Wait, what?! Mick Masnick at Techdirt has the details. To be clear, what the law requires is any commentary to bear positive identification with their remarks. If your head isn’t spinning on this one, it should be. Of all forms of speech, political discourse has the richest tradition of anonymous interwoven with free speech. The bill’s author is clearly unaware of this tradition, Mike quotes a naive statement from Michael Atkinson that clearly demonstrates his lack of clue about the importance of anonymity as a protection from political censure and reprisal.
As Mike continues to explain, Atkinson has a history of bone headed political maneuvers. There may be more of an agenda, here, though. In this case, he may be targeting speech specifically critical of him with this law. This reeks of a pending constitutional challenge to me, if ever a law was deserving of one. Australia has some sort of constitutional court, right?