Sunday, April 4, 2010

brainbuku #00005



Our glorious laws:

Seditious Intention

The definition of "seditious intention" originally in Section 24A has become (as amended):

An intention to use force or violence to effect any of the following purposes:

(a) to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt;

(b) to urge disaffection against the following:

(i) the Constitution;

(ii) the Government of the Commonwealth;

(iii) either House of the Parliament;

(c) to urge another person to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, to procure a change to any matter established by law in the Commonwealth;

(d) to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.


EVERYTHING IS EITHER BLACK OR WHITE
THERE IS NO GREY ANYWHERE

UP IS NOT DOWN LEFT IS NOT RIGHT YOU ARE NOT OK

Where is the line between urging disaffection against the Government and having a legitimate discussion as part of the political process? If someone (not me, obviously!) was to say "The Government is out to get you, and needs to be destroyed.", then that seems like it falls squarely into all of the above categories at once. However if someone said "The Government is out to get you, and needs to be destroyed." in quotes, then they're *referring* to the sentence, rather than *saying it themselves*. Tim said that everybody knows that anarchists believe that the Government is out to get you, and needs to be destroyed. If you refer to the sentence "the Government is out to get you, and needs to be destroyed" repeatedly, is that the same as saying it? The Government is out to get you, and needs to be destroyed. Does the previous senteance cross the line of legality? Obviously it's not the sort of thing i'd *ever* say myself, obviously! I obviously don't believe that *the Government is out to get you, and needs to be destroyed*. And I'm not being sarcastic about that, at all, obviously! Obviously!

uif Hpwfsonfou jt pvu up hfu zpv, boe offet up cf eftuspzfe.

Does the preceding sentence cross the line, or only if you move each letter back one (i.e u=t, i=h, f=e)? In which case, is that your fault or mine? What if i encode "THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO GET YOU AND NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED" as 1's and 0's and post it online? What if i encode it in pigments that cause a certain pattern of photons to be reflected from innocuous pieces of paper? Pemerintah mau membunuh kamu, dan harus dihancurkan. Is the previous sentence legal here, but illegal in indonesia? Would it be illegal if more Australians spoke Indonesian, and thus realised that it means "The Government is out to get you, and needs to be destroyed."? HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO GET YOU AND NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED BEFORE IT MEANS SOMETHING? Not that i ever *would* say it, obviously! I'm speaking hypothetically!

What if it turned that this whole time the sentence referred to Robert Mugabe's Government?

--------------------

Let's assume that someone (the courts? the police officers? God?) decides that the above paragraphs are not just a bunch of wanky art-students being facetious, but are actually an example of CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR! Then let's convert each character in the offending paragraph into a number, say, its ASCII code (i.e 'W' = 87, 'h' = 104, 'e' = 101, spacebar = 32 etc). Then let's convert each number into a different shade of grey (somewhere between RGB(0,0,0) and RGB(255,255,255)). Then let's arrange all these shades of grey on a grid of squares, and put it below this paragraph.

If the above paragraph is seditious, is the image below? How do you know the image isn't just totally random grey squares, and that it wasn't *your decoding* which found the seditious paragraph, where there wasn't anything before?



IF YOU LOOK HARD ENOUGH AT ANYTHING, YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING.

(meanwhile senator conroy still thinks you can censor the internet)

No comments:

Post a Comment