The Press Council distorts debate. Labor wants more The Press Council, made overmighty by publishers fearing the Gillard Government would otherwise impose even worse, has already tried to stifle free speech in ways that suit Labor, which now wants it made even more overbearing under government regulation. It has stopped journalists from referring to boat people as "illegal immigrants" - which in many cases they indeed appear to be. It has demanded that highly deceptive spin by warmists be included in a column which accurately reported that the warmists" data in fact showed a pause in the warming. It has objected to the tone of an article by another sceptic, James Delingpole, in which a victim of useless windfarms was accurately reported: AS a NSW sheep farmer fighting tooth and nail to stop a wind farm development near his beloved home told me the other day in trenchant style: "The wind-farm business is bloody well near a p***** ring. They're f . . .king our families and knowingly doing so. From the offensive adjudication by the Australian Press Council, which seems to me staffed by warmists only too quick to censor: THE report of the anonymous remarks concerning paedophilia, a very serious and odious crime, were highly offensive. The Council's principles . . . are breached where, as in this case, the level of offensiveness is so high that it outweighs the very strong public interest in freedom of speech. It was fully justifiable in the public interest to convey the intensity of feeling by some opponents of wind farms but that goal did not require quoting the reference to paedophilia. Far, far more offensive than Delingpole's article was the Press Council's attempt to censor it. And even more offensive was the jeering, insulting, belittling and plain nasty heckling from Senator Doug Cameron of two IPA staffers who appeared before his committee yesterday to defend free speech. I'll write about the insults later, but here is where Cameron betrays Labor's real intention - to punish opinions it does not like: DOUG Cameron: So people can be equated to pedophiles as far as the (Institute of Public Affairs) is concerned? Chris Berg: . . . If you're only going to defend speech you agree with then you're not defending free speech at all. Cameron: So after the publication of that article, then we had the Press Council determination, we had the IPA press release, basically saying you should be allowed to do whatever you like, The Australian published Mr Delingpole's response which again repeated some of the issues that the Press Council said should not have been there, is that fair and legal?. . . The Australian can basically ignore the Press Council and just print . . . Berg: That's the definition of a voluntary self-regulatory scheme. Cameron: So it's all voluntary. It's really meaningless, the Press Council? Berg: I wouldn't say it's meaningless . . . Cameron: But The Australian decided it was just going to repeat the same allegation in a different form. It's just ignoring the Press Council Berg: I think that it's defying the Press Council in that case. Cameron: Defying?. . . And then. . . Christopher Pearson repeats the pedophile statement. But linking sceptics to pedophiles is fine when it's done by ABC science presenter Robyn "100 metres" Williams: ROBYN Williams: Now what if I told you pedophilia is good for children ? You'd rightly find it outrageous. But there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths again and again in recent times, distorting the science (of climate change).. . . And the former chairman of the ABC, Maurice Newman. . . came out with some drivel in The Australian newspaper a couple of weeks ago about how climate science is a religion. Rick Morton, The Australian, December 18, 2012: A COMPLAINT by former ABC chairman Maurice Newman over a radio program that linked scepticism about human-induced climate change to advocacy of pedophilia has been dismissed by the national broadcaster. . . . An ABC spokeswoman said . . . because the editorial context of the segment was reasonable, meaning "harm and offence" was justified. Christopher Pearson, The Australian, December 22, 2012: IT'S important to note that unlike Williams, Delingpole wasn't the person making the objectionable comparison. He simply reported it. ABC1"s Q&A, Monday: TONY Jones: What is the public interest test? David Feeney (Labor faction boss): Well, I guess the public interest test will be how on earth does the public interest be served by having further consolidation in the media industry. Jones: So this is isn't this one of the . . . Barnaby Joyce: It's the vibe. Jones: You call for a public interest test but can't explain it Feeney: Well, it's not something that I am able to take you through in verse and song but it is . . . Joyce: Can anybody?. . . But we've got this funny feeling that once this person arrives that the public interest will be very closely aligned to views of Senator Conroy. By the way, note this exchange on Q&A: TONY JONES: Viv, can I just ask you, as a young activist because there has been some claims in the media by opinion makers, by people who are writing columns and so on, that young activists are not engaged in this free speech debate with the same passion that they would have been engaged in internet free speech debate, for example? VIV BENJAMIN (CEO of the Oaktree Foundation): That's because we're not watching the mainstream media. We are on the internet. That's where we get our media from. We're on social media, we're online, we're making our own news. TONY JONES: But I've got to tell you this regulator we are talking about regulates both the internet and the newspapers.