Should we alter the 'satire' laws regarding broadcasting Parliament recording
" The new standing orders, voted in last month, concern the use of images of Parliamentary debates, and make it a contempt of Parliament for broadcasters or anyone else to use footage of the chamber for "satire, ridicule or denigration."
This was passed in 2007 and effectively out-lawed the use of Parliamentary footage for satire. This is an encroachment of freedom of speech. If our MP's knew that at any moment in the house the things they do or say could be used for the purpose of comedy [Think The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,] then perhaps they may keep a more civil tongue.
Also, being allowed to make light of and poke jokes at our politicians is such an integral part of what separates a democracy from a dictatorship.
A simple change, but one that shows we honor and value Freedom of Speech.
Poll Created Tue 8 Jul 2014 3:10AM
The Internet Party will alter the rules relating to footage from the House of Representatives being used for satire and humor. Closed Fri 11 Jul 2014 3:10AM
Unanimous approval
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 100.0% | 22 |
|
| Abstain | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Disagree | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Block | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 611 |
|
22 of 633 people have participated (3%)
Stephen Schoenberg
Wed 9 Jul 2014 7:09AM
Perhaps the current government has become too easy a target for satire.
Anton Skipworth
Wed 9 Jul 2014 1:27PM
Not necessary to state why I agree. It should be obvious why anyone would agree with this.
William Asiata
Thu 10 Jul 2014 6:24AM
the king's fool should always have freedom of speech.
Eden McMahon
Thu 10 Jul 2014 6:34AM
Seriously I'm starting to feel like they're just passing whatever the hell they like so that they feel better about themselves. This is ridiculous. Of course I agree with this proposal.
Loveday Kingsford Wed 9 Jul 2014 7:51PM
Rather difficult for satire to exceed the actuality these days but we need freedom to lampoon and satirize out of all possible order.
Poll Created Fri 11 Jul 2014 4:39AM
Make the default Electoral Role UNPUBLISHED Closed Mon 14 Jul 2014 4:08AM
Everyone registered to vote is automatically OPT-IN to having has their personal details PUBLISHED in the electoral roll book. Printed electoral roll books are available to all New Zealanders, at the Registrar of Electors' offices, NZ Post, some local libraries or council offices.
The Electoral Commission says this publication of your personal details is "part of the democratic process of New Zealand". But they do not actually require that information to be made public to do their job.
If you do not want your personal details made public, you must apply in writing with proof that having those details published would threaten your personal safety (Protection Order, Restraining Order, Police Statement etc) and then you'll go onto the "Unpublished Roll".
This is completely ass-about-face. The democratic process should not default to essentially being an invasion of the voter privacy.
The Unpublished Roll should be the default. With an option to OPT-IN to the published roll.
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 29.4% | 5 |
|
| Abstain | 17.6% | 3 |
|
|
| Disagree | 52.9% | 9 |
|
|
| Block | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 615 |
|
17 of 632 people have participated (2%)
Damon Horrell
Fri 11 Jul 2014 4:52AM
Isn't it part of being open and ensuring that elections don't get rigged by those currently in power?
Happy to change my vote if you can convince me that it's unnecessary.
fuck you assholes
Fri 11 Jul 2014 4:59AM
I don't understand this issue enough to make a decision.
fuck you assholes · Wed 9 Jul 2014 8:06AM
@stephenschoenberg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waK5twz_4uI