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”.
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.
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.
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.
100% hence we should have systems for transparency, and if they are doing dodgy shit they should be called out on it.
Dodging questions is difficult cos often they can’t tell you why things are implemented (that’s a decision of the government of the day), which is often what they’ll say, but it is often percieved as ‘dodging’. If it’s not a question for government then I completely agree they should answer. And if it is about a government decision, you’re asking the wrong person to answer it.
OK, but the public servants should stop being ridiculous as well.
They’re meant to be doing stuff for the public and if they’re caught out doing dodgy shit or even just dodging questions, then it should be shared.
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.
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.
Here’s your starter: Anti-wind group sues planning minister and wind project owners, threatens public servants
Cookers threatening public servants for doing their jobs.
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.
100% hence we should have systems for transparency, and if they are doing dodgy shit they should be called out on it.
Dodging questions is difficult cos often they can’t tell you why things are implemented (that’s a decision of the government of the day), which is often what they’ll say, but it is often percieved as ‘dodging’. If it’s not a question for government then I completely agree they should answer. And if it is about a government decision, you’re asking the wrong person to answer it.