What an awful headline for this story. She’s a journalist and presenter on the Australian show WTFAQ. As an investigation for the show she decided to put the restrictions on baby names to the test. Based on the rules she expected the name to be rejected, but it was permitted and a birth certificate was issued. In her journalist capacity she contacted the department of births, deaths and marriages and got a statement from them and they agreed that the issue was an oversight, and they offered to change the name. So in reality the exact opposite to “promoting government response” occurred.
What an awful headline for this story. She’s a journalist and presenter on the Australian show WTFAQ. As an investigation for the show she decided to put the restrictions on baby names to the test. Based on the rules she expected the name to be rejected, but it was permitted and a birth certificate was issued. In her journalist capacity she contacted the department of births, deaths and marriages and got a statement from them and they agreed that the issue was an oversight, and they offered to change the name. So in reality the exact opposite to “promoting government response” occurred.
Damn, that’s some serious click-baiting. Appreciate the breakdown.