More censorship? Rudd ‘epic fail’ group goes offline

Snappy 60th birthday to our most fun newspaper

by Lucy Kippist

110
There’s no evidence sex-for-cab-fares is a trend

by Tory Maguire

210
Stop expecting Facebook to be your friend

by Anthony Sharwood

310
The sun is shining but storms lie ahead for the surplus

by Malcolm Farr

410
Coles, Woolies shoot each other, but farmers get shot

by Tim Costello

510
In poverty, disability means stigma & exclusion

by The Angry Cripple

610
Eight simple rules for losing your doctoral virginity

by Stephen Harrington

710
The world has always been going to Hell in a handbasket

by Simon J Green

810
Punch on: Open thread 08/02/2012

by The Punch Team

910
Interest rate barney barely even rates as interesting

by Tory Shepherd

1010

by Nic Christensen

03 Feb 02:54pm

Must Reads

Interest rate barney barely even rates as interesting

Life slips away while you’re filming it on your phone

Other stuff to be angry about today (with chorizo pic)

Filed under: Censorship, Kevin Rudd

84 comments

Yesterday, we told you about the South Australian government’s attempts at internet censorship.

Welcome to Facebook…

Today, we can reveal that online political speech has been dealt another blow with Facebook, the popular social networking site, being accused of political censorship after it removed the group “KEVIN RUDD = EPIC FAIL”.

Before it was removed the Facebook group is understood to have had over 3000 members and focused on building a list what it described as Kevin Rudd’s broken promises.

Whether or not you agree with the argument of the group, surely in a democracy the creators have the right to express their views and people have a right to join and support that group.

The group is believed to have been banned because it criticised an individual, the Prime Minister.

However, based on Facebook’s terms of reference you would expect a group would only be banned if its views were overtly racist or defamatory.

In the case of the Prime Minister you would have to say he has been accused of worse things than being an “epic failure”.

Facebook has previously removed or banned controversial groups which were viewed as containing racist or Anti-Semitic views.

It has also intervened at the request of law enforcement agencies such as when arson vigilante groups appeared in the wake of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires.

Typically, a Facebook group will be banned following the logging of a complaint directly to Facebook.

The Prime Minister’s office has confirmed to The Punch that it did not lodge a complaint against the Facebook group.

The decision to ban the political group because they were critical of a politician represents a concerning development, online civil liberties group Electronic Frontiers Australia told The Punch.

Electronic Frontiers Australia argue that such disputes over political Facebook groups show that there is a growing fight for political freedom in Australia.

EFA Spokesperson, Geordie Guy said the online environment is currently caught in a battle “between people [who are] online and people who would prefer those people didn’t give their opinions”.

The Facebook controversy comes only a day after the South Australian government backed down on controversial new laws requiring people to provide their name and postcode before posting comments online on news website such as AdelaideNow.

The South Australian laws came only months out from the South Australian State Election and critics argued that the measure would severely limit free speech.

Facebook’s policy on political group at remains unclear as the website has not taken action again other Australian political groups such as “Kevin Rudd is a Communist” and “Tony Abbott is a tosser”.

At the time of posting, Facebook has not responded to a request for comment.

Share post:
Print page:
- Print Article

Most commented

341Is it sexist? We've got nothing to compare it to

301It takes selective memory to call Howard era a golden age

296Why do our universities teach shonky "magic"?

249Gillard's mapping a route but will probably still be routed

189The sun is shining but storms lie ahead for the surplus

175Friday dilemma: Should smacking be illegal?

170A comedy of errors that's not very funny

163Julia Gillard is on the highway to the danger zone

84 comments

Show oldest | newest first

- Julia says:
  
  03:10pm | 03/02/10
  
  And it took them over a week to pull down the fan site for ‘Hitting Women’. FB needs to get it’s act fixed up.
  
  Reply
- H of SA says:
  
  03:13pm | 03/02/10
  
  Bad news, facebook should not be deciding what constitute fair political speech in Australia.
  
  Reply
- preciouspress says:
  
  03:22pm | 03/02/10
  
  Surely the question is - do Facebook believe that KEVIN RUDD = EPIC FAIL is a proper use of its site. Clearly it does not.
  Arising from that decision is whether such sites as “Kevin Rudd is a Communist” and “Tony Abbott is a tosser” are considered proper.
  One would expect further removals and I believe this is justified as the often distorted and untrue views of extremists are surely inappropriate material for ” a social networking site” To whom are these extreme focus groups “friends”
  
  Reply
PatC says:

04:56pm | 03/02/10

@preciouspress
By “the often distorted and untrue views of extremists” do you mean anybody who does not agree with you?
Darren says:

11:41am | 04/02/10

Nice one PatC
Daveo says:

01:56pm | 04/02/10

Surely you insult the intelligence of the average Australian if you think it’s Facebook’s responsibility to determine what’s appropriate for us to debate and have an opinion on! This fan site may well be a bit mindless but that’s up to us to decide.

As for Krudd & his lefterd union cronies, they seem to be making every attempt to stifle any sort of criticism or debate about any important policy issues in this country & we’re all gonna be the worse off for it if this megalomaniac continues to pursue his own self interests.
DG says:

02:37pm | 04/02/10

Daveo (01:56pm | 04/02/10)

Where did FACEBOOK determine what is appropriate for us to debate and have an opinion on? They simply decided what they were willing to have on THEIR website. From where do you derive your entitlement to use their resources to make your opinion known? You forget it is THIER SERVER - they are all powerful when it comes to determining what they permit to be hosted on their server.

And to suggest that Rudd has any power in this regard is to completely misunderstand the power that the PM has. Sure he can ask them not to doing and they can say “Stick it” - he has no authority over FACEBOOK. Any intelligent politician would ask third parties to remove sites that were critical of them - that’s hardly media censorship or a denial of the freedom of speech.
Jules says:

09:47pm | 05/02/10

we are supposed to live in a country with free speech, we should be able to heap criticism pollies as long as we are not doing anything illegal like inciting racism etc. They have no right to remove this group from the site
- jed says:
  
  03:31pm | 03/02/10
  
  a similar thing happened in tasmania - a journo at the advocate (a woeful fairfax regional) was castigated as inept and not knowing anything about her sports beat in a facebook group. the buffoons at the advocate were soon threatening legal action against the creators of the group. not knowing any better, they quickly back peddled and removed the page, despite it being a completely legitimate form of expression and frustration.
  
  Reply
- NCG says:
  
  03:34pm | 03/02/10
  
  Online blogging and such has provided a more intelligent way of scrutenising events. It allows people to show more indepth thinking, rather than the “your either for it or against it” mentality of old. Gone are the days of marching in a protest parade shouting some silly slogan.
  
  Its a pitty this site was closed and I hope it doesn’t mark the start of a virtual Gestapo, coupled with the impending introduction of the Mandatory Internet Filter . Perhaps the list of failures was so long it was consuming to many resources on the facebook servers!
  
  Reply
Joe Stephens says:

04:26pm | 03/02/10

I disagree with “a more intelligent way of scrutenising events”, sure there are some websites with intellectual conversations about issues, but the bulk of online blogging is rubbish from Facebook or Twitter.
Progressive Capitalist says:

09:47am | 04/02/10

@ Joe Stephens, but in the context of comparing blog comments to attending a protest shouting slogans, surely this is more intelligent Although i agree, there’s alot of SHOUTING over the internet, and there’s still no replacement for reading a well researched opinion piece by an impartial newspaper…
Jack says:

11:38pm | 05/02/10

Whilst the bulk of blogging may be rubbish Joe… these people are entitled to vote, and listening to the rationale used by such people is insightful for all political sides.
- David C says:
  
  03:37pm | 03/02/10
  
  This may or may not be a proper use of the site in Facebook’s opinion but I baulk at the description of them being “extremist”?
  Rudd was elected as the PM, “Kevin Rudd = epic fail is a comment on his performance as opposed to a comment on his politics, sexuality or race.
  Besides this sort of thing was rife with Bush and Howard why is it now so outrageous?
  
  Reply
- proudsceptic says:
  
  03:38pm | 03/02/10
  
  Labor LOVES censorship - it can’t seem to keep its hands off our right to free speech. Or is it only the Opposition’s right to free speech that they are concerned about???
  
  Rudd does admire China - a country with much to admire if you wish to quell all forms of opposition and free speech!
  
  Next thing the poor little sensitive “can’t stand anyone picking on me ” Laborites will introduce will be public stonings, or perhaps public demonstrations of tongues being cut out.
  
  Reply
- fluffy says:
  
  03:59pm | 03/02/10
  
  Ive never used facebook, because when they first started up, i saw in their terms and conditions, that anything you posted, became their property to be used anyway they liked. I think things have changed a little now, after justifiable public concern over their policies, and they do seem to give users a little more control. - but first impressions count. and i still dont trust them.
  
  it might be a good idea as far as promoting businesses etc, and i know people like the idea of having all their social contacts available like that, but the scope for information harvesting is incredible, and personally, i dont need a middle man to keep in touch with my friends..( both of them at once sometimes! ) i have email, instant message software .. and my privacy!
  
  thanks but no thanks.
  
  i dont know if this is a censorship matter, or a violation of terms and conditions.. either way… it makes me not like facebook even more.
  
  in south australia.. the anti-association laws, to stop bikies meeting up, but that can be applied to anyone, except members of political parties.., so.. all you have to do to get around that apparently, is start a new party! - i reckon the punch should get a story of these fellas :D http://www.freeaustralia.org/
  
  not only do we hand over rights and liberties in order to wage a war on a pronoun, but we surrender our free speech because our politicians, or facebook, or both, think their agendas are more important. its so sad.
  
  ( this comment was posted using Tor )
  
  Reply
gavin says:

08:54pm | 03/02/10

Do you not see the distinction between the democratic right to publicly express an opinion, and the democratic right of social networks to allow or ban groups from using their site (their property).

Facebook is not public forum and users are not necessarily entitled to limitless “free speech”, and further, are not obligated to justify the reasons for admission or rejection of a particular individual or group.

This isn’t a matter of governmental/political censorship. I can say what I like, you can say what you like, but a social network site is not a democracy and is not compelled to allow them on their virtual property.

This comment is to be published at the discretion of the owners of this site, or their agents.
fluffy says:

09:42pm | 03/02/10

“i dont know if this is a censorship matter, or a violation of terms and conditions.. either way… it makes me not like facebook even more.”

i said.. i dont know.. at the time of posting, facebook hadnt responded. but if it is to be found, that the site was taken down to to a request by the government, then facebooks capitulation on that basis only would be bad.. and even if it wasnt.. for facebook to just decide to take it down is weak..

as weak as if this site refused to publish a negative comment about the left side of politics.., just because their editors/owners have more pro right views.. it would be weak, and not only that.. it would be pretty boring…

facebook is a public forum.. i dont know what your definition of public forum is.. but the fact that they are so popular, and powerful.. the fact that they would hide certain views, based on what yet, we dont know.. is a concern.

you said “This isn’t a matter of governmental/political censorship. I can say what I like, you can say what you like, but a social network site is not a democracy and is not compelled to allow them on their virtual property.”

i say, just because they are a privately owned, that they dont have obligations and responsibilities, one being, free and fair access to all.

anyway.. you say the government wasnt involved.. even if they said they werent, i wouldnt trust them!
fluffy says:

10:28pm | 03/02/10

soz..im not a professional wordsmith.. combined with my special typing skills, things dont always appear in print exactly how im thinking them..

i meant to say"just because they are privately owned, doesnt mean, that they dont have obligations and responsibilities”

morally.. if not legally..

anyways.. sorry for all the deciphering you have to do.

i didnt post again just for that though, and if youll all stop arguing with me.. i wont have to post again on this matter..

but even when governments arent censoring us..
they tell us stuff like this..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3317881.stm

many people would still believe the truth of the matter was that he was caught in a spider hole.. as an accepted fact

ill let you google the truth

if theyre not censoring us, theyre feeding us bull…..

media and governments must be transparent, anything less.. well.. we end up with what weve got now!
mid says:

09:19am | 04/02/10

Our beloved federal opposition seems to hold the same views. From what I understand the only problem they have with the mandatory internet filtering is that it wasn’t done sooner and that it doesn’t go far enough. With that in mind I fixed this for you:
“Or is it only politician’s right to free speech that they are concerned about???”
- Eno says:
  
  03:50pm | 03/02/10
  
  If I put up “Tony Abbott is an Moron” onto facebook I’d expect it to be deleted as well.
  
  ProudSceptic? I’m assuming you’re talking about the tank out the back ‘cause you’re full of it.
  
  Reply
- Scotty says:
  
  04:19pm | 03/02/10
  
  But “Tony Abbot is a Moron” isn’t criticising an individual. I’d say it’s giving him a wrap….
  
  Reply
Brent says:

08:12pm | 03/02/10

Way to be unbiased Scotty!
watty says:

08:09am | 04/02/10

I suppose Rudd’s “Epic Failure” is also a wrap
“Total A****ole” would seem more appropriate.
even to a large number of his rediscovered “working families”
- DG says:
  
  03:52pm | 03/02/10
  
  FACEBOOK is a private company. It should be able to delete anything it wants from its serves any time it likes for any reason. The fact that it is free to join does not mean that it is a public service.
  
  By blocking a facebook group they are not banning free speech they are saying “Say whatever you like, just don’t do it on OUR website”. It’s no different to any number of websites that choose what will and will not be posted on their sites.
  
  FACEBOOK is NOT a democracy, it is not a government, it is a private company. You do not have a RIGHT to use their property to make a statement. You can make that statement in any number of way or places - they aren’t stopping you from saying it, just stopping you from using their resources to say it.
  
  Reply
Tim says:

04:02pm | 03/02/10

DG, common sense will not be tolerated.
This is a national outrage, Facebook should be boycotted!!!!!!!!
Rose says:

12:15pm | 04/02/10

If Facebook are held legally responsible for stuff published on their site they are more than entitled to remove anything they consider is likely to put them at legal risk.
louis says:

05:28pm | 05/02/10

Yeah but the question is why are they unbalanced in their approach?
- Scott Glennon says:
  
  03:54pm | 03/02/10
  
  I’m sure 10 new FB groups will replace Kevin Rudd = Epic Fail. Really they have just fed the fire of those who were part of the group.
  
  Reply
James says:

04:33pm | 03/02/10

Just like when they shut down the F*** off, We’re Full group. It came back almost immediately. At least they also have a F*** on, We’re Empty group as well!
- Frederico Von Conspirinista says:
  
  03:58pm | 03/02/10
  
  Proudsceptic is correct.
  I can feel those evil Labourites trying to get into my mind and control my thoughts.
  Tin foil hat time.
  
  Reply
- NickE says:
  
  04:06pm | 03/02/10
  
  As DG says, since Facebook is hosted on private servers, it’s not really a public place; they can do what they like with the website.
  
  Not so sure about political speach being “dealt another blow”.
  
  Reply
- Zeta says:
  
  04:19pm | 03/02/10
  
  You should not use Facebook for political activism. You might as well pitch a tent in front of ASIO’s Canberra headquarters and hand them your buisness card. Facebook is a tool of the United States Military Industrial Complex. It is a method of control.
  
  Facebook’s start up venture capital funding came from ACCEL Partners, headed by James W Breyer, who previously served on the board of the National Ventures Capital Association, with Gilman Louie, founder and CEO of In-Q-Tel, the venture capital firm founded by the CIA to, according to their former director George Tenent - ‘...leverage the technology developed elsewhere’ for their own purposes.’ Since 1999, ACCEL Partners, Bessemer Venture Partners, Highland Capital Partners and In-Q-Tel have been the leading providers of venture capital funds to every data mining solution to come out of Silicon Valley.
  
  Much of In-Q-Tel and Venture Capital Association’s investment portfolio is clearly directed related to the intelligence community. They provided stake money for Google Maps / Earth, and have since made millions from the associated technology patents, they also funded cryptological solutions, and anti-virus software. Which begs the question, how is Facebook related to the intelligence industry?
  
  The Facebook narrative is that 3 friends started up the service to allow sophomores to stay in touch with each other on College campuses. No coincidence that they started ‘thefacebook.com’ at Harvard, the CIA’s traditional recruiting ground. No conincidence that their first $500,000 investment came from Peter Thiel, founder and former CEO of PayPal, and author of ‘The Diversity Myth’ and principal donor to the radical right-wing Vanguard Political Action Commitee.
  
  You would not post billboards outside your homes declaring your full name, your marital status, religion, sexuality and voting preference. Why do it online, where it makes it easier for that information to be tracked and later used against you?
  
  Christian Fundamentalists are paranoid about the Mark of the Beast, the bar code or ID Card issued at the end times. But it’s already here. Facebook is the Beast. Ingratiating itself, and waiting.
  
  You don’t need Facebook. But just try deleting it…
  
  Reply
fluffy says:

05:23pm | 03/02/10

thumbs up

i accidentally gave my post above a thumbs up ..ooops -

thanks zeta - i knew my gut instincts were right! ....

/me wrings hands.. ohh hang on.. i dont have to worry - i didnt sign up!
- Eric says:
  
  04:19pm | 03/02/10
  
  This is an important point.
  
  A privately owned server can deny certain people the use of its facilities, and that’s reasonable. The Punch, for instance, can (and does) refuse to publish some of my comments, and while I might not like that, it’s their right. I cannot reasonably demand that a site I neither own nor pay for must publish anything I want it to.
  
  Real censorship occurs when some body that doesn’t own a medium imposes limits on what that medium can say. Senator Conroy’s proposed Internet filtering scheme is an example of such. That is a denial of free speech and a threat to democracy.
  
  Reply
- Jon Kudelka says:
  
  04:29pm | 03/02/10
  
  The 101 Uses For A John Howard fan site got pulled down by Facebook as well. I took it as a compliment.
  
  Reply
- Don Clark says:
  
  04:39pm | 03/02/10
  
  The author seems to have missed the point. The policies and practices on users and content, of Facebook or any other such service, are theirs alone and agreed to by registered users. Nothing to do with any political party, just simple commercial reality. They don’t exist for *your* good, but for their own profit. Nothing to do with “political freedom in Australia”, that’s just the usual overstatement of a fringe group.
  
  Fluffy: “Ive never used facebook, because when they first started up, i saw in their terms and conditions, that anything you posted, became their property to be used anyway they liked.” Goodoh! But the same applies here. See http://www.thepunch.com.au/terms-and-conditions/ Contributing Content
  
  What’ll we wring our hands over next?
  
  Reply
fluffy says:

05:16pm | 03/02/10

yeah… but the two are hardly the same, so dunno why youre comparing them, people are not posting their life story on the punch are they?.. well im not anyway.. all punch knows about me is that im not fond of politicians, and my ip address, which shows im in sydney, but im not..

dunno if id call concern over censorship and the loss of rights “wringing my hands” but if youre not concerned.. good luck to you..

must be bliss..
- Miles says:
  
  04:45pm | 03/02/10
  
  One can always pop over to this link.
  In particular the video at bottom of page.
  http://kevinruddlies.com/lies/ruddlies.htm
  
  Reply
fluffy says:

05:30pm | 03/02/10

and for balance, and more lolz .. this site… gone but not forgotten -preserved by the national library of australia? ha!

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/43234/20041007-0000/www.johnhowardlies.com/index.html
- andre says:
  
  04:51pm | 03/02/10
  
  This was a shame because I was a member of this site
  
  However, I have set up my own page called “Vote Kevin Rudd out in 2010” which is going strong.
  
  I urge people to join up to my site
  
  Reply
- SM says:
  
  05:00pm | 03/02/10
  
  “The Prime Minister’s office has confirmed to The Punch that it did not lodge a complaint against the Facebook group.”
  
  Maybe ask Steve Conroy’s office the same thing
  
  Reply
- BULMKT says:
  
  05:02pm | 03/02/10
  
  RUDD = Progressive = Mao or Che or Stalin (take your pick)
  
  Reply
- Alex says:
  
  05:51pm | 03/02/10
  
  This has nothing to do with government censorship and everything to do with what Facebook believes is fair and proper use of their service.
  
  Facebook has the right to remove any person or group from it, which they feel like.
  
  I am sure it is about them removing what they believe could constitute slanderous material, in a act which most would perceive as them protecting their own behinds.
  
  I am totally against the internet censorship proposed by this government, but this article is a total beat up, surely there must be something better to write about.
  
  Reply
- Paul says:
  
  07:00pm | 03/02/10
  
  @eric you need to get your facts straight. Conroy is only proposing a ‘limited’ mandatory ‘filter’. Eric please try in future describing Conroys plan without repeating deceitful Labor weasel words and doublespeak. Fact: It only ‘censors’ the low tech and the do-gooders. And perhaps people like you? From an evolutionary point of view those sheeple don’t deserve free speech anyway - they deserve to be muzzled by the Howards and Rudds of this world. Or to self censor themselves in fear. Free speech isn’t a gift or a privilege. What doesn’t add up for me is Tony Abbott - he has this issue served up to him on a platter, yet can’t land serious punches on Rudd, nor claw back young voters. Rudd has a glass jaw - really? Or Tony can’t punch? Is he the tough opposition leader people are making out or just a stooge?
  
  Reply
- al gore's kool aid says:
  
  07:02pm | 03/02/10
  
  Can’t we just go back to the eighties
  KEVIN RUDD = EPIC FAIL bumper stickers and daggy t-shirts
  
  Reply
- Louis McLennan says:
  
  08:14pm | 03/02/10
  
  I hear Venezuela is having to beef up border security because so many people are flocking to the country! They might have to build a wall like Germany did because of all the people trying to get into the USSR for a dose of awesomeness.
  
  Reply
- Matt says:
  
  08:26pm | 03/02/10
  
  Freedom of speech is not the right to walk into someone’s living room to tell them what you think of them it is the right to say what you want on media to which you have legitimate access. If t group violated the Facebook TOS, then this is entirely reasonable and does not equate to censorship. If the labor party threatened to block facebook through the horribly insidious internet filter unless they took it down… well yeh, that’s unacceptable. For the record, I think Rudd is an oxygen thief and I hope he gets shown the door at the next election.
  
  Reply
- Matt says:
  
  08:31pm | 03/02/10
  
  Why would anyone take action over the “Kevin Rudd is a Communist” site. I’m sure Kevin is well aware that he is a communist and takes great pride in the fact. It’ not a criticism if you like it. I have no idea whether Abbott likes the occasional toss, but I would be a hypocrite to use that term as a criticism.
  
  Reply
- Nick says:
  
  08:52pm | 03/02/10
  
  The Rudd Government spins more than a formula one car tire. He’d have an army of PR people doing his bidding, removing all sorts of material independent of personal Prime Ministerial requests. Not to mention anyone on Facebook can lodge a complaint about any page.
  
  Reply
- Mr Angry says:
  
  09:27pm | 03/02/10
  
  When will people realise that im sick of the bloody liberal lefty whingers who are giving money to their cronies because they want to breed a hybrid fetus. Wake up people! say enough is enough. This is why I’m emigrating soon.
  
  Reply
gavin says:

12:37am | 04/02/10

Sooner the better. I’ll even shout you your ticket!
watty says:

08:15am | 04/02/10

Bon voyage Mr.Angry
- Gim says:
  
  11:23pm | 03/02/10
  
  The Rudd is all about image and spin and that is why control in any way shape or form is important. If you break his leadership down to policy and results you will see the ‘true’ Rudd has achieved nothing much. The opposition should highlight the broken promises in every way, hammer home the point that Rudd has broken promises and he has not made Australian all that much better under his leadership.
  
  Reply
- Matt says:
  
  01:27am | 04/02/10
  
  It’s back as a protest! - http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=283332662006
  
  I wasn’t the original creator either.
  
  Reply
- Eliza says:
  
  09:18am | 04/02/10
  
  You have a series of ifs, buts and maybes, held together by a hit-drawing headline. Poor form Punch. Publish stories when you actually have facts, not just insinuations.
  
  Reply
- Jeremy C Browne says:
  
  11:15am | 04/02/10
  
  What a joke. If identifying an individual is so wrong then why are all these allowed on Facebook???
  
  http://www.facebook.com/pages/If-Tony-Abbott-becomes-Prime-Minister-I-am-leaving-the-country/213482527222
  
  http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&viewas=0&gid=4077379234
  
  http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10304266182
  
  http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&viewas=0&gid=51479001623
  
  Where’s the consistency???
  
  Reply
- Joe says:
  
  11:16am | 04/02/10
  
  There are plenty of groups simply hating Rudd on Facebook, this one must have hit a raw nerve if it listed Rudd’s mounting broken promises. Maybe Rudd didn’t want to make it too easy for News Corp journos to list his broken promises today in their papers.
  
  Reply
- Liz says:
  
  11:37am | 04/02/10
  
  A friend of mine works in Rudd’s Office and tells me the man is paranoid about criticism. She also hintedthat Punch has been misled. Rudd’s office orchestrated the Facebook removal of this page.
  
  Reply
- Mr Subramanian says:
  
  01:16pm | 04/02/10
  
  Woo - would love to see the e-mails you have to that effect, Liz Grech!
  
  Reply
- Rosie says:
  
  01:56pm | 04/02/10
  
  So anything bad about Rudd is taken off, but have you looked up Tony Abbotts facebook. How sad it is when its not good enough for Rudd to be insulted, but it’s ok to insult Tony Abbot on facebook
  
  Reply
- Jack Thomas says:
  
  03:01pm | 04/02/10
  
  “The Prime Minister’s office has confirmed to The Punch that it did not lodge a complaint against the Facebook group”?
  
  Nice one Nic, if you believe that I’ve got some great land to sell you, don’t worry that it’s swamp…
  
  Usual lazy journo stuff that.
  
  Don’t bother with follow up questions, “did you know about this site?, have you asked anyone else to request its removal?” etc. Welcome to the Australian media and its all believing the Rudd lies nonsense.
  
  Coming from a PM who purports to Twitter (am I the only one who can’t see the nonsense in thinking Kevin 07 actually Tweets, or that people perpetuate his lie that he does), this is farcical.
  
  But why would you expect anything other from the meringue, all fluffy but nothing there really?
  
  Reply
- Hugh says:
  
  04:35pm | 04/02/10
  
  An interesting suggestion DG says:02:37pm | 04/02/10, however you forget that Rudd, through his ill-conceived new net filter, can decide which sites appear in Australian searches. Perhaps he has more power over Facebook than you imagine.
  
  Reply
DG says:

11:19am | 05/02/10

Yes, if Mr Rudd’s filter gets up he will be able to block it. But I ask you this - How could Mr Rudd block FACEBOOK without it being obvious that he had blocked something outside of the scope of the original plan? Simply put, he can’t.

There would be outrage, and unlike blocked access to legal pornography or unusual fetishes, people are willing to admit that they looked for FACEBOOK and it has been blocked. How can he maintain that block and retain his position as PM? It just couldn’t work.

If you think that FACEBOOK is stupid enough to believe that Rudd could afford (politically) to start blocking social networking sites perhaps you should really consider how democracy works.
- Frankie V. says:
  
  07:10pm | 04/02/10
  
  Of course when Rudd and his minions say they will only filter out ‘illegal’ material, that includes anything Labor hacks, rather than courts of law, consider to be defamatory.
  
  Reply
- Realist says:
  
  08:21pm | 04/02/10
  
  Will Rudd and his financiers, the ACTU soon be demanding that we attach our names and addresses to our ballott papers, in the interests of harmony of course.
  
  Reply
- Marc says:
  
  08:43pm | 04/02/10
  
  OK, DG. We can all agree that FACEBOOK has every right to determine what does and does not go on their site. Fine and dandy. Just as long as we can ALSO recognise that their left-wing bias stands out like the proverbial dogs balls.
  
  Reply
DG says:

11:41am | 05/02/10

Without any acknowledgement as to whether FACEBOOK has any particular bias, are you suggesting that private organisations are not permitted to have a political bias?

If so it’s time to shut down the Lowy Institute, the Liberal Party, the Labor Party, most newspapers etc etc.

Generally organisations are upfront about their bias, other times organisations use their name to hide their bias. Generally, as an intelligent reader, a person should read the facts and make up their own mind as to whether the information is good or bad, while also giving consideration to the perspective of the author and reason for the authors approach. The clear lesson to learn is don’t trust an organisation just because they say X, Y and Z. Take some steps to further one own understanding of the facts mad make up ones own mind or develop ones own opinion.
- Yeebok Shu'in says:
  
  11:10pm | 04/02/10
  
  I can’t believe people really give a wombat about facebook. It’s just a privacy mess so people can get your info and advertise to you. Who cares what they do ? Start another one, make your own website. Do something useful online instead.
  
  Reply
- no-filter says:
  
  02:46am | 05/02/10
  
  It is more than likely that Rudd’s office has made it clear to Facebook that the page should be deleted or their site will be blocked when the filter is implemented.
  
  Reply
- Tony S says:
  
  05:50am | 05/02/10
  
  For the record the group did make some very unreasonable critisism of the way Kevin Rudds dad died. It deserved to be removed. I know this as I was a member of the group and I think ‘Kevin Rudd =Epic fail’ is fair but the content inside the group not entirly fair.
  
  @Matt 08:31pm - MASSIVE LOLZ!!
  
  Reply
- rod sexton says:
  
  09:53am | 05/02/10
  
  Someone should start a site called Farcebook.com
  
  Reply
- Bob says:
  
  12:26pm | 05/02/10
  
  The Rudd Government was behind pulling down this Facebook page. They may lie but people know the truth. Especially with inside knowledge at FB
  
  Reply
- odette stevens says:
  
  03:25pm | 05/02/10
  
  lol i love the way we can all communicate via the internet , facebook conected me with the uk, parents not wanting their children fingerprinted helping me gain more knowlegde to help stop my child Australian public school 2010 from biometric fingerprinting!!
  
  Reply
- Gavin says:
  
  04:58pm | 05/02/10
  
  so facebook wont tell anyone why the site was taken down? Seems fishy to me. mr Rudd has a history of not liking people who are critical of him, and his temper is well known, so I do believe facebook may of been instructed to take it down, of had a fair amount of pressure put on them to do so. And FFS, we live in a democracy, if someone has a problem with someone, and as long as there are no threats of violence or the like, then I dont see a problem with everyone haveing an opinion. And lets face it, Kevid Rudd IS AN EPIC FAIL, no matter how you look at it. I wonder if any of his friends kids have lost jobs because of the stupid fair work laws? All seems a bit too coincidental for my liking.
  
  Reply
- Talk to me says:
  
  06:53pm | 05/02/10
  
  I may never agree with what you have to say and you might disagree with me.
  However we should have the right to voice an opinion.
  First it was Conroy and Rudds web filter and the blacklist we were not allowed to see.
  Then Labor Government in WA.
  Now removal of political comments from facebook.
  WHATS NEXT ?
  We all know how much Rudd loves China as he speaks there language.
  Rudd wants his Socialist Democratic Peoples Republic of Australia up and running ASAP for total control !
  
  Reply
- Ben H says:
  
  07:27pm | 05/02/10
  
  All of us informed know the powers that be subvert all popular or important organisations. Facebook became monumentally popular, so those with power paid it to institute a certain paradigm; their agenda. We see this happening everywhere; all over the world. What makes people think facebook isn’t serving an agenda?
  
  Reply
- Ajmdc says:
  
  07:40pm | 05/02/10
  
  Ultimately there is no Bill of Rights in Australia, and therefore the government are well within their legal rights to gag something like that. We are in fact NOT free to say what we want about the Government. There is no freedom of speech.
  
  Reply
- Samb0 says:
  
  08:25pm | 05/02/10
  
  I just hope they don’t delete the “Senator Conroy is a steaming pissbag” group.
  
  Reply
- Earth says:
  
  10:57pm | 05/02/10
  
  So Facebook is letting people make Rudd look useless?
  
  No worries, Rudd is doing a good enough job of looking useless and pathetic without any help but his own as it is.
  
  Reply
- Peter says:
  
  12:53am | 06/02/10
  
  “Tony Abbott is a tosser” - LOL,epic win right thar. The reason for this group being deleted is very serious and must be found and made public. I have great fears about the future of free speach in Australia and will not be voting for Labour at the next election.
  
  Reply
- Kingsley says:
  
  04:12am | 06/02/10
  
  I _was_ a ‘friend’ of Kevin’s on Facebook. During December 2009 I commented one of Kevin’s Facebook post about Australia’s internet filter. For my efforts to engage in a discussion not only was my post removed I was also ‘unfriended’ and added to his blocked list!
  
  My post drew attention to the fact that the his government has taken the filter way beyond its original intention (to protect children) and was already misusing the technology. One example I provided was a demonstration on how the filter was already being used to block discussions about the filter!
  
  The group’s removal is just another example of Kevin and associates attempt to astroturf the social networks, keeping the young people that got him into office in toe, and suppressing true discussion that doesn’t meet their narrative. I know from experience!
  
  “The first rule of censorship is that you cannot talk about censorship.”
  
  Reply
- marina says:
  
  05:06pm | 25/02/10
  
  I hope you are happy with what you are doing to our country you cannot care about your future children either or you wouldnt ruin our country Stop filling our country up with refugees wwe can populate it nicely ourself We did have a great place to live in but you are wrecking it so wake up and stop now .If you keep this up you are not getting my vote
  
  Reply
- LolaBattle says:
  
  06:36pm | 06/09/10
  
  I guess that to receive the business loans from banks you must have a firm reason. But, once I’ve got a student loan, because I was willing to buy a building.
  
  Reply

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Colgo 08 Feb 12 06:20PM

@diversionary #wading

Colgo 08 Feb 12 06:14PM

Tip for young journos. Have a short CV. A page, two max.

farrm51 08 Feb 12 05:52PM

@cjjosh Only communications satellites please (Limited field).

farrm51 08 Feb 12 05:51PM

@DarrenFerrari @andrewcatsaras And so he should be. He might be the chap humming in the background to the end of the recording.

See all tweets

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: City vs country: What would you change your life for?

Dieter Moeckel says:

We made the tree change from Darwin to Wonbah more than 15 years ago. After fencing, a road, and couple of dams our money was gone. Super is enough to live comfortably. We have geese growing old and stringy the only one that made it to the pot committed Kamakazi by flying into a tree; the chooks are… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

151 comments

More censorship? Rudd ‘epic fail’ group goes offline

Must Reads

Most commented

84 comments

Julia says:

H of SA says:

preciouspress says:

PatC says:

Darren says:

Daveo says:

DG says:

Jules says:

jed says:

NCG says:

Joe Stephens says:

Progressive Capitalist says:

Jack says:

David C says:

proudsceptic says:

fluffy says:

gavin says:

fluffy says:

fluffy says:

mid says:

Eno says:

Scotty says:

Brent says:

watty says:

DG says:

Tim says:

Rose says:

louis says:

Scott Glennon says:

James says:

Frederico Von Conspirinista says:

NickE says:

Zeta says:

fluffy says:

Eric says:

Jon Kudelka says:

Don Clark says:

fluffy says:

Miles says:

fluffy says:

andre says:

SM says:

BULMKT says:

Alex says:

Paul says:

al gore's kool aid says:

Louis McLennan says:

Matt says:

Matt says:

Nick says:

Mr Angry says:

gavin says:

watty says:

Gim says:

Matt says:

Eliza says:

Jeremy C Browne says:

Joe says:

Liz says:

Mr Subramanian says:

Rosie says:

Jack Thomas says:

Hugh says:

DG says:

Frankie V. says:

Realist says:

Marc says:

DG says:

Yeebok Shu'in says:

no-filter says:

Tony S says:

rod sexton says:

Bob says:

odette stevens says:

Gavin says:

Talk to me says: