Don’t Vote -Can’t Say-

January 28th, 2008 at 8:29 pm by David Farrar

The NZ Herald reports on how Andy Moore has pulled down his Don’t Vote Labour website, after the Electoral Commission said it was an offence to keep it up without an authorisation statement which would mean publishing his family’s address.

In a fit of irony the anonymous Idiot/Savant claims that Moore should not be able to advocate against the Government without listing his name and address. He also rails on about unlimited money when in fact Moore spent less than $50 on his website.

And I/S is wrong when he claims the EFA just updated the definition of an advertisement.  It has expanded to include protest placards, chalk slogans, posts into Usenet and even a press release if you publish it on your own website.

No tag for this post.

51 Responses to “Don’t Vote -Can’t Say-”

  1. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Meanwhile, the Standard rolls on, completely anonymous. Typcial socialist control freak hypocrisy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Grant S (146 comments) says:

    What intrinsic value has The Standard given us? Tane is a proven pathological liar and hypocrite; Irish Bill is a racist; all_your_base is a cloistered Leftist automaton; Robinson is the most venal, inane, hollow, vain, tasteless, self-centered, and useless twerp who has ever (dis)graced the NZ blogosphere.

    The place makes me want to vomit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. The Double Standard (72 comments) says:

    RB/Grant S – I totally agree. Another example of the socialist’s tolerance of double standards in their favour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. GNZ (228 comments) says:

    Having no comments seems to relax the incentive to have defendable arguments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    Vote Freedom of Speech! Don’t vote Labour, Greens, Progressive or New Zealand First!

    Now, when will my door be kicked in!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. MikeE (555 comments) says:

    How can I/S keep a straight face on this.

    He posts anonymously, and doesn’t allow comments to counter his arguments.

    Could it be argued, that, without comments facility – it is not infact a blog?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. francis (712 comments) says:

    So who has complained to the electoral commission about the standard?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Ross Nixon (614 comments) says:

    “Don’t vote Labour” could be changed to something spelled slightly different – therefore no breach of the EFA.
    “Don’t vote Labias, vote LabOUT” or similar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Chicken Little (793 comments) says:

    Poor old Standard – Took a bit of a beating yesterday and didn’t react well, looking at a couple of threads there.

    Irish “Uncle Tom” Bill seemed particularly out of sorts.

    Maybe if they were a bit more upfront – I hear that Bill is posting from a Beehive ip address – they wouldn’t have so many problems.

    Grant S – I can’t believe that spot on description of Robinsod/Micheal Porton hasn’t been advanced, in its entirety, here before. :)

    Hopefully Andys press coverage is just the first brick in the wall that will surround Labour and her minions by election time.

    I was having a look at frogblogs disclosure statement earlier this evening. It appears to confirm that they are blogging direct from Parliament. Surely another shady area? Seems hard to claim that it’s personal opinion when you’re blogging from work, which presumably is working for, in a professional sense, a political party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. berend (1,699 comments) says:

    Labour now closes websites. What a progress, lefties rejoice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Buggerlugs (1,609 comments) says:

    My thoughts exactly Berend. Welcome to the China/NZ FTA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Buggerlugs (1,609 comments) says:

    I think poor old frogblog is feeling a wee bit sad too after today’s NZH editorial:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/index.cfm?c_id=466&ct=6
    eat that, free speech killers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. teppic (9 comments) says:

    Andy says he didn’t want to put his address on the site because he didn’t want to “put his family and the house at risk”. Conveniently of ignores the fact that he permanently attached to the site in the whois database.

    Damn pesky whois. Keeps pinging all sorts of political bloggers.

    [DPF: Actually in the whois database you can put a postal address such as a po box, not your home residential address]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Whaleoil (767 comments) says:

    And the Whois has my details for that very reason….teppic

    Andy asked me to host the site and to not have his address details published. I assisted him.

    So that little brain-fart didn’t get you very far.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    francis Says:

    January 28th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
    So who has complained to the electoral commission about the standard?

    francis I have complained to the EC about The Standard:

    http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2008/01/some-queries-for-electoral-commission_21.html

    I have had no response from the the EC, so intend to renew the complaint ans enquire why there has been no answer from them..

    If any one has any questions/complaints they wish to add/ have explained please feel free contact me on the above link.

    [DPF: Just an update that the Electoral Commission have looked into the lack of response to Lee, and they can not find the e-mail being received despite best efforts of their IT people. I've passed on their request to Lee to resubmit. Their service standards are for swift responses and certainly in my experience I always have had a reply within one working day.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. teppic (9 comments) says:

    Whaleoil: so the site was registered and hosted by you from day one?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Whaleoil (767 comments) says:

    Catch up teppic!

    I have said here and on other blogs that Andy asked me to host the site….he also doesn’t have any money so I registered the domain name on my account. As it is all in the name of free speech I assisted. Whatever Andy uploaded and installed on the site was his business, not mine.

    No surprises, been said before, nothing to hide and nothing new.

    So what…oh and it is my bloody money anyway so who cares who I donate to and it was only the cost of the domain name so…what…30 bucks.

    Sheesh what a conspiracy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. teppic (9 comments) says:

    Whaleoil: Ouch. Being a rabid Labour supporter I should drive over and TP your house right away. But I’m also incredibly lazy (goes with the territory), and Howick is just too far.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Whaleoil (767 comments) says:

    Dare you to….loser.

    Typical socialist, that is exactly the reason why Andy at 21 y.o. didn’t want his details published. Thank you for proving the point.

    Me, I’m not afraid of anyone, including you, so come right on over and see how far you get.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. teppic (9 comments) says:

    I’ll mail it. You shouldn’t have too much trouble doing it yourself. It’s not too complicated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    The left. If you criticize them, they like to know where they can find you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. PaulL (6,015 comments) says:

    TP? Tag and paint? Throw Petrol? Texter poodle? (That’s where you draw pictures of poodles on the door in black texter….)

    I can’t take the suspense…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Buggerlugs (1,609 comments) says:

    But I’m also incredibly lazy (goes with the territory)

    And like the other ‘rabid’ lefties, operating a (probably Government-funded) computer whilst full of hot air and missing a backbone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    hi there I know I made a complaint to the EC about the Standard blog http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2008/01/some-queries-for-electoral-commission_21.html but I think it needs more people to do so. The EC must not be allowed to be the Government’s attack-dog. Its proper place is a the people’s guard dog.
    The VDS has specialised in running a smear-campaign against John Key. My guess – this was the whole reason it was founded. Nothing to do with ‘providing a voice for the labour movement’ at all. Anonymous bloggers, undisclosed links to the Labour Party, refusal to publish any financial proof that it is not an election expense for Labour, and a whole lot of cant about transparency.

    If this is true, it really is, a Very Double Standard.

    If you wish to contact the Electoral Commission and make your feelings known about this:

    http://newzealand.govt.nz/record?recordid=79

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. milo (538 comments) says:

    I/S also misses the point that the regulated period has been extended from 3 months to 11 months. Hell, why stop there, why not 3 years? Wouldn’t it just be “updating electoral law for the modern age” (Warning: apply sarcasm filter)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. burt (8,182 comments) says:

    Re. The standard

    I posted a comment responding to Whaleoils question: “Where on the diagram does it show donations of clustered servers and static ip address blocks from the Labour Party?”

    That the box labeled “blog host” was red. The (what I thought was humourous) comment has been deleted and I have been banned for a week because of it.

    Unbelievable the lengths these people will go to when covering their asses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. burt (8,182 comments) says:

    See: How a blog works

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    This whole story is baloney frankly.

    1. Even under the old law election adverts had to have a name and address.

    2. Blogs are specifically excluded from the legislation.

    As for having Whale oil (who has still not responded to my points about his questionable site stats) getting all hot and bothered, given his history that is as laughable as this set-up.

    You do your cause no favours with this sort of trickery David.

    [DPF: But for (1) the definition of an advert has been expanded to include protest placards, personal websites, posts on Usenet, even press releases. And (2) is only some blogs - not all blogs. And maybe you can explain why a personal website is not exempt but a personal blog is? Do you think electoral law should treat sites differently based on the technology they use?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    “Andy asked me to host the site….he also doesn’t have any money so I registered the domain name on my account.”

    And you disclosed that where?

    You make all that fuss about the Standard then so exactly the same thing yourselves.

    Honestly who have you guys got advising you, Tom Cruise’s publicists?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Graeme Edgeler (3,280 comments) says:

    milo – the regulated period for people like Andy Moore (that is the period during which someone running an election advertisement have to put their name and address on it) has decreased from permanently to your 10.5 months.

    The extension in the regulated period is related to spending cap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Unbelievable”

    Really? In my view nothing the least unbelievable or surprising about it. You know what arrogant smug supercilious ignorant half educated totalitarian scum run that site don’t you??

    Unbelievable? Jezuz Burty boy- was there ever a leftist who genuinely respected the concept of freedom of expression?

    What you’re seeing in NZ is an embryonic Venezuela. Slowly, incrementally, bit by bit, surreptitiously and slyly, supported by their media plants, (those traitors to the craft of journalism), the left will seize this country completely. NZ’s Chavez is just waiting in the wings for the right time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Oh and David, any chance you could edit “Moore spent less than $50 on his website.”

    When it turns out it was your ally that was funding it all along?

    Will make a nice herald story don’t you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pascal (2,015 comments) says:

    Sonic: When it turns out it was your ally that was funding it all along?

    The authorizing agent had his name on the website. It was well known. The funding is not related and is a non issue as it falls well within any applicable limits. His address was not placed on the website at his families request as they did not wish to be associated with his political advocacy. (As is my understanding of it)

    But go ahead Sonic. Keep on supporting a political law that silences youth critics of the government. And bang on about somebody wanting to spend $50. That is precisely the type of nation you must want then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Chicken Little (793 comments) says:

    Wasn’t the site saying ‘not’ to vote for someone, therefore not coming under the old law?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Graeme Edgeler (3,280 comments) says:

    Chicken Little – no. It was saying ‘not’ to vote for someone, however saying not to vote for someone did come under the old law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. iiq374 (262 comments) says:

    Blogs are specifically excluded from the legislation.
    Interesting then that the EC specifically told him his site was included.
    Guess you’re full of sh*t as always.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. iiq374 (262 comments) says:

    Also I thought the web in general was excluded (by not being included) under the old legislation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. 3-coil (1,215 comments) says:

    PaulL (10:46) – TP = Target Practice

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Chicken Little (793 comments) says:

    Cheers Graeme.

    So this would be a political advertisement under the old law too? And have to have your name and address supplied?

    Bloody confusing for an old man like me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Glenn (69 comments) says:

    With posts like …

    [Presenting ID when voting] isn’t about preventing fraud … but about disenfranchising the poor by stealth. … Which is exactly what National wants. … Unlike those on the right, I believe in democracy. One person, one vote, regardless of wealth.

    … Idiot/Savant increasingly seems to be withdrawing into his own weird world. I imagine him as a Howard Hughes type, lurking in his darkened bedroom, cutting his hair and nails once a year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Graeme Edgeler (3,280 comments) says:

    Chicken Little – no. Websites basically weren’t covered by the old law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Graeme Edgeler (3,280 comments) says:

    I should add too that the old law (when it did apply – to billboards and leaflets etc.) required a name and address, but that didn’t necessarily have to be a residential address.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Whaleoil (767 comments) says:

    Sonic is isn’t my fault that you cannot keep up. Not only was it disclosed at the time of the site going up it was disclosed again on this thread.

    I have nothing to answer to you about my site stats because there is nothing to answer. I have no idea what you are bleating on about which is usually for your apologetic blatherings for a failing socialist regime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Chicken Little (793 comments) says:

    Cheers again Graeme.

    I need re education

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Russell Brown (405 comments) says:

    Everyone seems to have missed what the Electoral Commission says about Moore’s site.

    The distinction wasn’t whether or not it was a blog. The EC looked at it, determined that it was appealing for donations for a campaign and was not a personal non-commercial website but a campaign website, and was required to show a name and address. It seems logical.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Whaleoil I’ve asked you repeatedly a number of questions about tyour site stats (the ones you give to advertisers I assume) your only response has been

    “I have nothing to answer to you about my site stats because there is nothing to answer.”

    I’m certain you have not heard the last of this Mr Oil.

    It “was it disclosed at the time of the site going up”

    Got a link to that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Whaleoil I’ve asked you repeatedly a number of questions about tyour site stats”

    ..and who the fuck would you be to carry on like some self appointed commissar you goose stepping jack booted little Blue Cap. Bet you’d just love to send Whaleoil to the gulags.

    I’d tell you to fuck off too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. sonic (2,818 comments) says:

    Ratbiter, no offence but I’m planning on ignoring you for a bit, I’ve had my fill of insane right-wing loonies for today.

    Nothing personal, well it is, but thats the score.

    plunk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. martin english (40 comments) says:

    One of the issues seems to be that NZ law can actually impact on Mr Moore. This raises the following questions:
    *What if the site was owned by a New Zealand citizen resident in another country ?
    * What if the site was owned by a non New Zealand citizen, also resident in another country ?

    PS Mr Moore has my email address :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    So thats NZ, and China, when it comes to government control of the Net. Are there any others?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “I’m planning on ignoring you for a bit,”

    Why would you need to tell me that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.