Should advocacy groups be required to have non-misleading names?

Great Debates
81

Yes you have.

Bullshit.

Do people in the US who claims Jews control US foreign policy have to worry about being prosecuted for hate speech the way they have to be in Australia.

That’s a bit of an odd claim.

Can you give me an example of the US censoring members of the press the way the UK did when it wouldn’t allow the BBC to interview certain MPs during “the Troubles”?

Similarly, can you give me some example of the US censoring members of the press the way the Israeli government did when it wouldn’t allow the Hebrew edition of the New York Times to publish an interview with the then former PM Yitzhak Rabin when he confessed to engaging in ethnic cleansing during their 1948 War of Independence?

For that matter, are American press members restricted by the government from publicizing the events of trials the way the British press is?

If not, please explain the circus the OJ trial turned into.

Also, do American reporters have to worry about getting nailed by libel laws the way reporters in the UK have to worry about.

Should I also start listing the number of books published by American authors on the Bush family and the Bush family and their relationship with the Saudi family that can’t be published or distribute in the UK?

Perhaps you can start listing such books that are prohibited in the US.

Obviously, I think what happened there was a flagrant violation of the First Amendment.

That said, I have to admit that I nearly pissed myself laughing at your bringing it up considering Australia’s rather rigid laws regarding pornography.

It’s not like websites which tried to disemenate his comic wouldn’t have to worry about getting shut down.

Oh, so are Australia’s libel laws more like US libel laws than UK libel laws.

Similarly, when it comes to reporting on trials, you’re saying that Australian reporters don’t face the kind of restrictions that British reporters face?

I’m asking because I don’t know. Is the answer to the above questions yes?

Anyway, you refused to ask the question I asked so I"ll reword it and ask it again.

Does Australia’s hate speech law allowing for people to be prosecuted for merely “insulting” groups violate Australia’s constitution?

If not, how can you claim that Australia actually has free speech to the extent that the US does?

Thanks.

82

…when did I make this claim?

83

To paraphrase Permensoe, it’s clear to everyone with a functioning brain that you, at least, strongly implied that and now, having your arguments ripped to shreds are reduced to nitpicking.

Anyway, for the third time, please explain how you can argue that Australia has free speech when it prosecutes people who engage in so-called “hate speech” and who traffic in pornography to the extent that Australia does?

Thanks.

84

…so to be clear: you are admitting I never made the claim you stated I made. Concession accepted. (And asking you to back up your claims is not nitpicking. I never said what you claimed I did.)

How can you claim the United States has free speech when it convicts people of drawing comic books? How can you claim the United States has free speech when, despite many amendments and appeals, it still has the Smith Act on the books?

You are the one who wants to take a couple of issues and use it to define a nation. If that is what you want to do then fine: I am willing to concede that the United States does not have free and open speech despite having a constitution that allegedly protects seeks to protect that free and open speech.

We can drag this out all day but I’m not going to indulge you any further. My point in this thread was a simple one: the issue in the OP is not a matter of free speech. If the AVN wish to continue to continue to benefit as an association they have to give up their name. Or they can retain their name and loose their association status. This isn’t a free speech issue.

85

No, it is very clear what you were implying.

So that’s three times that you’ve refused to explain how you can claim that the Australian government believes in free speech while regularly prosecuting people for distributing “offensive material” and engaging in “hate speech”.

I think reasonable people will recognize that this is tantamount to your conceding you made claims you can’t back up.

For the record, despite it’s horrible record on free speech, the treatment of non-white immigrants, and extreme restrictions on the internet, I like Australia and am a bit surprised that you seem to think I’m some sort of American super-patriot since I’m not remotely in that category.

Anyway, at this point since you’re clearly trying to deny saying what you said, or at least implied, and refuse to answer simple questions it’s clear you’re not interested in honest debate.

I see no point in continuing such a discussion, particularly since we’re hijacking the thread.

86

…I didn’t imply anything. My words are there in black and white for everyone to read. If you took that to mean something else that isn’t my problem.

And that’s three times you have also refused to answer questions about the lack of free speech in the United States. I never made any claims about the Australian government. I chose my words carefully.

Nah. Just for the record you didn’t provide a single cite for anything you claimed. All you did was take a series of complex situations, turned them into a single sentence sound-byte, then tried to prove that a statement I never made was incorrect. You were debating a strawman with cherry picked facts.

Australia doesn’t have a horrible record on free speech. The treatment of non-white immigrants is no-where near as bad as their treatment of their Indigenous Australians. I don’t like the United States. I love the United States. I’m planning a photographic road trip there in about five year time. I’m counting the minutes until I get there.

I am denying saying things I never said. I did say that Australia has free and open speech: I said that at the start of the thread and I stand by it now. I’m not going to spend hours investigating the random incidents and laws you claim exist but didn’t cite. The claim that the existence of “hate speech laws” in a country means that that country does not have free speech is the subject deserves its own thread and I am not going to enter into a debate with you on that when my point was simply Australia has free speech and this particular incident is not a free speech issue.

Well at least we can agree on that.

87

I don’t know much about what restrictions Australia and its member states may or may not place on freedom of speech and of the press. I did say that if (for example) a California agency decided to require advocacy organizations to have “honest” names and in taking action against an offender noted that the organization didn’t provide “balanced” information, the ACLU and free speech advocates nationwide would raise holy hell and the agency would almost certainly have to back down, either due to public embarassment or the threat/reality of lawsuits. I haven’t heard of any such protest in Australia, which makes me wonder whether people there are used to a more restrictive climate as regards speech, or just don’t mind enforcement if it’s directed at groups they don’t like.*
[QUOTE=Banquet Bear]
If the AVN wish to continue to continue to benefit as an association they have to give up their name. Or they can retain their name and loose their association status. This isn’t a free speech issue.
[/QUOTE]
Since I haven’t been able to discover what “association status” means, could you clarify it? What would the AVN sacrifice it wasn’t formally recognized as an “association”?

*noting yet again that I find the AVN, its actions and beliefs repulsive, which is not the same as wanting its ability to foment its beliefs curtailed.

88

…take a look at the business naming regulations in New Yorkand you will see that this very same situation could happen there as well. In fact it probably happens all the time but it happens before registration and you don’t hear about it: this is simply a case of an organization being required to change their name after being granted registration and that is why this story got attention. You never hear about all the times an organization submits its name to a review board and gets its name declined.

There isn’t a requirement for advocacy organizations to have honest names. There is a requirement for companies to not represent themselves as one thing when they actually are doing something else. There is a subtle but important difference.

I linked to the Incorporated Associations page in post 53.

89

This is a great idea, and I will name my new lobby and fundraising outfit the Advocacy for Non-Misleading Advocacy Names.

It will push for single-payer health care.

90

[QUOTE=Banquet Bear]
…take a look at the business naming regulations in New Yorkand you will see that this very same situation could happen there as well. In fact it probably happens all the time
[/quote]
Can you cite any instances where advocacy groups in the U.S. were targeted for not having names which explicitly describe their activities (and in which the responsible government official criticized them for not having a balanced approach), as has happened in the Australian example?

Again, a major distinction in the U.S. (or New York, anyway) seems to be protection of consumers from companies or groups which attempt to profit monetarily from deceptive names (like selling yourself as a lawyers’ firm or union protective association, when you’re not). It’s not about promotion of ideas, which is where the freedom of speech angle comes in.

Again, I think you’re missing the thrust of the NSW Fair Trading agency action - they’re taking aim not just at the AVN name, but its message as well, using a legal requirement (where’s the specific legal language on this?) regarding the name.

*"NSW Fair Trading Minister Anthony Roberts fired a broadside at the AVN, saying the information it provided was a public safety issue of “life and death”.

“This is not a victimless issue, it’s about the ability to stop pain and suffering,” he said.

Mr Roberts likened the AVN’s message to sanctioning speeding.

“People do not have the freedom of choice when it comes to endangering others … it’s the equivalent of saying a bloke can speed down the road and endanger others,” he said."*

It’s statements like that which raise the hackles of free speech advocates - in the U.S., anyway.

Thanks, I didn’t see that. However, I don’t see anything in there about advocacy groups having realistically descriptive names. The language is about giving such groups the ability to incorporate to protect themselves legally.

91

No, but it is, IMHO, the Government’s job to protect citizens from people with medically dangerous ideas which have been scientifically disproven. I’d have thought the puppy-kicking thing was obvious as a (intended to be) humorous placeholder scenario, not a Gritty Real Life Example.

92

…nope.

Can you cite over the last twelve months how many company’s in New York had their business name rejected during the application process?

You are hearing about this incident because it is a retrospective change. If they had applied for and not been allowed to use their name do you think anyone would have heard of the incident?

From the cited regulation:

Firstly: there is nothing about “profit” there, only about intention to mislead.

Secondly: if an organization were to call itself “the Blind Foundation” but it didn’t supply services to the Blind but was an advocacy group for a anti-blind group, I believe that there is every chance under these regulations the group name would be rejected. If they then named themselves like “The Department of the Blind” I believe that name would also get rejected because people might confuse it for a government agency.

Well…yeah. That is their job after all. You’ve got a group standing up and telling lies about public health issues. Its not the government’s job to “play fair.” No one is taking away this groups right to say what they want. But if they want to retain their status as an association they need to change their name so as not to mislead the public.

So a government minister is doing his job: I suppose that does come as a surprise. The group is endangering others, don’t you agree?

And its statements like ““People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K.” that raise the hackles of UHC advocates in the UK. And its statements like “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” that raises the hackles of law abiding citizens in most other countries that aren’t the US.

It is pretty obvious your hackles have been raised. But should Australian public policy be dictated to by a few Americans with raised hackles?

I am an advocate for free speech. My hackles aren’t raised. Do I have to have my hackles raised by this issue to be classified as a free speech advocate in the US?

The minister is doing the job he was elected to do. An organization is actively promoting woo and it has become a matter of public health. He is using his tools at his disposal within the laws of the land to deal with this public health issue.

??? You wanted to know what the AVN would sacrifice if they were to loose their Association status. Why would you expect me to link to the regulations governing names? Of course the language would be about the groups ability to incorporate to protect themselves legally because that is what they would loose.

Here: I’ll do your work for you.

Probably Section 43:

Its interesting in the last Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom ranking both New Zealand (where I come from) and Australia rank as “Free” while the United States ranks as “Mostly Free.” Here is the Press Freedom Index: New Zealand is 8th, Australia is 26th and the United States is 32nd. I think this highlights the difference between how people of different cultures view things through different lenses. The United States has wielded its enormous power worldwide and over the few years since 9/11 has detained dozens of reporters from different nations without trial for years. I find that a much bigger threat to free speech than anything related to this story. The continued criminalization of prostitution in your country is in my opinion shameful and a much bigger suppression of human expression than hate speech laws.

Yet its this “trivial” story about a business name that would raise people’s hackles. No speech is being suppressed here. People are still free to express their opinion. You guys need to seriously get your hackle meters readjusted.

93

I see you are still confused about the difference between collecting money under false pretenses and the marketplace of ideas.

A case of government attempting to regulate the latter under the pretext of protecting the public from itself is what’s at issue here, not “my country is freer than yours, na-na-na”.

94

…I’m not confused at all. I’m not the one with my hackles up.

This government isn’t attempting to regulate anything. It actually is regulating something. The last time I looked the marketplace of ideas was a metaphor developed by a long dead British guy. Apparently its been used in a few opinions in the US Supreme Court. What do the laws governing associations in Australia have to do with a metaphor? What does collecting money have to do with anything?

The government protecting its people from themselves is part of its mandate in most civilised parts of the world. That is why we have speed limits. That is why we have Occupational Safety and Health Regulations. In this case the government is simply doing the job that the Australian people elected them to do. You say this is the issue at hand: I say, exactly what is the issue?

My comments on the relative degree of “freedom” is entirely in context of this discussion. You stated that this would “raise the hackles” of free speech advocates in the States. I’m just simply pointing out that as a free speech advocate outside of the United States this doesn’t even ping my radar. I then pointed out several things that would.

95

After much (or at least lengthy) consideration, a tribunal in Australia hearing the appeal of the Australian Vaccination Network has upheld the Dept. of Fair Trading’s ruling. So the AVN will have to go ahead and change its name to something that is not considered to be an attempt to deceive the public.*

Arguably this is a win for public health and an informed population. Freedom of speech, not so much.

*The Australian Anti-Vaccination Network? Too easy.

96

I believe you’ll find approximately nobody who matters in Australia will disagree with the original decision or the tribunal’s ruling, or feel their freedom of speech has been curtailed in any significant or noticeable way as a result.

97

My impression is that it is only the U.S.A. which has turned Free Speech into a caricature. Misleading names, cable news and websites spouting lies as fast as they can, corporations allowed to spend as much as they want on election campaigns.

Yet the U.S.A. scores low on genuine free speech. Labor picketeers are arrested, etc. Despite the huge number of U.S. news sources, RT.com and Al-Jazeera are now two of the best sites for objective information on U.S. :smack:

Does Britain still have its famous Speaker’s Corner at Marble Arch? American protesters are sometimes barricaded into “free speech zones” where no one can hear them.

98

I don’t see why you feel the need to make this a matter of principle. I honestly don’t. This is a matter of practice, which is clearly on the edge of the bell curve - an independent association given a certain license from the government is getting that license rescinded on account of spreading dangerous, antisocial, and harmful misinformation (and I’d go the extra step with antisocial - this doesn’t just harm those who buy into it, like homeopathy, but rather all those around them). I don’t see the point in turning this into a matter of principle. Absolutes are simply not sensible, especially for cases like this. It is indeed a very American perspective.

99

Yes, it’s still there. It’s not what it used to be, though. Instead of Marx and Garvey it tends to be dominated by fundamentalist Muslim clerics, “sovereign citizen” types, and out-and-out tinfoil hatters.

100

While I acknowledge this is partially in jest, the difference between the “Australian Vaccination Network” and the DoD is that there is not a person on the Earth who does not know that the purpose of the Department of Defense is to administer the armed forces of the United States. There is nothing deceptive about the name nor is it meant to be. It might be a kind of branding you don’t like, but nobody is under any misapprehensions due to the name.

The AVN was deliberately named to be misleading; it was a consciously deceptive act. It is quite right and proper that the state should regulate the ability of commercial and public enterprises to do things that are deceitful and fraudulent.

The babble about “Freedom of speech” I find utterly mystifying. Outright fraud is not something that has been considered free speech in any civilized country ever.