Censorship

The government in Australia is proposing a ministry to control the part of the media they don't already "own", that being the Internet part of it including Twitter and Facebook:

Under proposals published last week, the new regulator would have the power to oversee all ''news internet sites'' that get more than 15,000 hits a year, or roughly 40 a day.

The proposed New Media Council would have to keep an eye on possibly hundreds of thousands of accounts, which the loyal opposition suggests might well prove to be unworkable.

Keep in mind that when a bad idea like this is put into effect, workability is a secondary concern. If something doesn't work, the standard government reaction is to try again only harder, and with a bigger budget. Taxpayers, after all, grow on trees.

As an aside, I must wonder what the NMC thinks they're going to do about opposition sites based overseas. This one, for example, meets the threshold requirements, and actually has viewers Down Under. Perhaps I'm beneath their notice until I get 40 views a day from Australia, in which case they have nothing to worry about for a while.

Or I could cause trouble by advocating that the Aussies add a copy of Iowa's latest constitutional bid to their own constitution.

• Section 1- Amendment to Article 1 of the Iowa Constitution
  • “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
• Section 2- Referral and Publication
  • The Rights listed below are considered fundamental and shall not be infringed or denied: acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, use arms to defend life and liberty, all other legitimate purposes
  • The following is prohibited: licensing, registration and special taxation
• Courts shall use strict scrutiny when reviewing any restrictions on this right
  • To pass strict scrutiny a law must meet three standards.
    • Compelling government interest
    • Narrowly tailored
    • Least restrictive means

Bomb thrower? Moi?