free speech: August 2007 Archives

There has been something of a media feeding frenzy today over revelations that Australian government agencies, including the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have been editing Wikipedia articles -- in some cases, to change the slant of the articles, in others, engaging in puerile vandalism.  (Unless there's some valid reason for inserting "Poo bum dicky wee wee" into an article on martial arts)

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet edited a Wikipedia article on "Mandatory detention in Australia" to change a reference to inhumane conditions of detention" to read "allegedely [sic] inhumane conditions of detention" and inserted a "Some commentators argume [sic] that" elsewhere in the article.  Perhaps they need to learn how to spell check their work?  In any case, those changes were reverted less than six hours later because of the use of "weasel words".  Thus, the system worked.

The edits made by the NSW Premier's Department are more concerning, as they involve the editing of articles to remove or sanitise potentially embarrassing information.  Since the story broke this morning, the Wikipedia entry for Morris Iemma (the NSW Premier) has been the subject of repeated vandalism.

Alexander Downer has accused Wikipedia of being "anti government", and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet are denying that they were responsible for the edits in question.  Despite the fact that the APNIC WHOIS database records the IP address in question as being in a block assigned to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, they deny it was in fact used by them.

inetnum:      210.193.176.96 - 210.193.176.127
netname:      MCT-pmc-04
country:      AU
descr:        Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
descr:        Intellicentre Gateway Internet Service
admin-c:      MCT2-AP
tech-c:       MCT2-AP
status:       ASSIGNED NON-PORTABLE
changed:      cgacis@macquarie.net.au 20050107
mnt-by:       MAINT-AU-MCT
source:       APNIC

EFA has been deluged by calls from the media wanting comments on this issue.  I've done several radio interviews on the subject today.  It's nice to know that at least someone listens to these interviews :)

The Sydney Morning Herald is carrying an excellent article on the free-speech implications of changes to law on secondary boycotts, which are dealt with in s 45D of the Trade Practices Act 1974.  Secondary boycotts got a lot of attention when Australian wool-growers sued People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and their supporters, who were advocating boycott of Australian wool.  From that article:

No price is too high to pay to protect the Aussie woolgrower. With marked contempt for the effect it would have on freewheeling public debate, Peter Costello has introduced a little bill to clobber campaigners against the bloody business of mulesing sheep. But not only them: his strategy will snare anyone calling for customer boycotts.

So if you're asking Australians not to buy lipstick tested on caged rabbits, rugs woven by Pakistani slaves or suits made with mulesed wool, then pray your boycott calls don't succeed, for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is about to be given the power to sue you out of the water if they do.

Gagging public debate with such threats has been an old ambition of the Howard Government.

Not that Canberra talks in such terms. Introducing the Trade Practices Amendment (Small Business Protection) Bill 2007 last week, Costello reaffirmed his Government's "commitment to stand up for small business against thuggery and intimidation. It is vital, both for our economy and our way of life."

But Costello's bill is designed to protect businesses of any size - all the way up to BHP Billiton - not by outlawing intimidation, but by punishing persuasion.

Hurt a business simply by arguing that it's ethically repugnant to buy its products and the commission will be able to step in and sue to recover the company's lost profits. It's quite a service.