[LINK] grog gamut

[Kim Holburn]

On 2010/Oct/05, at 7:13 AM, Richard Chirgwin wrote:

>  On 4/10/10 9:08 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
>> On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 18:24 +1100, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>>>> What was attacked here by News Limited was the man's privacy.
>>> Is it that simple? Publication takes place in public; is there an
>>> absolute right to privacy once someone has decided to do something  
>>> in
>>> public?
>> I said nothing about absolute rights to privacy. I said his privacy  
>> was
>> attacked.
> Yes, but without considering the right to privacy in this  
> circumstance,
> merely stating that privacy was attacked is a non-sequitur.
>>> in that context, there's a paradoxical benefit to flow from
>>> the "outing". The author hasn't been sacked; there is a tiny  
>>> opening of
>>> a window of precedent. That's a good thing.
>> What *are* you talking about? Because some good came of it, it  
>> excuses
>> the original unconscionable act?
> No, just observing an unintended consequence of the article.
>>> Two out of four. I think the breach of ethics - at least, the formal
>>> ethics of the trade - is not certain.
>> No? I am quite certain. The guy was outed for not good reason at  
>> all. If
>> you think differently, explain to me how the reasons given actually  
>> fit
>> the case.
> The MEAA Code of Ethics are here:
> http://www.alliance.org.au/resources/download/code_of_ethics/
> (large PDF)
>
> Now, I said that a breach of the code is uncertain. Argument could be
> made on clauses 3, 4, 5 and 8 - but in each of these, regardless of my
> own opinion, I think that actual breach is uncertain.
>
> "No good reason" is an individualistic value judgement. I happen to
> agree with it, but I also see that merely because I think something is
> distasteful is an incomplete case for condemning it.
>
> To me, the key question in this debate is this: what moral force  
> should
> be given to the blogger's custom of anonymity? On what arguments can  
> we
> base the assumption that anonymity is a right?


So by their own arguments they are gagging debate:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/editorials/lift-this-gag/story-e6frfhqo-1225826101057

By requiring political views and opinions posted on the internet to be  
accompanied by name and postcode, the South Australian Parliament was  
gagging legitimate debate.
Anyone making a comment after the writs are issued for the South  
Australian election would undoubtedly be under pressure to shut up and  
say nothing.

An internet poll showed an overwhelming 90 per cent against the Rann  
Government's bellicose attempt to stifle public debate.


-- 
Kim Holburn
IT Network & Security Consultant
T: +61 2 61402408  M: +61 404072753
mailto:kim at holburn.net  aim://kimholburn
skype://kholburn - PGP Public Key on request