Bring to the notice of the public in any manner.

pretty much sums up the everyday meaning of publish, meaning ‘make public’. There are no surprises there.

I am not alarmed by the prospect of having to inform the public of who I am and where I come from should I choose to do some public politicking next year involving the expenditure of money, and to register myself in advance. It’s no big deal. There are regulations everywhere. I am certainly not being prevented from expressing my political view, except maybe by the spending caps. Similarly having to get a WOF and registration doesn’t stop me from having the freedom to use my car. As members of a ‘free society’ we are required to follow rules in order for the complex society we have produced to function well.

So Annette King, in parliament today, basically said that newspapers would no longer be able to engage in political advocacy.

I thought she implied that any paper explicitly recommending a vote for a particular party would be caught by the $120,000 cap? Pretty easy for them to get around (i.e. they just don’t use the word “vote”). Even so, this ideally should be dumped as it seems too restrictive. Anyway, it’s all a bit unclear at the moment, so it’ll be interesting to get the full details/legal opinions in the coming days.

So Annette King, in parliament today, basically said that newspapers would no longer be able to engage in political advocacy. Feeling free today Roger?

The Westminster system has a well developed process of checks and balances. What we are seeing here is not following that democratic process, it is eroding it. But of course you know that. You just don’t care.

You posted at 20:30. “Milo – this bill still has a little ironing out left – obviously. But nothing huge that can’t be fixed.”Didn’t you keep assuring us a while ago in lots of prior threads that the bill would be fixed in the SC?

Don’t see your point. All of the worst aspects of the bill were fixed during the SC process. There are a few small technical details to be ironed out, hardly surprising.

Milo:

Roger Nome: Even if option A is taken, it perpetrates the history of this – that changes to fundamentally undemocratic provisions are only made under extreme political pressure.

Yep, that’s the democratic process at work. The admittedly that process was lacking at points, the end result looks like strengthening our democracy – thankfully. Though i realise it’s hard to let go of your anger after months building it up, maybe it’s for your own good you know? You just make yourself look a wee bit unhinged and irrational by holding on to it.

Oxford Dictionary: “verb 1 prepare and issue (a book, newspaper, piece of music, etc.) for public sale. 2 print in a book, newspaper, or journal so as to make generally known. 3 announce formally. 4 Law communicate (a libel) to a third party.”

The EFB: “Bring to the notice of the public in any other manner.”

This seems like a pretty large gap, especially as the commonsense definition of publish is (1) or (2).

Roger Nome: Even if option A is taken, it perpetrates the history of this – that changes to fundamentally undemocractic provisions are only made under extreme political pressure. Meanwhile, a bunch of other rorts slip through, because nobody has the time, or airtime, to fight them all. It’s repugnant.

Ms Turei said that was technically correct. The bill aimed to include commercial use of loudhailers — for example on the top of a bus hired to drive around. The Greens would put up changes to amend the bill so individuals were not caught by it.

when did this ever stop a good socialist??

In relation to the labour party’s antics at the last election, we need a change of government, but don’t expect the next bunch to be lily white either. Power always corrupts, without exception.

A) The Law will be slightly amended to avoid confusion (i.e. a list of activities to be exempted will be added).

B) The Law will pass but the police won’t arrest anyone for minor infringements.

C) Some people will be arrested for this type of minor infringements and they will be acquitted because a conviction would be contrary to the purposes of the law.

Any of the above options wouldn’t be disastrous, and I believe that it’s for this reason that most level headed people, and rightists who aren’t just out to score a cheap political point (i.e. Not DPF) aren’t too worried about it.

Do not pass go. The definition of publish is what publish is defined as in the Act itself.

How do you chaps explain the raft of recent charges for SEDITION? How do you explain nobody being charged over the rorts at the last election. How do you explain Nick Smith, Gerry Bronwlee and Shane Adern being prosecuted, while nobody from Labour every gets charged and Trevor Mallard gets a promotion?

Your assurances sound extremely hollow. The bill is broken. Its starting point on this matter is “Election advertisements not to be published in regulated
period unless certain conditions met”, where election advertisements are “any form of word or graphics” advocating for or against a candidate or party. The preamble makes it clear the only things to be exempted are issues advertisements. The definition of “publish” has been deliberately widened to include “bring to the notice of the public in any other manner”.

Your comments ignore these facts. They can be most charitably described as wishful thinking. That is not a good basis on which to support fundamental changes to our democracy.

The bill makes it very clear, that the default position is that nobody should bring their views on the suitability of candidates or parties to the public’s attention – unless they follow the regulations, and give their name and address. That is repugnant.

Going to enjoy pulling it to pieces.

If you agree that it it wouldn’t advance any of the stated goals then do you agree that it’s far from clear that such protestors would be prosecuted if this Bill was to become law?