'stranger than fiction' Orwellian laws in Australia

[yurell]

Hang on, that doesn't sound right. I was under the impression that it's the ACCC (not the government)

The ACCC is an agency of the Australian government. Did you think it was a private company issuing fines or something?

It's independent thereof, though. The government doesn't get to decide whether something is false; Gillard can't just walk in and say 'I've decided this claim is false; fine them!' It's an independently run organisation whose job it is to protect consumers from producers.

I wrote: "If corporate lying is a serious issue in this area, it should be prosecuted, but in courts, not by some arbitrary executive panel." I really have no idea how I can be any clearer than that.

I'm sorry, isn't that how the ACCC works? If a company disagrees with the ruling of the ACCC they can appeal the matter to the Australian Competition Tribunal.

I just thought the post I responded to was even more of a ridiculous mischaracterization of the author's argument than your post was of mine, so I said something.

If I 'mischaracterised' your argument, then I apologise; your statement about the government 'arbitrarily deciding the truth' must have been a complete non sequitur then (and one that I addressed because it was the most patently ridiculous statement there, insinuating that the these laws allow the government to do that). And I don't think I'm mischaracterising that badly, since the very next paragraph began with "[it] can only be considered lying, in my opinion if all parties involved agree on what the truth is, or at least agree to operate by the same definition of the truth". Does that mean the "drug makes you immortal" people shouldn't be charged if they don't agree with what the truth is?

[Elliot]

I wrote: "If corporate lying is a serious issue in this area, it should be prosecuted, but in courts, not by some arbitrary executive panel." I really have no idea how I can be any clearer than that.

I'm sorry, isn't that how the ACCC works? If a company disagrees with the ruling of the ACCC they can appeal the matter to the Australian Competition Tribunal.

As far as the million dollar fines Impeach is referring to, the ACCC isn't responsible for that anyway. They can only issue much smaller infringement notices. Million dollar fines can only be imposed by a court.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

I wrote: "If corporate lying is a serious issue in this area, it should be prosecuted, but in courts, not by some arbitrary executive panel." I really have no idea how I can be any clearer than that.

I'm sorry, isn't that how the ACCC works? If a company disagrees with the ruling of the ACCC they can appeal the matter to the Australian Competition Tribunal.

It's weaker than that, actually: if they disagree, they can ignore it and the ACCC has to begin court proceedings. Kind of like a reverse traffic ticket.

[Hawknc]

Pretty much. The ACCC has very little actual power to enforce regulations.

[yurell]

Oh, I thought (hoped) they had more power than that

[Azrael]

... it gives government the ability to unilaterally decide what THE truth is and fine businesses over am million dollars for saying anything other than that.

Earlier in the thread, or the previously supplied links, it was pointed out that fines are issued only after a court finding.

So your main grievance doesn't appear to have much validity.

[Impeach]

... it gives government the ability to unilaterally decide what THE truth is and fine businesses over am million dollars for saying anything other than that.

Earlier in the thread, or the previously supplied links, it was pointed out that fines are issued only after a court finding.

So your main grievance doesn't appear to have much validity.

Not really because it is still based on the precedent that the court has jurisdiction over the truth. My grievance with this Orwellian principle is totally valid. You aren't going to tell me that you think it's crazy to be weary of this, are you

EDIT: besides to you really trust that courts are incorruptible? This is pretty provably false.

[yurell]

We already use the courts to determine the truth; it's what courts do. You're complaints are like whinging that we allow auditors to determine the truth when they're investigating, or juries to determine the truth in trial. Should we just ask people nicely, and let their answer be the truth? There needs to be some system to establish truth; is there a better one than this?

Furthermore, you seem to be under the impression that the ACCC will charge people for raising the prices by $1000 and blame it on the tax when the 'actual' cost due to carbon was $999.99; they don't do that. The ACCC is smart enough to use its resources wisely and so go after the most egregious offences, so they don't waste their time and money on courts throwing it out.

For the record; I think it's crazy to be weary of this. Becoming 'weary' of preventing companies from lying and just giving up for them to just make up shit will lead to a worse country for consumers, not better, and I for one am not a corporation that will benefit from abusing the public.

[Azrael]

... it is still based on the precedent that the court has jurisdiction over the truth. My grievance with this Orwellian principle is totally valid. You aren't going to tell me that you think it's crazy to be weary of this, are you

EDIT: besides to you really trust that courts are incorruptible? This is pretty provably false.

Ok, back down off the ledge for a moment. I'm not going to call you crazy, nor is continuing a discussion about whether a potentially loaded adjective is valid even remotely relevant. So let's talk about your actual concerns?

No, courts aren't incorruptible. But that is a much larger issue than this law. And honestly, fines of up to a million dollars being slung about by a corruptible court system is far less troubling to me than life sentences (or, given the country, death sentences). So move on -- the modern, democratic court system is the better (not best) arbiter available. If it needs to be improved, it needs to be improved for all laws.

Now, about the court determining the truth: As yurell says, that's pretty much what courts do. And there is an important distinction that you aren't making; this law doesn't say that countermanding the government's version of the "truth" is punishable, the law says that lying to the consumer is punishable. What you're worried about is situation where the government says the sky is green, and takes you to court if you say otherwise with a charge of violating their truth. You could easily be 'proven guilty' of saying the sky is blue, and the relevance of the facts is immaterial. If this were the case, I would agree that the law is terribly wrong. This sort of nonsense, for the record, is what most of the rest of us (if I may be so bold as to speak for the thread) think of when 'Orwellian' is tossed about.

However, if the (relevant analogy for Australian law) Attorney General brings a complaint against a company to court under the auspices of this law and the company can show that it's claims (and thus pricing scheme) are founded in fact and they can subsequently be found justified in their approach, then there is no problem. And yes, I am aware that the italicized part ties heavily back into my previous point about the corruptibility of the legal system.

On the whole, you still have not addressed how this is different than existing consumer protection laws, and the law's wording appears to explicitly state that it is merely an addendum to those legislations. If a pharmaceutical company says their drug can make you fly, the government will sue them, and they will be found against and fined by the courts for untrue claims unless they have factual evidence. This new law isn't much different, from the standpoint of legal precedence. Or, more pointedly, it is not far different from a prosecutor presenting evidence that you murdered someone, and you presenting evidence of your innocence. The court system explicitly decides who's "truth" is correct, and levies consequences accordingly.

[Impeach]

... it is still based on the precedent that the court has jurisdiction over the truth. My grievance with this Orwellian principle is totally valid. You aren't going to tell me that you think it's crazy to be weary of this, are you

EDIT: besides to you really trust that courts are incorruptible? This is pretty provably false.

Ok, back down off the ledge for a moment. I'm not going to call you crazy, nor is continuing a discussion about whether a potentially loaded adjective is valid even remotely relevant. So let's talk about your actual concerns?

No, courts aren't incorruptible. But that is a much larger issue than this law. And honestly, fines of up to a million dollars being slung about by a corruptible court system is far less troubling to me than life sentences (or, given the country, death sentences). So move on -- the modern, democratic court system is the better (not best) arbiter available. If it needs to be improved, it needs to be improved for all laws.

Now, about the court determining the truth: As yurell says, that's pretty much what courts do. And there is an important distinction that you aren't making; this law doesn't say that countermanding the government's version of the "truth" is punishable, the law says that lying to the consumer is punishable. What you're worried about is situation where the government says the sky is green, and takes you to court if you say otherwise with a charge of violating their truth. You could easily be 'proven guilty' of saying the sky is blue, and the relevance of the facts is immaterial. If this were the case, I would agree that the law is terribly wrong. This sort of nonsense, for the record, is what most of the rest of us (if I may be so bold as to speak for the thread) think of when 'Orwellian' is tossed about.

However, if the (relevant analogy for Australian law) Attorney General brings a complaint against a company to court under the auspices of this law and the company can show that it's claims (and thus pricing scheme) are founded in fact and they can subsequently be found justified in their approach, then there is no problem. And yes, I am aware that the italicized part ties heavily back into my previous point about the corruptibility of the legal system.

On the whole, you still have not addressed how this is different than existing consumer protection laws, and the law's wording appears to explicitly state that it is merely an addendum to those legislations. If a pharmaceutical company says their drug can make you fly, the government will sue them, and they will be found against and fined by the courts for untrue claims unless they have factual evidence. This new law isn't much different, from the standpoint of legal precedence. Or, more pointedly, it is not far different from a prosecutor presenting evidence that you murdered someone, and you presenting evidence of your innocence. The court system explicitly decides who's "truth" is correct, and levies consequences accordingly.

You don't see the difference? Look:

"He is lying about whether or not he committed robbery. He is guilty of ROBBERY. Punish him accordingly"

"He is lying. He is guilty of LYING. Punish him accordingly."

Lying is not what's illegal, it's robbery. We don't care about finding out the truth to see whether they lied, it's to see whether or not they committed an actual crime. How is that the same thing at all? I just can't accept the idea that courts should be allowed to fine people for making "misleading" statements where no other crime has happened. Similarly, I disagree with the precedent, which thankfully isn't around anymore' that the church should have jurisdiction in that area. As far as comparing this to the death/life sentence, why is that relevant? So said those practices concern you and they concern me to but so does the ACCC. No, I am not concerned that they will fine me for saying the sky isn't really green, I am concerned that they will fine businesses over a million dollars for making a claim that the court decides is misleading. That isn't their jurisdiction. If the court finds that a statement is false, and the implication of this finding is that someone is guilty of a crime, cool beans, but that isn't what this law does.

Free speech exists across the board or not at all. As for a corporation's false claim that a drug can make you fly, yes the can say that at it's perfectly legal for them to. They have to specify that these statements have not been confirmed by the FDA and they can't sign contracts based on the promise that they drug will make them fly, but they can say whatever else they want. My deodorant stick has writing on it talking about the "manly scent-elves" that cause it to work. That isn't illegal either.

Besides, this drug business really helps to prove my point. The FDA and Monsanto corporation are pretty much a revolving door. Lobbyists for Monsanto are constantly being assigned high up positions in the FDA. In fact, one time a woman working for Monsanto wrote a report on the safety of GM foods, left Monsanto to take her position at the FDA, and passed her own report with flying colors. I already do not agree with the way in which the "truth" is found out regarding the safety of drugs.

I'd really rather risk getting lied to about the extent to which the carbon taxes increased prices than allow the courts to have jurisdiction over the truth.

[Meteoric]

Lying is not what's illegal, it's robbery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_impersonation

Lying is absolutely illegal, in certain contexts. Lying by itself is dickish, but not illegal. Lying to people in a way that harms them (for example, by convincing them to give you their money under false pretenses) is another matter.

So, can you clarify: what about this law makes it any more objectionable than laws against false advertising in general?

[BattleMoose]

Free speech exists across the board or not at all.

And this isn't true. Hate Speech is illegal in just about every decent country.

[The Great Hippo]

And this isn't true. Hate Speech is illegal in just about every decent country.

Not in the US! And I actually think that's a remarkably good thing (allowing people to express enormously hateful positions creates an environment that tends to be less neurotic toward their treatment of highly hateful positions; I think it's incredibly healthy for a society to allow for horrible things to be expressed, rather than suppressing the horribleness--you end up with societies that fear hate rather than endeavoring to understand it). But the broader point still stands--lying isn't considered a form of protected speech--not when it carries a significant financial (fraud) or physical (threats of violence) cost. And false advertising clearly falls under fraud.

[yurell]

As for a corporation's false claim that a drug can make you fly, yes the can say that at it's perfectly legal for them to.

What country (or nightmare-world) are you in where that's legal?

[Impeach]

As for a corporation's false claim that a drug can make you fly, yes the can say that at it's perfectly legal for them to.

What country (or nightmare-world) are you in where that's legal?

America. Where did you think?

[yurell]

Because false advertising is illegal even in a place that considers corporations people.

[omgryebread]

Free speech exists across the board or not at all.

Maybe in your theoretical construct, but not in the US, which you seem to be talking about, and certainly not in Australia, which is the jurisdiction of this law.


You'll probably disagree about the US, so let's head that off.

The First Amendment says, regarding free speech "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". The obvious exception is "clear and present danger", or more properly, "imminent lawless action". Speech is not protected if the speaker intends to incite a crime that is both "imminent" and likely to happen.

There are several classes of unprotected or less protected speech. Obscenity, fighting words, and incitement are all totally unprotected. Some, like libel are less protected.

This is of interest to us, because "commercial speech" falls into this less protected category. Any speech proposing a commercial interaction is allowed, though of course not if it's part of a crime (if I were to post a help-wanted ad in the paper, asking for people to help me on a heist, that would be legal, but it would also be part of a conspiracy to commit theft, which would be illegal).

Looking at a law to prevent lying to consumers, we must ask ourselves a few questions. First is not First Amendment, but asks if Congress has the power to regulate this at all, which it does, thanks to the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses. Then we ask what level of protection this speech gets. Since it's commercial, laws dealing with it are subject to intermediate scrutiny, which requires a compelling government interest, and that the law is related to that interest. Since preventing consumers from buying things under false pretenses is a compelling government interest, and since the law directly outlaws that, it passes with flying colors.

[Azrael]

I just can't accept the idea that courts should be allowed to fine people for making "misleading" statements where no other crime has happened.

Do you have a similar problem with fraud being illegal? Fraud (more or less) criminalizes lying for profit. Consumer protection laws protect against consumer fraud, which brings us to this statement:

If the court finds that a statement is false, and the implication of this finding is that someone is guilty of a crime, cool beans, but that isn't what this law does.

Actually, yes. That's what this law does. That's exactly what this law does. The crime is consumer fraud, as established under (for like the 53rd time, previously existing) consumer protection laws. The defendant is the company, and the punishment is a fine.

As for a corporation's false claim that a drug can make you fly, yes the can say that at it's perfectly legal for them to. They have to specify that these statements have not been confirmed by the FDA and they can't sign contracts based on the promise that they drug will make them fly, but they can say whatever else they want

Are you really contending that the term 'false advertising' isn't a thing? Companies can make clearly satirical statements -- typically called marketing -- but they can't make untrue claims about what a product actually does. Furthermore, commercial speech happens to be on the list of exemptions in US case law where the first amendment is either diminished or does not apply at all.

See a rather recent example.