly posted racist and homophobic material to internet forums while posing as Bradbury and even set up a fake version of Tumeke.
Bomber talks to Russell Brown about a strange month and what he really thinks about Operation Eight.
NB: Don't click the MP3 link above -- use this one.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 … 2279 Older→ First