Well, according to the AEC, that no longer applies on the internet - despite section 328A. You can create a smear site attacking a party, registered on a US host that boasts about its ability to keep site owners' identities secret, completely anonymously and the AEC's attitude is that it can do nothing. You can say anything you like, no matter how untrue, and the AEC's response is that it can do nothing.
The shrill liars of Green Swatch are waiting to defame YOU!
Henceforth, on the internet at least, anything officially now goes in Australian politics. Particularly for shadowy groups who are prepared to fling their mud from cowardly anonymity. Be prepared for a rapid race to the bottom, as political parties and lobby groups, freed from any restraint, use the internet in order to spread the lies to which they'd be too embarrassed to stick their names.
If only I supported a party that was willing to play shameless dirty politics too. DAMN YOU, ETHICAL AUSTRALIAN GREENS!
UPDATE: Amusingly, the contemptible halfwits behind that smear site have, following this post, updated their page to include the laughable claim that it "holds itself to the highest standards of integrity and happily complies with all pertinent political legislation." An updated post quotes from the Electoral Act referred to above and bolds the following requirement for AEC prosecution: "the electoral advertisement [being] paid for by the person or another person". They claim to be an "unpaid" site, and thus to be beyond the reach of the law. (So, thtthppptht, people we're defaming.)
My question: how precisely did those people get a .com website without paying for it, eh?
(Another very good question is: why is that subsection even in the Act? Why should whether a party has paid for an electoral advertisement make the difference as to whether it's allowed to be anonymous or not?)
Why IS the AEC allowing them to thumb their noses at it in bad faith? Isn't stopping this sort of flagrant abuse of the political process part of its function?
Still - if the AEC does eventually get of its metaphorical backside and do something about it, the swatchers now won't be able to claim they've never heard of the law. They're aware of it: they just think it can't touch them. If they're right, you know what that means for Australian democracy.
