this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2026
50 points (96.3% liked)

Australia

5154 readers
231 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
Nath@aussie.zone
50
Australia’s top bureaucrats want to block sharing of clips from parliament on social media to save them from ‘ridicule’ (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 days ago by Arwu@programming.dev to c/australia@aussie.zone
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Their complaint is the sharing of edited clips and soundbites, especially with editorial text put on them without context to twist peoples words and subject them to abuse online from randos. Ironically, the headline sensationalizes the discussion without context, demonstrating the problem.

They are OK with full video being available for transparency, they don't want to be remixed into a 7 second tiktok with some "infuencer" overlaid pointing at them and misleading/abusive text on top.

Calling for footage of full hearings and transcripts to be made available instead of clips, and for comments to be disabled, the board said its proposal would ensure “that scrutiny remains focused on evidence, administration and accountability rather than becoming personal”.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They don't want criticism. This is completely legal in Australia and they already have laws about personal defamation in case it crosses the line. This is non-starter in my book.

[–] budget_biochemist@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Here's your starter: Anti-wind group sues planning minister and wind project owners, threatens public servants

The group is promising that if this suit is successful, it will then sue public servants involved in the decisions “such as James Todd, Inka Veltheim and present and past DELWP/DEECA/DTP Secretaries,” according to a form letter intended for other wind farm developers, sent to Renew Economy.

Cookers threatening public servants for doing their jobs.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago

The article says if they followed the law they have nothing to fear. My guess is they have something to fear. Let us see how the law handles it before we destroy the right to criticize.