Yes, the meanings can be different.
That's the sort of problem you run in to when you believe that talking about 330 in every 100 even makes sense.
And yet the very reason name/address data has traditionally been collected is to ensure compliance. As has been noted below, the ABS explains that one of the main reasons of collect names remains "to ensure the Census covers the entire population" and one of the main reasons to collect addresses remains "to ensure that no household is missed in the Census." How would a fake address satisfy them that your household has complied?
I also pointed out elsewhere "given the census number was delivered (paired) to a specified address a ensuring there is no mismatch between the delivery address and the supplied address should be a routine error check
As donaldm (despite confused in his response to me) put it below: "When you get the ABS letter for your address it has a unique number on it which makes it incredibly easy to know which address that number is from. So putting in a bogus address is sure to raise a huge red flag and a please explain from the Government."
Similarly with fake names: when your census id is paired with a household of people who simply don't exist in any other data source (albeit that these connections are to be established via anonymised links however that is supposed to work)... it might raise a few suspicions, no?
Perhaps not so much with a fake name, but surely a fake address should raise that red flag.
How does this establish the contention that "you are far less likely to be caught [if you enter fake names] than should you leave them blank"?
The link you provided also states that the AGS and Bureau disagrees with his conclusion, I would not put faith in what a statistician says on legal matters over what the lawyers are saying.
I agree. That is why I wrote "there is an argument." Moreover the argument, to wit, that a name is not 'statistical information' for the purposes of ss8,9 & 12 of the Act (if I understand Mr McLennan) is not hopeless IMO. Which is far from saying it would prevail.
Either way still far better off with wrong details as that is far harder to spot than blanks
For questions apart form name (and possibly address) that may well be the case. With the name/address fields different considerations apply. Not that there's much use crying over spilt milk, but for those of us who participated in last night's DDoS
Firstly if McLennan is correct (see my other post to you) there is no liability at all for failing to disclose 'name.' So you might be infinitely worse off putting a false name (yes I know it's not actually infinite but undefined). I say 'might' because the most obvious line of defence would be that lacking the power to collect names compulsorily false name information should not be not covered under s15. Worth a shot anyway.
Moreover the name/address information was traditionally used to check compliance. Given the census number was delivered (paired) to a specified address a ensuring there is no mismatch between the delivery address and the supplied address should be a routine error check
Seems $1000 was for last census, this one is $1800
I think in 2013 a penalty unit went from being $110 to $170. I was surprised that it is now $180 (not surprised it's gone up, surprised that it has gone up only by $10).
you are far less likely to be caught [if you enter fake names] than should you leave them blank
The fine for false data is $1000, So getting caught with fake data is actually cheaper than not providing it.
The maximum penalty for providing false or misleading information is 10 penalty units ($1800) (see s15 Census and Statistics Act 1905 (Cth)) The serious offences (see s19), with a maximum penalty of "120 penalty units ($21600) or imprisonment for 2 years, or both" is for an ABS officer divulging census information.
I'm saying that in most places, you wouldn't be held equally responsible for a murder just because you gave someone a gun and thought they would do it.
At common law being an accessory before the fact carried the same liability as being a principal. As you envisage, legislative changes to the common law position vary and in some jurisdictions being an accessory before the fact to murder may carry a lower potential sentence. Now I would have thought that in most places the accessory is still subject to equal liability as the principal (which is not to say that they will receive the same treatment at sentencing). This is, of course, an empirical question which we will not answer by conjecture.
You missed the part where I wrote "absent any contractual obligations." In any case that is not a right to free speech, inherited or otherwise, but a right of speech bounded by the terms and conditions of the putative contract.
I don't know since I've never bothered to read Twitter's terms of service or their ads.
Since Twitter acted, no doubt on legal advice better than we here could confabulate, and since Mr Yiannopoulos failed to sue --in a context where given the least possibility of success one would expect him to --we can probably save our time and continue not to bother to read the terms.
The operative law is "congress shall make no law
No, the operative law is the interpretation courts have given to those words, which very clearly deviate from any obvious (even learned judicial obvious) reading of the constitutional text (note for example defamation law post NYT v Sullivan).
Persons are not mentioned.
Obviously not, it's implicit. Without legal personality you can't approach a court for it even to consider those words. This after all is half the motivation (the other half being limited liability) of conjuring the corporate form into being: to bestow upon a company the right to litigate.
Also by writing that you are arguing, if anything, against corporate free speech rights. Remember corporations are persons too!
Worse still, IMO, you would be arguing that dogs have free speech rights. Next thing some Animal Rights Activists will come along with a case overturning some municipal restriction on barking dogs
The reason I wrote that speaking of human rights is "misleading" is because we tend to think of freedom of speech as a human right, when in fact it may, in particular jurisdictions, be a right corporate persons enjoy as well. Indeed your argument is that it should be. And perhaps, on one view, freedom of speech is not a specifically human right in the US (again sorry, I'm a non-US lawyer so I can't be certain). However, surely the words following those you quoted, to wit, "... or of the press" restrain the legislature at the very least with regard to the "speech" of media companies acting in that capacity. Thus, on an alternative view, we might construe 'freedom of speech' as a human right, and 'freedom of the press' as a right pertaining to persons generally.
Twitter is a corporation. People on Slashdot keep telling me corporations aren't people and don't have any rights
Allow me to explain
People qua people don't have rights.* People have rights as persons (and people who are not persons are called 'slaves'). Corporations are persons (which is one of the two characteristics which makes them corporations as opposed to mere companies). Ergo corporations have rights. Most notably the right to enter into contracts and have those contracts enforced. Corporations are corporate persons not natural persons. Therefore those rights which pertain specifically to natural persons (we might call them human rights, but that could be a bit misleading) cannot be claimed by corporations. But none of this is particularly germane to the point at hand.
If corporations don't have rights because corporations aren't people, then Milo's rights to free speech and due process should be respected because Milo is a person and Twitter isn't.
Non sequitur. Even if it were the case that one party had a specific right, and another did not, this argument is questionable. However in the present case
While I'm not a US lawyer, my understanding is that Milo has no right to free speech at large, but only a right to stop government from impinging upon his "freedom" of speech. Corporations are private persons not government (though one might be forgiven for failing to apprehend the difference these days).
Now given that corporations do exercise so large an impact on public expression, of which this is a case in point, and given that corporations do not exist in nature but are creatures of the legislature, an argument could certainly be made that safeguards inhibiting the arbitrary exercise of power to shut down speech might be imposed on corporations. However (and absent any contractual obligations), unless the rights of corporations involved in publication, are legislatively constrained to the extent that they lack the right to determine whom they should and should not publish, there can be no right for Milo to prevail against Twitter. It's a business decision.
[*I'm using 'right' in a legal positivist sense, i.e. that which you can get enforced in your favour in a court of law]
Reductio ad Hitlerum, a fallacious argument. Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are fascists.
Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are fascists is an invalid argument (notwithstanding the facts), but it is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. And what should we call the fallacy that any argument that contains the string 'hitler' is thereby invalid?
Your claim "that complaining about a free and fair election and trying to overthrow the legitimate government with armed force" is given the lie by the observation that Hitler --and more pertinently Mussolini --came to power in free and fair elections and headed the legitimate governments of their country until they were overthrown by force. It is neither the fact of being democratically elected (or not), nor the fact of being overthrown by force (successfully or not), which defines 'fascism.' Stop digging deeper!
Note, I'm not arguing that Erdogan is literally a fascist (strictly speaking he is not); But his behaviour, especially post-coup, sure make him look a lot more like a fascist than the men with "uniforms, tanks [&] guns," who landed on Omaha Beach with the aim of overthrowing the government of Germany. (Or the mutinous faction of the Turkish army for that matter.)
I lied, almost done here.
Sorry gender dysphoria, despite your apparent obsession with it, is only tangentially relevant here.
"The identical is equal to itself, since it is different." -- Franco Spisani