Lexi,

No I haven't read the book, and am not likely to spend $25 on a left wing polemic. That incumbent governments use government and the civil service to spread their message is not new. Keating and Hawke did it before Howard, and Rudd and Gillard did it after Howard. All the tactics in the book have been used in the last 4 years.

What we have here is where Juliar has exhausted all the legal tools at getting her message out, and the public still don't believe her. This is about Labor trying to control the public media, the press, the internet etc.

What ever was happening before, this can only make it worse.

O you are quite right but it has always been so.
The differences between right and left, even center under Current Conservative leadership is widening.
I try but it is a hard task, are we to limit free speech to avoid such issues?
Or just avoid some threads? in effect the same thing.
I am no saint, but grow weary of the hurled insult I am lieing
from a man I think is blind to other than his views.

I think what is being missed here is that everything done in the past
by both sides was manipulation and distorting statements.
What is proposed now is a law.

It will become a breach of the law to defy a ruling by the
"star chamber" that rules on something that offends a politician.

We will change the discussion of politics if the proposed law goes ahead.
That of course is the idea.

Dear Shadow Minister,

If as you claim silencing dissent is nothing new
for governments to do - why bring the topic up
at all? No, never mind - we know the answer to that.
Still, I do understand why you wouldn't buy the book -
"Silencing Dissent." That's glaringly obvious.

I've been
brought up to gather information from a wide variety
of sources (regardless of their political inclinations),
in order to get to the truth - however, I understand
the truth can be a bit enlightening - and that to
many is a "No!" "No!"

Belly,

Stop sulking. If you post lies such as "SM wants to protect free speech.
As long as it is free speech from his side not ours." Don't be surprised when you get called out on it.

While Labor claims to have progressive values, Comrade Conroy has tried to introduce internet censorship, and now press censorship. If these are Labor's progressive values, then God help us.

Freedom of speech has always been highly valued, and so it should be.

I'm wondering what happens though when political and economic imperatives dictate the agenda of various sections of the media. That these sections of the media are owned and controlled by those who serve to gain if conspiracy theories are disseminated and digested by the public.

The climate argument if pertinent here. Certain sections of the media promote a conspiracy by the IPCC because scientist's findings challenge the status quo. Why would a media baron want to publish findings by scientists that have the potential to rock the cosiness of the economic boat? Much better to plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of an untrained public by utilising junk science and trumpeting the virtue of "freedom of speech". Who amongst the generally scientifically ignorant general public is going to argue with such persuasive media opinion. It's much easier in that case to buy into the conspiracy theory and carry on with life as they know it.