atw: Re: Censorship in Australia?!

From: "Ana Young" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "ana_young2000" for DMARC)
To: "austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 21:11:37 +0000 (UTC)

If anyone was moderated while I was President I was never told about it and I
am shocked to hear that Dave Newdick, the then Vice President knows about it
but I had not idea it was happening. I am used to have people criticising my
work (it is an integral part of being a technical communicator) but I would
NEVER censor someone because that person was expressing their ideas.
How do you define inflammatory? The only thing I asked was for was answers to
which we still do not have answers. I also did it when the TWIA was in place
and was never moderated. And I am still waiting for the answers to my emails
sent directly to the Committee. While I was the President, I always answered
emails sent to me or the Society, usually within one day. I expected the same
from this Committee and the President.

I am not ashamed for raising issues that every single member of the Society
should be worried about it. I am ashamed to hear that someone, without my
knowledge, had members moderated while I was President. To those people I
extend my apologies now.
And your last sentence serves to prove the second key ingredient of
dictatorship that I mentioned - fear!

    On Tuesday, 4 October 2016, 14:27, Dave Newdick <dave@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

#yiv6724467889 #yiv6724467889 -- _filtered #yiv6724467889
{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6724467889
{panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6724467889
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv6724467889
{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv6724467889
#yiv6724467889 p.yiv6724467889MsoNormal, #yiv6724467889
li.yiv6724467889MsoNormal, #yiv6724467889 div.yiv6724467889MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv6724467889 a:link,
#yiv6724467889 span.yiv6724467889MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6724467889 a:visited, #yiv6724467889
span.yiv6724467889MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6724467889
span.yiv6724467889hoenzb {}#yiv6724467889 span.yiv6724467889EmailStyle18
{color:#1F497D;}#yiv6724467889 .yiv6724467889MsoChpDefault {} _filtered
#yiv6724467889 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv6724467889
div.yiv6724467889WordSection1 {}#yiv6724467889 Ana’s posts to the ASTC LinkedIn
Group are being moderated as a result of complaints from members of the group,
members of the ASTC, and non-members of the ASTC. The posts were considered to
be inflammatory, discredited the character of several people, did not provide
the full story, and were defamatory in nature. Several other members of the
group are moderated for this same reason. The fact that other people complained
and potential harm was generated to the reputation of the ASTC was reason for
the Committee to agree to remove the offending posts and moderate further
posts. These actions are recorded in the minutes of the meeting. We need to
consider everyone’s opinion, not just one person.  If Ana stops posting
information of defamatory nature then there will be no restriction and there is
certainly no censorship. Her last post did not contain offending or defamatory
material and was cleared within 24 hours. Some other members of the group were
moderated last year when Ana was president? That point was not raised…  In
Australia the defamation laws are very strict. It does not matter if what you
are posting is the truth or close to it. If the intent of the post is to
publicly shame, humiliate, or to ruin someone's reputation, and they can be
reasonably identified by the post, they could sue for defamation. Defamation
action may be taken against the original writer, but also against anyone who
takes part in the publication or re-publication of offending material. Internet
service providers and hosts may also be sued. This has the potential to place
the ASTC at risk so moderation is considered necessary and the only viable
option.   The ASTC is a volunteer organisation and must comply with a range of
legislation, including defamation laws and Work Health and Safety legislation.
This also includes guidelines for harassment, bullying, and offending practices
or actions, an area that this site runs very close to. We are following
published guidelines from SafeWork Australia to make sure we comply and apply
fair and recognised actions, if and when needed. We have also followed legal
guidance and hopefully will not need to pursue this any further.
Regards,Dave  Dave NewdickPresident  Australian Society for Technical
Communication Incorporated Registration no. A0060863S    From:
austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] ;
On Behalf Of Bob T
Sent: 4 October 2016 12:48 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Censorship in Australia?!      On 4 October 2016 at 01:45,
Bob T <bob.trussler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ana, Are you being moderated?or are you moderating other people?  Bob T  On 3
October 2016 at 17:06, Warren Lewington <wjlewington@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nice post Ana. Fortunately, it is only a voluntary organisation. And yes. I
know what it is like to be ‘watched’. Surprisingly that episode is in Australia
– hi guys – hope this post finds you well. As so often happens in small
voluntary organisations, people who have never otherwise made it in life to any
great degree, see any title given to them; not as an added, voluntary
responsibility they have to help and sacrifice themselves to others – but as a
‘right’ to power. They then wield power without really understanding how
powerless and petty they actually are. Criticism is seen not as suggestion, but
as dissent, and they choose to combat it in the only way they know how – by
bullying. It serves as a reminder that all appointments to small, people thin
organisations, need to be VERY careful who they elect to lead them... The one
making the most noise about leading them is usually not the best choice.
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ana Young ;(Redacted
sender "ana_young2000" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 2:01 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Censorship in Australia?! Have you ever lived in a country ruled
by a dictator? Do you know what it is to have all communication censored? Have
you ever been followed? Do you know what it feels when your phone is being
monitored? Do you know what it is to live in a place where you have no idea if
the person sitting next to you is spying on you? I do. Why? I grew in up in
Portugal when Salazar ruled. Because of that, freedom of speech is precious to
me. Let me explain. To establish and grow a dictatorship you need a minimum of
two key ingredients. The first is to keep the population in the dark. Dictators
cannot have their rules questioned in any way, hence censorship. The first
thing to be censored is the news – all news. Back then, that meant newspapers,
television, books, magazines and documentaries (local and international). Now
it also must include the internet.  Because the population started to
communicate in other ways, the censorship was extended to include song lyrics,
theatre and movies. But that was still not enough, so "agitators", as Salazar
called them, were dealt with: a special branch of police was formed and given
extreme powers. Many Portuguese suddenly disappeared some never to be seen
again. It was easy enough – most of the special jails were conveniently located
next door to cemeteries. And with the military under the control of Salazar,
fear, the other key ingredient for a dictatorship, was established. To save
themselves, some "agitators" left Portugal. They had to do it in secret, using
illegal means (border control was strict) and go to countries that didn’t have
an extradition agreement with Portugal. And they had to say goodbye to their
families not knowing if and when they would see them again, as their families
were now also under supervision.  But what to do with word of mouth? Easy!
Unless approved, all public gatherings were banned and strongly dealt with if
courageous (silly?!) people went ahead and held them. And remember, you never
knew who was next to you. How strong was the dictatorship? With the police and
the military, Salazar ruled Portugal for 36 years and his followers continued
for another six. So why have I recounted the history of the Portuguese
dictatorship? Because now, here in Australia, my written communication is being
supervised. Having tried to publicly and privately ask a number of questions
from the ASTC Committee and never receiving an answer, I have recently
discovered that I have been added to LinkedIn’s moderator’s list. In essence, I
can be censored. Who will be next? And what can I expect? As an active member
of the Society for over 15 years, am I going to be expelled? And if I am, who
is going to ask the hard questions? Is the membership going to let the
Committee rule like Salazar – absolutely and with no accountability? Over to
you. Ana Young

  --   Bob Trussler

  --   Bob Trussler

References:
- atw: Re: Censorship in Australia?!
  - From: Dave Newdick

atw: Re: Censorship in Australia?!

Other related posts: