Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Those sound suspiciously like issues which relate to the election. In fact, I think both of them are Act policies at the very least.
What if it's two weeks after an election, and three years before the next?
What if the Green Party comes out in support of your family?
I think I realise that this is becoming a rather weird debate, and I'm not really sure I have a great point I'm moving toward. I guess I think that I think that money and speech are pretty inter-related, and that saying one isn't limiting speech, but limiting the power of money to purchase speech is more than a bit of cop-out. It's better, I think, to recognise that by limiting the purchase of speech, you're are limiting free (i.e. unimpeded) speech, and then seeking to justify that for it's own sake.
Paid speech is free speech, and limits on paid speech are limits on free speech, and must be justified under the same processes as other limits on free speech are.
-
If I'm not running for election or promoting an issue which relates to the election its not really a relevant argument. I can print a million leaflets to distribute to every home in NZ, no limitation on advertising or speech need apply.
So some organisation with nameless but extremely wealthy backers can spend many millions on an advertising and PR campaign to convince people that massive tax cuts are really important for the future of the economy, or that privatisation of the water supply will save them lots of money.
They can 'overwhelm' the speech of all those who disagree and can change the political landscape so that those on both the left and the right are basically forced, because of the manufactured public sentiment, to adopt these policies, and you wouldn't have a problem with this? Or think that the advertising should be limited some way, or think that we should know that the funders of the campaign are people who stand to gain substantially from the tax cuts or water privatisation?
-
__That's almost one quarter of parliament.__
Just out of interest - how does that compare to Labour's last parliament?
Slightly better.
The overhang is now two, so it's 28 out of 122, instead of 28 out of 121 :-)
appointments like McCully in Foreign Affairs...
Russell - before you despair too much, consider this interview on Agenda, from August last year. The choice of McCully (made to goad Winston, I suspect) made a more sense to me long-term after that.
-
If I'm not running for election or promoting an issue which relates to the election its not really a relevant argument. I can print a million leaflets to distribute to every home in NZ, no limitation on advertising or speech need apply.
Except if, as you argued:
If [Money is considered to be equivalent to freedom of speech], then richer people have more freedom of speech than poorer people, and that should never be a principle we follow.
Rich people should be as free as anyone to shout to the masses, and the media about everything they want, just as much as any person who has less money...
A poor person who spent their money opposing deforestation, and doesn't have money left over to campaign against the illegal detention of his or her family in Australia, cannot leaflet about that detention. A rich person could, and thus has "more freedom of speech." I'm reliably advised that this is "a principle we [should never] follow."
-
The point is that money to spend on advertising is restricted. That's not stopping people doing it, it's simply limiting it in quantity (and possibly quality). The distinction is very important and gets lost when people start off on "it's about freedom of speech". Money should never be considered to be equivalent to freedom of speech.
They're not identical, but they are very closely linked.
Dear Mr Matthews,
We understand that you would like to print out leaflets to create public awareness of, and opposition to, the illegal detention of your family in Australia, as you have had limited success in getting traction in the media. Unfortunately, you spent your annual speech allowance trying to create awareness about deforestation in April. Please desist your leafletting campaign until 2009.
Regards,
The Government -
Zippy:
Does Roger Douglas get another crack at a maiden speech, or are you ever allowed only one maiden?
Just the one (assuming he got one the first time 'round). To the Standing Orders!
**350 Maiden and valedictory statements**
(1) A member who has not made a maiden speech during an Address
in Reply debate or has not already made a maiden statement may
make a maiden statement. -
The ability to spend money on advertising isn't freedom of speech.
This is not even remotely close to true.
You call it the freedom to advertise. That's fair, but the freedom to advertise is part of freedom of speech. We limit and restrict both (including around elections), but that doesn't mean one isn't just a subset of the other.
The ability to convince some journalist and editor of the newsworthiness of your idea should not be a prerequisite to having it heard.
-
In any case - which law precisely says you can't call someone your husband unless you're married?
There isn't one.
The law just won't refer to you as married, or husband or wife.
Let's assume there was a law which says that a husband or wife is entitled to control over his or her husband's or wife's dead body. The law will now say that a husband or wife or civil union partner is entitled to control over his or her husband's or wife's or civil union partner's dead body.
If the law (or another one which referred to a husband or wife) wasn't changed, it wouldn't cover a civil union partner.
Legally, if a law is talking about a husband and wife, it's not talking about a civil union partner.
-
or an empty house where no-one actually lived
nope, that wasn't allowed either.
-
you can't hide behind a PO Box or fake address as the Brethren did. That latter might change, and its nothing i'm going to die in a ditch over, but the fact remains: if you wanted to campaign pre-EFA, you had to say who you were and where you got your mail).
Not true. A PO Box was not an acceptable address under section 221A of the Electoral Act 1993. It had to be a physical address, but could be a business address or the residential address.