[LINK] So what have we done about Melbourne IT's dirty deed
rick at praxis.com.au
Wed Mar 22 14:47:46 EST 2006
Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> if the website intended to be satire its execution was just out and out fraudulent.
That does not follow. Not by a long shot. From Neville's own site, you can read that
(a) there were many deliberate claims and pronouncments that could not have
originated with the PM; and
(b) there are many links within the "letter" to sites that the PM would never
From the horse's mouth:
An enormous number of people believed the mock speech to be true, - and
were thrilled, they report - and many more wanted to believe it. On a second
reading, however, or with a bit of playing around, it is obvious that
johnhowardpm.org operated in a satirical zone. Would the real John Howard
have linked to anti war sites? Or admitted that this claims about
“improved infrastructure” were bogus? Or criticised the US treatment of
prisoners, the killing of journalists, the bombing of hospitals?
> freedom of speech doesnt entitle you to put up fraudulent websites.
Once again, the "Letter from the PM" is a satire, and is not fraudulent.
It is a genuine satire. One that Mr Neville is free to write and publish
in this country. Or does the poor fellow have to go to court yet again
to establish this fact?
Keep in mind that satire often involves mimicry. As Nevile further points
out, has CNNNN run into trouble with its parody of the CNN new service?
Of course not. It is a satire, not a fraud.
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services
More information about the Link