Peter Black's Freedom to Differ

#atNickHodge: "Australian Constitution. Yes, We have one"

Last night I was a guest on Nick Hodge's Ustream show, atNickHodge, where we discussed the Australian Constitution:

 

Podcast on Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd

Yesterday evening I had a chat with Ben Grubb from Tech Wired Australia about the High Court's decision Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd.  Ben has posted a podcast of that conversation you can download here.  And see my previous posts on the decision here and here.

What others are saying about Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd

Yesterday the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd, bringing to an end legal proceedings that have been going on for the past three years.  (I first blogged about the case in October 2006 here.)  I had hoped to post a summary of the decision as well as some comments by this morning but unfortunately it now appears that I'm unlikely to get the time to write anything until the weekend.  However, a few other Australian blawgers have posted their thoughts on the decision:

• My QUT colleague Kylie Pappalardo has an excellent summary on her blog OctaviaNet here.
• Warwick Rothnie posted his initial thoughts at ipwars.com here before a posting a more detailed summary and analysis last night here.
• On Australian Regulatory Compliance Review David Jacobson highlights a particular interesting part of the judgment here.
• Joshua Gans comments briefly here.
• Law student Katherine Liew has also written up her reaction to the decision here.

I'll continue to update this list as more people post their thoughts on this decision ...

One aspect of the decision that hasn't really been commented on yet was the nature of the divide on the Court.  Although all six justices agreed that the appeal should be allowed, the court divided into two groups of three justices each.  One judgment was authored by French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ, and the other was authored by Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ.  This seems to be part of ongoing trend that suggests that maybe there is a divide on the Court emerging between the more established justices (Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ) and the more recent appointees (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).  In particular, I can't help but wonder if there is minor battle taking place behind the scenes of the High Court between the new Chief Justice and the longest serving member of the Court, Gummow J, for the intellectual leadership of the Court.  If my suspicisions are correct, it will be fascinating to see how it plays out.

Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd

Update: link fixed.  Judgment also now available on AustLII here.

The High Court of Australian has handed down this morning its decision in Ice TV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd.  I've been following this case since October 2006 (see my first post here) so it is interesting to note that Ice TV has ultimately been successful.  The judgment is not yet available on AustLII but I have posted a copy of the judgment for you to read here.  This is also what Ice TV has posted to their website:

IceTV wins High Court decision - freezes Nine!

April 22nd, 2009

The High Court of Australia has today ruled in favour of IceTV in what has been an epic three year legal battle with the Nine Network.

Six months after the appeal was heard by the High Court and 3 years since the case originally began the High Court has today in Canberra, allowed IceTV’s appeal from the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court. A comment as to the High Court findings will follow shortly.

In an official statement made immediately following today’s judgment, IceTV’s Chairman and major investor, Mr. Colin O’Brien said the following;

“I would like to thank all our shareholders, our staff, our customers and our business partners. Without their support during the last three years IceTV would not have survived. IceTV now looks forward to a successful future bringing both Free-To-Air TV and content via various partners to viewers in a way that satisfies viewer demand, whilst embracing the future of digital Free-To-Air television in Australia.”

Since it’s incorporation in 2005 IceTV has had one aim: To give TV viewers the freedom to record and manage their TV shows as they choose. To record what they want, skip what they want and watch it at a time that suits them. No longer do viewers have to watch their chosen shows when the Networks tell them or to watch content they would rather skip through. IceTV gives them this choice.

This win today is also a win for our many subscribers who enjoy the benefits of simpler, smarter TV viewing.

IceTV’s General Manager, Mr. Matt Kossatz made the following comment after the High Court’s decision;

“Today’s decision is the news that we (IceTV), our staff and our loyal users have waited 3 long years and worked very hard for. With everything happening with digital television in Australia at the moment, the timing is ripe and almost worth the wait. We are seeing more and more content coming to both free-to-air TV and via the web and as an independent company (not a TV Network), we will always have the ability to put the interest’s of the consumer first in terms of features we offer”.

For more information, please read our following Press Release.

A copy of the High Court’s Judgment is expected to be made publicly available later this week. A copy of the High Court’s Summary of Findings will be made available via IceTV’s website as soon as possible.

Regards,
IceTV

I'll try to post a summary of the judgment later today.

Podcast of The Tangled Web: Beyond an Internet Filter

On Tuesday night I had the pleasure of chairing a newmatilda.com public forum on the internet regulation debate in Australia:

newmatilda.com presents a series of public forums about the internet regulation debate in Australia.

The Federal Government's proposal to block internet sites with a mandatory filter has drawn overwhelming opposition from voices across politics and civil society. So what are the real questions for policy-makers?

These forums explore the ethical, social and political questions raised by government regulation of the internet. With the growing intersection between technology, politics and media, how do existing and proposed classification regimes measure up?

Is filtering inevitable? Or are there better ways to regulate the world wide web?

Chair:
Peter Black, QUT Faculty of Law

Speakers:
Senator Scott Ludlam, The Australian Greens
Irene Graham, libertus.net
Nic Suzor, Electronic Frontiers Australia

A podcast of the audio recording of this forum can be downloaded here:

Joe Trippi at QUT: "Online campaigning in the US Presidential election"

As part of Joe Trippi's visit to Australia thanks to Microsoft Australia, he will be speaking at QUT on Thursday 5 March:

QUT Faculty of Law Free Public Lecture Series 2009
Presents
 
Mr Joe Trippi
Trippi & Associates (USA)
 
Online campaigning in the US Presidential election
 
Thursday 5 March 2009
 
The Gibson Room
Level 10, Z Block
QUT Gardens Point Campus
 
5.30 pm Refreshments
6.00 pm Lecture commences
7.00 pm Lecture concludes

The Speaker
Joe Trippi is the man who introduced the internet into US presidential campaigning and is widely-credited with having ‘re-invented campaigning’.

Much of the success of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has been attributed to the innovative use of the internet to rally grassroots support.

As National Campaign Manager for Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in 2004, Joe pioneered the use of online technology to organise what became the largest grassroots movement in presidential politics.

As a campaign manager, Joe has run presidential, senate, gubernatorial and mayoral campaigns in the US. His innovations have brought fundamental change to the electoral system and have become the model for smart campaigning.

Joe Trippi has been profiled in GQ, Wired, Fast Company, The New Republic and The New York Times Magazine. He is a  political analyst for the 24-hour US cable news channel MSNBC and a former Harvard University fellow. He currently heads the Washington, DC political consultancy, Trippi & Associates.

Joe is the author of “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Democracy, the Internet and the Overthrow of Everything,” the story of how his revolutionary use of the Internet and an impassioned, contagious desire to overthrow politics as usual grew into a national grassroots movement and changed the face of politics, and indeed many aspects of American life, forever.

Joe Trippi’s visit is supported by Microsoft Australia.

Registration: Register by 27 February 2009 at qutlawpubliclectures@qut.edu.au

Registered attendees may claim 1 CPD point for the Queensland Bar Association and Queensland Law Society.

The Great Dissenter

On Monday Justice Kirby will retire from the High Court of Australia.  In today's The Australian there are two pieces on Justice Kirby's contribution, one by Michael Pelly and another by Professor Michael Lavarch.  Although only time will tell if the judicial philoposhy evident in Justice Kirby's judgments, many of which were in dissent, will be vindicated, what is not in doubt is his remarkable contribution as a public intellectual.  One feature of this role has been his willingness to be involved in legal education; he has no doubt spoken at almost every Australian law school at one time or another (many on several occasions) and has always given his time, energy and insight generously.  However, he is a hero to so many law students not just because of this generosity but also as a result of his progressive judicial philosophy, his clear and compelling writing style (which students particularly appreciate) and his good humour.  One example of this is in his contributions to the University of Queensland Law Revue over the last decade, as James Tinniswood recounts:

To many, his Honour will be remembered for his liberal views, high rate of dissenting judgments (and being damn proud of it) and advocacy of gay rights.

For me, I'll remember him for doing some ripper cameos in the Revue for us. He was a great sport about doing this one in 2006...

He also did a quick direct to camera spot to open the 2004 show (which I don't have access to unfortunately), where he said something like

"Hello, I'm Michael Kirby and welcome to the Law Revue. Sit up, pay attention and no messing about in the stalls. That's a unanimous decision of the High Court. No dissents.

And while that was cute, I felt it was a comedic opportunity wasted.

So luckily, he happened to be coming back to UQ in early 2006 to give a speech about his ten years on the High Court, and we snagged him for about ten minutes before he had to give the speech. He nailed it in one take, even ad libbed the banging of the table and "think original" (which happened to be the theme of his speech).

He talked to us about his fondness for the recently deceased Harry Gibbs (the former Chief Justice after whom the moot court at T.C. Beirne was named) and we had a photo snapped of us in front of Sir Harry's portrait. I never did see that photo, but it was very cool thing of Justice Kirby to do for us.

Read more here.  As of Monday Justice Kirby will no longer be a judge of the High Court of Australia, but I have a feeling he will continue to be a present and persuasive figure in matters of public importance for a consierable time to come.

Second Annual Microsoft Politics & Technology Forum: Online Campaigning

On Thursday 26 February, Microsoft will be hosting their second annual Politics and Technology Forum.  The keynote speaker this year is Joe Trippi.  Once again it looks as though it will be an excellent event:

Join government, business leaders and political bloggers at the second annual Microsoft Politics & Technology Forum.

On this informative morning, Keynote Speaker Joe Trippi details the impact of new technologies on modern politics. Heralded by the US press as the man who “reinvented campaigning”, Joe has run Presidential, Senate, Gubernatorial and Mayoral campaigns. His innovations have brought fundamental change to the electoral system and have become the model for online campaigning.

There will also be a Q&A panel discussion, new technologies will be demonstrated, and some revealing insights and statistics around Australian digital behaviour will be shared.

We are delighted to welcome Lindsay Tanner MP, Minister for Finance and Deregulation, The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP, Leader of the Opposition to this exciting event.

RSVP here. Note, however, that before you start booking flights to Canberra, Microsoft is organsing events in other capital cities where Joe Trippi will akso be speaking.  Stay tuned for details of those other events ...

Update: Microsoft's Australian Government Affairs Blog has more information on the event, including this invitation:

While our keynote and discussion will be invaluable to anyone interested in democracy and communication in the first half of this century I also wanted the forum to be an opportunity for a look at practical examples of new technology tools.

To that end I'd like to invite any developers, web 2.0 or social networking activists with ideas for, or examples of, on-line tools that can be used in political campaigning and who would like to demonstrate their ideas (as a proof of concept or developed application) to the attendees at the forum to contact me.

I'm not interested in how the tools were or are developed, what platform or language the tool was or would be developed with as long as the idea is original, is yours, and you are prepared to demonstrate the concept or tool to the audience. It would be preferable if the idea were capable of wide usage but that is a matter for you.

• Up to three ideas will be selected for demonstration.
• Financial support will be provided to get to Canberra.

Contact me:

If you have an idea or you have developed a tool that you think will support on-line campaigning and you want to demonstrate it to our federal political campaigners and bureaucrats send me an email - simone@microsoft.com

Proposals will need to be with me by 16 February and you will need to have the tool ready for demonstration on the 26th of February in Canberra.

Read more here.

Top 250 Australian blogs

Over at Dipping into the Blogpond, Meg Tsiamis has posted a special Australia Day 2009 list of the 250 top Australian blogs.  This humble little blog, which was once in the top 100, is now sitting at 157 (that's what happens when your blogging becomes erratic, sporadic even).  If you're looking for some great Australian blogs to follow, this list is a good place to start.  You can see the list here.

Blawg Review #196

G'day and welcome back down under!  And most importantly, Happy Australia Day! 

This is the fourth time I have hosted Blawg Review from Australia (I previously hosted Blawg Review #85, Blawg Review #136 and Blawg Review #178.). For those who don't know, the Blawg Review is a weekly round-up of posts from around the blawgosphere, and today I am thrilled to have the opportunity to host Blawg Revew on Australia Day.

However, before we begin my whip around the blawgosphere, a little about me and my blog.  I am a lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) in Brisbane, Australia, where I teach Intellectual Property, Australian Federal Constitutional Law and Legal Regulation of the Internet, and research within the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation. Accordingly, my blog began as a forum to discuss the legal regulation of the internet and the media.  However, just as the collaborative and interdisciplinary nature of my work at QUT has seen my teaching and research interests expand beyond traditional black-letter legal scholarship, my blog is in many ways not a proper "blawg".  Most of my posts cover developments in new media - be they technological, social, political or legal - and you are just as likely to see me embed an interesting, popular or provocative viral video as you are to see me critique a significant legal case or piece of legislation.

Although I blog from time to time on developments all over the world, my blog is fundamentally Australian, which makes it particularly nice to be able to host Blawg Review on Australia Day and showcase some of the best Australian blawgs.

Australia Day is celebrated on 26 January each year, which commemorates the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788 and the proclamation of British sovereignty over the eastern seaboard of Australia.  Most Australians celebrate it - as I did today - by having a barbeque, playing some beach or park cricket, and listening to Triple J's Hottest 100 or the cricket on the radio.  Thanks to the cheeky "We love our Lamb" advertising campaign over the last few years it has also become a bit of a tradition to eat lamb on Australia Day, or else risk being labelled un-Australian.  Here is Sam Kekovich's Australia Day address for 2009:

However, even Australia Day is not without its controversy.  For many Australians, especially indigenous Australia, the day symbolises the adverse effects of British settlement on Australia's indigenous people, with some referring to it as Invasion Day.  This year the Australian of the Year Mick Dodson suggested that Australia may want to consider changing the date of Australia Day to a date that is more sensitive to the heritage and backgrounds of all Australians.  Andrew Bartlett has a good post at Crikey canvassing this suggestion.  However, Australian blawgers have covered a range of issues in the past week or so.

• Ben Lehman on Duncan Bucknell's IP Think Tank asks, has the fat lady finished singing at YouTube?. 
• Warwick Rothnie considers Elwood v Cotton On and asks is copying enough to infringe Down Under?.
• Pia Waugh looks at the ICT industry in Australia and argues that antiquated ideas won’t save Australia. 
• At Illegitimis Nil Carborundum, Bozwell looks at the blame game in negligence and criminal matters.
• Mirko Bagaric on Moral Dilemma has two lessons from the Middle East hostilities.
• Peter Timmins suggests that Australia's politicians could learn a lot of Barack Obama when it comes to openness and transparency.
• Brendan Scott has the third in a series of posts on acquiring closed source software.
• David Starkoff (sort of) ponders the existence of the universe.
• And finally David Jacobson on Australian Regulatory Compliance Review reflects on 30 years of change in legal practice.

However, as I was looking at the Australian blawgosphere this week I couldn't help but notice that it has slowed down a bit in recent times: Catherine Bond has announced she is taking a break from blogging at The House of Commons, a new job has seen Dale Clapperton has slow down at Defending Scoundrels, there is only the occasional post from the team at Lawfont, and Peter Faris QC closed his blog only yesterday. This year has also seen Jeremy Gans wind up his excellent Charter Blog, although he did leave with this call to legal academics:

Quitting the blog feels a little like giving up a baby. I can’t recommend blogging highly enough to any academic whose field includes regular contemporary developments. A commitment to regular, public and comprehensive commentary forces an engagement with the subject-matter that exceeds any other academic endeavour, even a PhD. And the informality of blogging is a perfect antidote to the jargon and circuitous nature of formal academic discourse, not to mention the obsequiousness and pomposity of the law.

i find it interesting that legal blogging in Australia is yet to gain the popularity and respectability that it has the United States, but I remain hopeful that this will continue to change over time.

It has been a pleasure to host Blawg Review #196 this week.  Blawg Review has information about next week's host, and instructions how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues

Comparing government copyright on the web: from whitehouse.gov to pm.gov.au

One feature of US President Barack Obama's relaunched whitehouse.gov website was the inclusion in the copyright notice the provision that all third-party content on the site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License:

Copyright Notice

Pursuant to federal law, government-produced materials appearing on this site are not copyright protected. The United States Government may receive and hold copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.

Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Whitehouse.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Read it here.  Canadian copyright scholar Michael Geist compared the copyright notice on whitehouse.gov to the Prime Minister of Canada's copyright notice:

The material on this site is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act, by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and international agreements. Such provisions serve to identify the information source and, in specific instances, to prohibit reproduction of materials without written permission.

Non-commercial Reproduction

Information on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the Office of the Prime Minister. We ask only that:

• Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
• The Office of the Prime Minister be identified as the source department; and,
• The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Office of the Prime Minister.

Commercial Reproduction

Reproduction of multiple copies of materials on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution is prohibited except with written permission from the Government of Canada's copyright administrator, Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC). Through the permission granting process, PWGSC helps ensure individuals/organizations wishing to reproduce Government of Canada materials for commercial purposes have access to the most accurate, up-to-date versions. To obtain permission to reproduce materials on this site for commercial purposes, please contact:

Public Works and Government Services Canada
Publishing and Depository Services
350 Albert Street, 4^th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1A 0S5 or
copyright.droitdauteur@pwgsc.gc.ca

Giest concluded that:

While this is better than some other Canadian government departments (who require permission for all uses), it is still not good enough.  First, Canada should drop crown copyright so that there is no copyright in government-produced materials.  Second, there is no need for a distinction between commercial and non-commercial - Canadians should be free to use the government-produced materials for either purpose without permission.  Third, third-party materials, which are Creative Commons licensed in the U.S., are subject to full restrictions in Canada.  Admittedly few people take the time to read these terms and conditions, yet they send a message about the openness, transparency, and a commitment to public engagement with government.  The White House has changed its approach and now the Prime Minister should do the same.

Read more here.  Geist's post made me curious as to what the position would be in other countries with a similar copyright and political system, so I looked at the respective websites for the Prime Minister of Britain and the Prime Minister of Australia.  This is the copyright notice for number10.gov.uk:

Material on this site is subject to Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated. The material may be downloaded to file or printer without requiring specific prior permission. Any other proposed use of the material is subject to the approval of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO).

Applications should be made to:

HMSO
St Clements House
2 - 16 Colegate
Norwich
NR3 1BQ
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0) 1603 621000
Fax: +44 (0) 1603 723000

Read it here.  This policy is even more restrictive than the copyright notice on the Prime Minister of Canada's website.  First, it provides that all material on the website is subject to Crown copyright.  Second, this policy does not allow for reproduction for non-commercial use; rather it requires premission regardless of whether the use is for commercial or non-commercial purposes.  A further disappointing feature of this copyright notice is that applications for permission cannot be made online or on email.

Fortunately, the copyright statement on the website of the Prime Minister of Australia is not as restrictive:

The material on this website is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce (copy) this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. If you wish to republish any material on your own website or in a publication of any description, please see further guidance under Republishing Material from this Website below.

Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to: 

Commonwealth Copyright Administration
Attorney General's Department
Robert Garran Offices
National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600

or posted at http://www.ag.gov.au/cca.

Republishing Material from this Website

All the material on our website is subject to copyright. You must not:

• Unlawfully use any of the material from this site, or
• Pass off content from this site as your own. This includes copying sections or re-using parts of the site under this pretense.

If you wish to republish or quote any material from the Prime Minister's website in a publication of any description you must seek written permission from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet which manages this website. Written enquires should be directed to:

Publishing Services Manager
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
PO Box 6500
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Australia

Read it here.  This notice is quite similar to the Canadian notice in that it allows personal, non-commerical use, but does not go anywhere near as far the new whitehouse.gov website.  Presuambly nations like Canada, Britan and Australia share Obama's ideal of transparency and accountability in government, yet these values are not yet reflected in their copyright policies. 

As a post on the Creative Commons website suggests, the rest of the world should follow the lead site by Obama and whitehouse.gov:

While the decision to use CC on Whitehouse.gov may appear uncontroversial in light of the fact that US federal works are not subject to copyright protection, very few other countries share this policy ... This is precisely where Creative Commons can help. Obama’s far sighted choice should serve as an example for other governments around the world: now is the time to start sharing.

Read it here.

Filtering political speech

Stilgherrian has a piece in Crikey today titled So Conroy’s Internet filter won’t block political speech, eh?:

“Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there has never been any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content,” intoned Senator Stephen Conroy on Tuesday.

Yet the very next day, ACMA added a page from what’s arguably a political website to its secret blacklist of Internet nasties.

The page is part of an anti-abortion website which claims to include “everything schools, government, and abortion clinics are afraid to tell or show you”. Yes, photos of dismembered fetuses designed to scare women out of having an abortion. Before you click through, be warned: it is confronting. Here’s the blacklisted page.

Read the rest here (you don't need a Crikey subscription to read it).  When writing the piece, Stil asked me for my thoughts and I jotted them down in a quick email, extracts of which Stil generously quotes.  Here is what I wrote to Stil in that email:

The ACMA classifying this anti-abortion website as prohibited content or potential prohibited content highlights several serious flaws inherent in the policy to filter the internet. 

First, it is indicative of the difficulty associated with defining “political speech”.  Legal scholars, judges and philosophers have wrestled with the boundaries of political speech for centuries, from John Milton to Alexander Meikeljohn, and it ludicrous to suggest that the ACMA or the Government is magically imbued with the ability to determine which websites have an element of political content and which do not.  And nor should that be the role of the ACMA or the Government.  Citizens in a liberal democracy should be lawfully able to inform themselves on matters that are of political interest of them, and not have the debate framed or restricted by Government classification.

Second, it demonstrates the inflexibility of the classification standards.  It is probable that this website does indeed constitute prohibited content or potential prohibited content under the Broadcasting Services Act, but that is only because the definitions in the Act inevitably treat all content in the same way; the same standard applies to political and non-political content.

Third, it is a good example of the dangers inherent in prior restraint.   Once a website like this gets added to the blacklist is becomes impossible for Australian citizens to determine for themselves whether this website should be banned or not.  The proposed filter means that the public cannot review the decisions made by the ACMA or the Government.  This lack of accountability should be very troubling to anyone living in a liberal democracy.

Ultimately the fate of this website is an illustrative example of the dangers inherent in any Government censorship scheme.  Issues of political speech, classification and accountability are without doubt both complex and important, and any notion that they can be adequately addressed and balanced by a Government regulator engaging in prior restraint is somewhere between being unbelievably naive and downright dangerous.

Again, you can read Stil's piece in Crikey here.

"But the greatest of these is love"

Last December, Justice Kirby gave the address at the Griffith Business School and Griffith Law School graduation ceremony.  Although Justice Kirby has been a prolific speaker throughout his time on the High Court, I don't think he has ever given a speech before on the topic of love:

So what is there to say that will be more than banal platitudes or just another tedious lecture?  My considered thoughts on the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, although certainly relevant to both business and law, would hardly be exhilarating.  Predications about the future of business law, although important, would be far too obvious.  And scarcely riveting.

There is nothing like the prospect of a radical life change to concentrate the mind on the things that really mater.  So I want to identify, if I can, the most important thing that we discover in life.  At least, it is the most important thing that I have discovered.  I will share it with you, like a precious jewel, fit for this occasion.  I refer to love.  Love for one another.  Love for our community.  Love for others everywhere in the world.  Love transcends even scholarship, cleverness and university degrees.  It is greater than pride and wealth.  It endures when worldly vanities fade.

You can read and download the full speech here.  It is beautifully written speech with a simple yet simply wonderful message.

Charon QC promotes the upcoming Australia Day Blawg Review

After reading my post earlier tonight about an Australia Day Blawg Review (see here), UK blawger Charon QC was inspired to put together this little video using Xtranormal.  I don't think I've ever looked so good ...

If you want to listen to a real and somewhat serious conversation between Charon QC and myself, you can listen to a podcast we recorded a few weeks back here.

Coming soon ... an Australia Day Blawg Review

On Monday 26 January I will be hosting Blawg Review #196, a weekly round-up of posts from around the blawgosphere, for the fourth time.  I have previously hosted Blawg Review #85, Blawg Review #136 and Blawg Review #178.  Therefore I would encourage you all to let me know what interesting posts from the blawgosphere you have written or read this week.  You can do so by leaving a comment to this post or sending me a tweet @peterblackqut.  As January 26 is Australia Day, I would particularly like to showcase the best of the Australian blawgosphere, so if you write or read any Australian law blogs, please point me in that direction.

Optus spam fine

The ACMA has fined Optus under the Spam Act 2003:

Optus has been slapped with fines of $110,000, the second biggest penalty ever issued under the Spam Act.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has accused Optus of sending 20,000 electronic messages without accurate sender identification.

Optus says the messages promoted the OptusZoo entertainment service and the company assumed customers would make the link between the sender ID of 966 and its alphanumeric equivalent ZOO.

"Optus assumed that recipients of their messages would make the connection between 966 and ZOO," ACMA Chairman Chris Chapman said.

"However, this was not considered sufficient identification, as '966' could be used to represent any number of permutations on a telephone keypad."

The ACMA says it decided to issue the infringement notices because Optus did not adequately address the issue.

Read more here (from ABC News).  Read the ACMA's media release here.

The Importance of Ideas

Check out a great new blog from Jason Whittaker, The Importance of Ideas, here.  The name of the blog comes from this quote from the legendary journalist, Edward R. Murrow:"Just once in a while let us exalt the importance of ideas and information."  I'm looking forward to reading Jason's ideas on politics, the media and popular culture - I've added it to my RSS reader and would encourage you to do the same.

Social Media Club Brisbane January

The inaugural event for the year for the Social Media Club Brisbane is next week, on Tuesday January 20, commencing at 5.30 pm, at the Melbourne Hotel in West End.  Co-hosting this event with SMC Brisbane, and generously covering venue costs and providing refreshments, is the blogger advertising network Nuffnang, established recently in Australia. Nuffnang Co-Founder, Cheo Ming Shen is flying in from Singapore that afternoon and will be at the function, explaining for 15 minutes or so how interested bloggers might be able to benefit from being part of the Nuffnang network.

If you would like to attend this event, please RSVP at the Facebook site for the event here.

A-PAC: Australia's Public Affairs Channel

Australia's answer to C-SPAN, now called A-PAC, will launch on 20 January.  The website is online here, where you can watch a promotional (propaganda?) video that gives the impression that this channel was the most important outcome of Kevin Rudd's 2020 Summit and that it has come "more than a decade ahead of that vision".

The Gob Act: A Tribute to Arrested Development

Although I'd normally post this video to my tumblelog Freedom to Dither, I am such a fan of Arrested Development that I thought i'd post it here instead.  So here The Gob Act: A Tribute to Arrested Development:

A conversation with Charon QC

Earlier this evening I chatted with British blawger Charon QC for a podcast he has now posted to his blog.  On the podcast we chat about the Australian Government's plan to filter the internet, blogging, Twitter, cricket and legal education.

You can download the podcast here.

"The world smirks at Conroy's censorship plan"

In today's Crikey, the Vice Chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia Colin Jacobs had an excellent piece on a new study published by Brooklyn Law School entitled "Filtering in Oz: Australia's Foray Into Internet Censorship".

The rest of the world has been smirking at Stephen Conroy's ill-conceived plan to censor Australia's Internet for a while now, but a new study published by Brooklyn Law School entitled "Filtering in Oz: Australia's Foray Into Internet Censorship" is a serious embarrassment.

This report is important. Not only is it authored by a reputable and neutral foreign observer but it also focuses more on the legitimacy of the scheme than the technical concerns, and it finds some serious problems. Despite the sober language, phrases like "troubling", "worrisome", "politically motivated" and "unaccountable" are common.

Contrary to persistent claims by the Minister, the study finds that Australia "will likely become the first Western democracy to block access to on-line material through legislative mandate."

Read the rest of piece here and download the full report here.

The Australian Constitution on your iPhone or iPod Touch

Ben Kremer (who blogs at Lawfont) has created an iPhone and iPod Touch application that contains the text of the Australian Constitution.  You can download the free application at the iTunes Store here.

Twitter in the courtroom

In the US, a Colorado judge recently approved the use of Twitter, as well as live-blogging, inside the courtroom to cover an infant-abuse trial:

Prosecutors and defense attorneys wanted bloggers silenced in the courtroom next week, but a Boulder judge ordered Monday that cell phones and computers won’t be banned from the child-abuse trial of Alex Midyette, the Boulder Daily Camera reports. The attorneys argued that live-blogging and Tweeting the sensational case could tip witnesses to proceedings before they testified, thus impeding a fair trial. “I think there are other manageable options and less restrictive options than shutting down the flow of information during the trial,” Boulder District Judge Lael Montgomery said.

Last week, when the attorneys filed the joint motion to keep bloggers out of the courtroom, a Kansas journalist who has pioneered new media trial coverage cried foul. “Courts are supposed to be public and this is just another way of creating public access,” Wichita Eagle reporter Ron Sylvester wrote in an e-mail to the Colorado Independent. In addition to a Tweeting trial coverage, Sylvester maintains a blog, What the Judge Ate for Breakfast, with further insight into the local courts.

“[R]eporting through live blogging is simply text descriptions, just as newspapers have been reporting on the courts for ages,” Sylvester wrote. “When I use Twitter to cover trials, there’s really very little difference in what I do with social media than what I write for the next day’s newspaper.”

Montgomery agreed in her ruling Monday, ordering witnesses to refrain from reading about the testimony of other witnesses. “The court believes that is a more appropriate way to proceed than shutting off the reporting at the front end,” the Longmont Times-Call reported.

Read more here (from the Colorado Independent).  (Hat tip: Social Media Law Student.)

Before my Australian readers get too excited about this ruling, I cannot see this ruling taking place in Australia.  The principle of open justice in Australia is very different from the US, and my feeling is that the courts here would be more likely to grant TV or radio access than Twitter or live-blogging in Australian courts - and I can't see TV cameras or microphones being regularly allowed into Australian courts any time soon.

TV Tonight Awards

TV Tonight, probably Australia's leading television blog, has posted the winners of the 2008 TV Tonight Awards.  You can see the winners are here.