Site spoofing Aust. PM is censored

From the boys at Geek Rant:

Richard Neville says his spoof johnhowardpm.org web site has been shut down on the orders of the government, with Melbourne IT and Yahoo Hosting cowering to the demand.

Unfortunately it’s not in the Google or archive.org caches, but you can see it in a PDF. But on the face of it, it doesn’t sound like there was justification for shutting it down.

I recommend you read the fake speech Neville has written in the pdf and think about what it means when the Government starts shutting down sites that criticize it. Is it appropriate for a government to us intellectual property infringement as an excuse for censorship when it is the party being lampooned? Was Melbourne IT correct to comply with the request from the Prime Minister's office? What would have happened to them if they had not complied?

Napoleon used to shut down newspapers who criticised him. He banished authors who criticised him. Not his finest moments. But that was 200 years ago in a country that was still emerging from a civil war and was still actively fighting against every other country in Europe. Our PM is riding high, ten years in government, control of the senate, and yet his office still feels the need to shut down independent sites that lampoon him?

 

Comments

[Paul Montgomery]

I'm all for protecting freedom of speech, but making a site look like it was authored by John Howard himself must be breaking some laws. IANAL and all that, but I think the letter of the law is on Howard's side on this one. Of course, Neville could have quietly redone the site to distinguish its design from Howard's, but oh no, there's some easy press buzz to be generated.

Having said that, Richard would make a good rabble-rousing podcaster. As long as he doesn't use it simply to spruik for his speaking engagements.

[Paul Montgomery]

I'm all for protecting freedom of speech, but making a site look like it was authored by John Howard himself must be breaking some laws. IANAL and all that, but I think the letter of the law is on Howard's side on this one. Of course, Neville could have quietly redone the site to distinguish its design from Howard's, but oh no, there's some easy press buzz to be generated.

Having said that, Richard would make a good rabble-rousing podcaster. As long as he doesn't use it simply to spruik for his speaking engagements.

[Rob Irwin]

Methinks you are confusing criticism and illegally impersonating someone, Cam. It's fine to criticise... look at all the protestors throwing stuff at the PM when he attened his 10 Years In Government event down in Melbourne. Were those protestors taken away and shot? Nope. Gaoled? Nope. Fined? Nope. Arrested? Maybe one or two... but not many. So I think the PM, and the government as a whole, is fine with criticism -- even when its being stuck right in their face -- but there are also laws regarding impersonation, etc, and this obviously transgressed one or more of them. I think Richard Neville's a lovely guy and all, and he's been pushing the boundaries since the days of Oz Magazine in the UK, but we all have to play by the same rules at the end of the day.

[Daniel]

I don't buy that you couldn't tell it was the real thing. Apart from the URL not matching the real one, from the Age report: "While Mr Neville concedes that the design of the spoof site was broadly similar to the PM's home page, he said he added links and other atypical elements to the page as a clue to readers."

In any case, Melbourne IT says the site was taken down on request of the PM's office, not a take-down notice from ACMA. What makes the PM's office so special that it can bypass the proper checks and balances provided by the lawful process* for having web sites taken down?

*whether you agree with it or not

[Rob Irwin]

So what was the point of it then? Why make a professional-looking knock-off if its intent wasn't to deceive? About the only alternative is that it was designed to be so controversial that it would attract a ban, or similar and, if so, it's achieved its purpose. In either case, it's not a reason to remain online. If Neville has a point to make, he can make it in his own name, surely.

[Phillip Molly Malone]

And the PM's office wouldn't be the only "Organisation" that has asked for a site to be taken down because it could be confussed for the real site or infringe on Copyright (or the likes. Copyrights is probably the wrong word so please don't mention illegal song downloading as thats not what I mean).

If my memory serves me wasn't there something about a kid Called Mike Row having his Software site taken down as it was named to much like Microsoft?

It happens all the time.

Storm in a tea cup!
Molly

[Cameron Reilly]

Cmon Molly, business copyright infringement and government satire are completely different.

[Phillip Molly Malone]

Principles the same and the reason is the same. I am sure you can find plenty of political satire on the web that isn't being pulled down as it isn't trying to completely copy the site it is mimicing.
Molly

[Rob Irwin]

But WAS it government satire, Cam? Looks like a political comment, using deceptive means, moreso than something you'd see before the first adbreak on 'Skithouse'.

The government's done what it feels it had to do but, in many ways, has probably given the piece far more publicity by canning it, than if it was ignored. Such is the way of most banned things, I guess.