All but the most myopic among us must now see that the ALP is interested only in the maintenance of its power; and that the ALP is willing to sacrifice the freedom of expression of the Australian people and the Australian media to maintain that power. As a polity, we cannot accept what is happening.
*****************************************
The above should be printed in bold type on every single bit of Liberal advertising.
It distresses me to read the offhand remark that 'both Parties are the same', on various forums. The deep philosophical differences are there in plain sight for all to see.

Cannot the Coalition just re - legislate on Day 1 in power along with the Carbon Tax re-legislation? If the senate then block the legislation they could bank on the anger of the electorate and set the wheels in motion for a Double Dissolution at the earliest possible opportunity...

My bet is that the electorate would be even angrier than they are now about their mandate being blocked by zealots with no conscience and zero mandate...Such election would pretty much rid us of hard left socialism for 20 years or more I reckon....

On reflection, this would be the best outcome possible for all Australians I believe......

I think that their control manual came from the Moscow School of Control written during the USSR period.

@ Matt...

So you support the privatisation of the ABC then Matt to "balance" off this "unfree" media of course....

Wouldn't do to have the GOVERNMENT taking sides in the marketplace against a private individual owner using his own and other taxpayers' money, would it mate???

Why, that would be Pravda-type Communism, and from your post you are all for freedom, right???

Julia was heckled in parliament today, which led to Anna Burke oberving, "I will remind members of the gallery that they are not participants in question time," Ms Burke told the chamber.

"And if they continue we may have to curtail public access to question time.

"I don't think Australians quite realise the access they get to this place."

I don't think Anna Burke quite realizes that the day an attempt is made to curtail public access to our parliament is likely to be the day that the Australian people seize access to OUR parliament. Access is not a privilege meted out to us by our elected Lords, it is our right as citizens! Perhaps if our Government and PM earned respect they would enjoy respect.

Why are the media so critical of Labor?. It is because to slap a bare arse is hard to resist.

Good stuff doubtful john. Rather than just chastise the wrongdoers in the public gallery Burke sought to threaten us all.

That's the new low in Aussie politics today.

look how Matt the troll creates a bunch of furphies in an effort to distract...well

1. What happens in Britain among the British Press stays in Britain. It is none of our business. The fact that Murdoch at some point purchased News of the World is irrelevant. The journalists there were always grubs.

2. Matt fails completely and utterly to understand the difference between freedom of speech and what he thinks is free... that is something that you do not pay for. Murdoch etc used their own capital to invest in the newspapers around the world, often injecting cash into an ailing paper. Such cash injections are not going to save the New York Times and failed to save News of the World. However, this does not deal with OUR right to freedom of speech.

If these reforms go ahead then journalists will be curtailed in a way that will chill our right to free speech. This is unacceptable. Take for example the political cartoonists they probably have the most to fear from the attempts to curtail political content and comment in the press today. They should have the right to lampoon politicians on both sides of politics. It is their right.

Freedom of speech is the one thing that keeps us free from the slavery of Communism and Marxism. In the Marxist/Fascist/Communist world one of the first things that gets curtailed is the press. If you do not toe the line you get punished... and sometimes the punishment leads to being lined up against a wall.

It is our right to speak up against any government that is doing the wrong thing. In the 1960s we had the anti-Vietnam moratorium movement. It was not a pleasant time and those of us who were not interested in protesting had to find ways to move around the protesters. Most of the time we did just fine. It was their right to protest.

If this government is allowed to stifle our right to free speech, then as a nation we are lost and will end up mourning the loss of more freedoms than just those granted to the press.

The right to free speech is in fact a basic human right, and no government or ideology has the right to take away our freedom of speech.

The Citizens United case in the USA was decided upon on the grounds of the right to free speech. One of the things that was uppermost on the minds of the Roberts Court was the effect that the legislation had on the chilling of free speech. The legislation involved related to political donations and the running of a documentary during a primary which was critical of Hilary Clinton. The decision did not allow foreign donations which should always be a no no but it was more concerned about the right of people to come together in order to produce something like the documentary in question. It was a more complex case than we had been led to believe by the DNC propaganda concerning that decision.

I mention it because of the relevance regarding the effects of chilling free speech.

Conroy....dangerous and delusional
However he stated he wanted to push it through but if it did not happen then that would be the end of it.
I believe he sees the reality of it in that he will get one shot before the election and he knows that he most certainly will not after the election.

Being a journalist I suggest Tony Abbott would fight tooth and nail against the legislation any way.
Additionally do not be surprised if Oakshotte does not dump the government in the next couple of weeks over this regional funding issue. Its his last chance to save some face with his constituents anyway.

I think Conrod might have some difficulty getting his legislation through.

Did you know that Labor changed the electoral rules recently, they want the voters to have less choice. More likely they don't want more competition.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/53460

Conroy is a very dangerous dude I'm listening to him on Lateline now, it sounds like he has his eyes on shutting down blogs as well. (Is there a new definition for 'independent' as he keeps mentioning it, Labors meaning = we will hand pick from our socialist mates)
His demeanor sounds/looks like one of desperation to get this legislation passed in the current sitting as the other MP's only have 8 days to decide on their vote.

Conroys last ditch effort to control us. Malcom Turnball had a good presser yesterday about it, although i sometimes find him a loose cannon. Enough controls are already in place. This truly should, of all their 'control em' poliies, be of concern to all. Thnx for video Michael, what an interesting man.

How do we stop them?

Funny picture regarding Ranga's Rooster featuring Stalin (causing great humour)....
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/julia-gillards-henchman-stephen-conroy-attacks-freedom-of-the-press/story-e6freuy9-1226595971160

Here is lateline last night with Mr Red Undies
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3714121.htm

I hope people take the time to watch all of this video. I imagine that there would be more people in Laborites than Liberal supporters would agree with Pinter, particularly concerning the USA and it's foreign policy atrocities from the end of WW2 until now.

Conroy might have the numbers to pass his media laws as they are wheeling and dealing with the Independents and Greens.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/labor-close-to-securing-numbers/story-e6frg996-1226595932305

Here is another article on one of Latham's Roosters and Big Bill's mate
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/77019/20070928-1547/thebulletinelection.ninemsn.com.au/swans_song.html

This post is about the truth.

This comment is about the truth.

Thus this comment is relevant.

I previously submitted a comment on this post. This comment did not appear. I then submitted another comment relating to the censorship of the first and how this was damaging the site, quite apart from its direct effect on me.

The Sauce then contacted me by e-mail. After an exchange of a few e-mails he signed off by saying that my e-mail address was now consigned to junk.

I have commented a number of times on this site, which anyone can review if they wish to judge if I am inclined to be hysterical or abusive, and so I am submitting this to establish whether I am excluded from the site entirely, since that is not clear.

The truth of this sites actual policy may be made more apparent by the appearance of this or not.

@ sauce

This response from you gives the overwhelming impression that I have been "trashing" you in my e-mails, full of wild comments, and that you have been very tolerant.

Which is the impression you intended to give.

This is a claim to moral superiority in the face of attacks from a base motive and/or expression.

This is listed above my comment simply stating facts and purpose, and making no personal reference to you outside the strict definition of your role as moderator.

This site generally has its appeal in its claim to seek truth. This post is specifically about truth.

Just today, Michael is the subject in the Australian Parliament of an attempt to have truth acknowledged and seen by all.

Will you adhere to that same basic standard?

Will you list not just my original comment, but the follow up when it was not listed? Unmodified?

Will you publish here all the e-mail exchanges between us?

So that whatever is true can be seen?

Or will you not list even this, leaving you with the last word with no right of reply?

Although this is unlikely to be seen now by anyone, as I said in my last e-mail to you, a gesture of listing my original comment might not be completely empty, and so it is here.

Things seen as they are. Truth

Right of reply.

Your response will define you.