Oh come on chaps, publish his name and address…lol

He is a socialist, so get stuck into him!

Left by Elijah Lineberry on January 30th, 2008

The left-aligned Hutt 2020 party (aka Labour Party in drag) didn’t like a letter to the editor I wrote in the Hutt News denoucing their big spending plans at the last local elections.

Rather than rebutting my argument, the campaign manager responded by listing several features that easily identified my home and egged nutters on to vandalise the front fence.

But I got the last laugh, not a single one of their candidates was elected and one of them personally blamed me for their downfall!

Left by Michael Ellis on January 30th, 2008

Michael: that’s terrible. I hope you’ve got plenty of ideas for this years Hutt South campaign?

Left by Phil on January 31st, 2008

Why is NRT still on our blogroll? I’m deleting it and replacing it with better links, like Poneke and Quest for Security.

Left by Phil on January 31st, 2008

There’s a big difference between political commentary and a website which is specifically political advertising.

I personally think that the electoral commission should have the address details for ads, but I don’t think they need to be publicly known. As long as we have the name publicly stated on any web political advert, I would be satisfied.

Since Idiot Savant isn’t advertising, there is no need for anyone to know his address. Should he put up a big ad saying VOTE FOR… then I’m sure he would abide by the law.

Left by muerk on January 31st, 2008

That is just creepy and a perfect illustration of why some people choose to remain anonymous online. Well done.

Left by Innocent bystander on January 31st, 2008

“Innocent”: Why, thank you! I agree, it is a perfect illustration of how creepy it is that Andy Moore’s website could be shut down simply because he wanted a degree of privacy.

A degree of privacy which Idiot/Savant jealously guards for himself, yet would deny others – even though there is no substantive difference between what he and Andy do, i.e. express political opinions online.

Note that we have not revealed Idiot’s identity, nor threatened to. We do not hide behind the mask of anonymity, although we support everyone’s right to do so online. For that matter, we could have picked any closeup of houses on Google Maps and just said it included Idiot’s address (as it is, it could be any of about 25 houses in the photo).

Left by Phil on January 31st, 2008

Luke, you have a very refined conception of moral nuance. Great play, great point.

Left by Rick Giles on February 3rd, 2008

Well its not really that clever…you are perfectly entitled to express your political opinions online and anywhere else under the new law and to suggest otherwise is simply partisan grandstanding. If you want to engage in electioneering and solicit votes then that is different and you have to front up plain and simple. I don’t recall idiot campaigning for any party.

Quite aside from that, Andrew Moore openly flouted the law, baited the authorities and now he and much of the politial right are loudly playing the victim …excuse me for not being sympathetic.

We probably have hundreds of restrictions on free speech in our society – basically because that is the will of the political mainstream (and I don’t mean that in the Don Brash sense). Most voters (and even most national voters) simply do not believe in unrestricted free speech and the would find the idea (along with the rest of the ideas of the strange libertarian cult as loopy as I do). This doesn’t make us Zimbabwe or North Korea.

There is a lot not to like about the current government but you really need to get a sense of perspective here.

Left by Innocent bystander on February 4th, 2008

To add to Luke’s comments, I don’t think any restrictions on freedom of speech are justified. Maybe that makes me strange or loopy and not part of the political mainstream, but I believe that I should be able to shout my political opinions from the rooftops, buy $3000 billboards, advertise them in newspapers and all without fear of prosecution. Moreover I should be able to do all that anonymously if I want to. Free speech should be unconditional, not predicated on disclosing your name and address, submitting to an audit, getting a permit or anything else. At the moment the only ways you can express your political opinions anonymously and legally are by voting and blogging. And yes, the EFA covers all political expression, because the definition of election advertising has not been effectively narrowed from the original version, despite the removal of the “issue advertising” clause. The EFA also covers negative campaigning, so it would cover Idiot if not for the blog clause.

This doesn’t mean I want shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, making a credible death threat, deliberately lying to destroy a reputation, or making false claims about a product to be legal. You don’t have free speech on someone else’s property or on someone else’s website, and the other examples cover force or fraud, i.e. deliberate violations of rights to which the speech component is incidental.

BTW, when trying to persuade a libertarian the old “he knowingly broke the law and deserves to suffer the consequences” argument is just doomed to failure…

Left by Phil on February 6th, 2008

[...] at The Standard, and the hypocrisy of the Left with regard to anonymity and privacy has not gone unnoticed in the [...]

Left by Pacific Empire » Blog Archive » Common Sense at The Standard on August 6th, 2009