[LINK] Electioneering

[Craig Sanders]

On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 04:05:48PM +1000, Stilgherrian wrote:
> On 15/10/07 3:47 PM, "Craig Sanders" <cas at taz.net.au> wrote:
> > in short, organised advertising creeps benefit from the new technology
> > at least as much as ordinary citizens...and probably a LOT more as they
> > have the finances and resources to throw at it.
> 
> Isn't "organised advertising" just [groups of] "ordinary citizens"?

no.

they're paid shills.

they're not expressing a personal opinion, they're saying what they're
paid to say - hoping to influence public opinion.

> At what point does a group of people stop being "friends helping
> each other, because they share a common aim" and becomes "organised
> political activity"?

when they get paid for it.

when they have a hidden agenda.

when the opinions/ideas they push are those of others whom they
represent rather than themselves. i.e. when they are acting as agents
for others.


if they're acting as agents for someone then that fact should and MUST
be promimently disclosed.

> Seems to me they're just arbitrary labels on one continuous spectrum.

nope.

seems to me you're deliberately pretending to be naive - you can't
possibly be that naive in real life.


> *ducks VERY far under the table* :)

right. i thought so.


it's also a big digression. i didn't say that they should be treated
uniquely, just that the risk of advertising vermin trying to disguise
themselves as concerned, informed, or just loud-mouth and opinionated
individuals requires that ALL published political commentary conform to
the requirements of the electoral act.  the medium is irrelevant.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

BOFH excuse #16:

somebody was calculating pi on the server