http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/07/24/1226434/207918-120725-nicholson-cartoon.jpg

From the time the hacking scandal struck in the UK, Labor saw this as an opportunity to strike against the perceived unfair reporting. Gillard famously said "Newscorp has serious questions to answer." and failed spectacularly to come up with any.

The Finklestein report was quickly cobbled together by a hand picked group to achieve a pre determined outcome to recommend government legislated control of news dissemination. This strait jacket to prevent offense and to ensure "balanced" reporting (presumably from the labor viewpoint) is probably one of the most dangerous attack on the freedom of the press in a century.

Freedom of speech means that various views and opinions will be expressed, individually unbalanced, but spread over the spectrum of opinion. Instead of uniform state sanctioned dross.

SM wants to protect free speech.
As long as it is free speech from his side not ours.
He has struck out against the weakileaks founder.
And here comes out against a report highlighting criminal activity's by a rich/powerful grub.
The report in part has lead to criminal charges against some very important and powerful fellow grubs.
Nice try SM using freedom of speech to insist it be only your view that is free.

Belly,

That is an outrageous lie. I have always supported free speech and expression strongly.

With regards Assange, I pointed out that publishing stolen confidential conversations / correspondence is an invasion of privacy, not an expression of opinion, or uncovering misdeeds. If your private emails, bank details etc were published, you would be justified in taking action against the individual concerned. Similarly, an American diplomat's confidential email stating that he thought Rudd was a pompous twit, is not news, only an embarrassment.

What Juliar and the greens are concocting is a body that would potentially control the content of what newspapers could say, based on a government appointed panel's view of what was "balanced".

Belly,
The government should be really careful here as any legislation passed to reduce free speech could be used against labor at a future date.

I my view the media critisism leveled at this government has been well deserved as they have shown to be utterly incompedent.

In setting up a committee to review what the media states by persons favouring the present government, the next government could, and probably would, appoint those persons favourable to them to sit on the same committee. This would make it more difficult for an opposition to get favourable press.

I think your opinion of the Murdock press is somewhat one eyed. I could point out bias in the smh and the Age and the ABC, not to mention Crikey and New matilda.

Oh please, give it up SM:

>> publishing stolen confidential conversations / correspondence is an invasion of privacy, not an expression of opinion, or uncovering misdeeds. If your private emails, bank details etc were published, you would be justified in taking action against the individual concerned <<

You conveniently seem to have forgotten your rants about the selected/stolen/leaked/published "climategate" emails, eh?

Yet despite the numerous investigations clearing the 'emailers', people of your ilk continue to spruik the drivel in salacious and wanton fervor.

You impugn Belly as a "liar" but really, you are talking to a mirror, again.

Freedom of expression is fine but as said elsewhere, it carries the responsibility to not make stuff up, as you and others continue to do.

Oh, ho, ho, ho....excellent point, bonmot.

What have you got to say about that, SM?