12 ms·

Australia’s surprising disregard for free speech

230 points by mastazi 7y ago

andrewstuart 7y ago
I don't think there's any legal basis for the idea of free speech in Australia.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- twelvechairs 7y ago
  Yes there is though it's not in the constitution directly its been inferred by the high court https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Human-rights-scrutiny/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Righttofreedomofopinionandexpression.aspx https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Human...
  - cormacrelf 7y ago
    It would be almost misleading not to mention that the implied freedom of political communication is very limited and doesn't have even close to the depth and breadth of jurisprudence that 1st Amendment arguments have in the US. The argument at its most extreme that various unauthorised disclosure criminal provisions could be invalid for IFPC reasons is outlined here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0067205X1804600301 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0067205X1804600... (Or as a blog post if you don't have access: https://auspublaw.org/2016/04/public-sector-whistleblowing/ https://auspublaw.org/2016/04/public-sector-whistleblowing/) But it's shaky at best. Who is to say that the nature of Special Intelligence Operations and the restrictions on their existence don't justify having no public interest exceptions to disclosures about them, for example? The paper makes this point accidentally (via a Wotton v Queensland analogy, at 362). I just don't see the current applications as being strong enough, especially where the legitimate object of the legislation is national security.
  - cyphar 7y ago
    There isn't. The High Court's decision on political freedom of speech is ridiculously limited in scope and doesn't apply to the vast majority of actions most Aussies would call "free speech". I also want to point out just how much the High Court has been forced to stretch the wording of the constitution in order to grant rights which are "obviously present" in our society: * The amount of decisions which had a basis on "on just terms" had such a massive effect that almost every piece of legislation drafted in the past 50 years has a special provision saying that it should not be interpreted to violate the "on just terms" section of the constitution. * The freedom of political speech comes from the High Court's reading of the preamble of the constitution, and the fact that it mentions Australia as being a representative democracy. They then ruled that in order for a representative democracy to exist you must have freedom of political speech. We're very lucky that our High Court is ruling in favour of the public's freedom rather than against it, because some people might see that as reason to question the legitimacy of the High Court (which would end very badly).
- cylinder 7y ago
  There's an implied freedom of political speech. The rest can be regulated by law. By the way the way Americans view the constitution as some sort of divinely bestowed natural law document is highly unusual. For example the Australian constitution is literally an act of Parliament.
  - SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
    This comment looks like it got voted down, probably because the tone sounds a little patronising to what it characterises as the American view. But nothing it says is to my knowledge inaccurate or even a twisting of facts. The constitution of America is explicitly stated to be a statement of natural law. This view is highly unusual. The Australian constitution IS literally an act of parliament to my understanding. Freedom of speech IS only intimated by the courts and is not explicitly stated in any part of the Australian constitution.
    - sonnyblarney 7y ago
      "The constitution of America is explicitly stated to be a statement of natural law. This view is highly unusual." It's not highly unusual, see my comment below: it's normative. As for 'natural law' - well, the Canadian constitution essentially indicates that our rights are bestowed by the 'Supremacy of God' [1] which is kind of like 'natural law'. [1] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-39 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-39
      - SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
        Your comment below doesn't demonstrate that constitutions being considered statements of natural law is normative at all. Constitutions far outdate the very concept of natural law, and your comment doesn't contain any evidence that this has become the norm in modern times. I dunno if I accept that the Canadian constitution does or not, it doesn't matter, one other country would not tip the balance.
        7y ago
threeseed 7y ago
Free speech is a very different subject than the rights of journalists. Australians by and large don't want American style, unfettered free speech. And are quite happy with "say whatever you want so long as you don't libel or slander someone or some group of people" approach. It's what keeps our very multicultural society together. What happened with the recent investigation of journalists is about the Australian government's right to see the drafts and sources for articles that involve investigating national security matters. And in general harass and intimidate journalists to discourage such articles in the future. You can fix the second problem by enshrining the rights of journalists in legislation without having to make it a freedom of speech issue.
- howiroll 7y ago
  Yeah, let’s let the government decide whether a speech is a libel or slander. It’s still a freedom of speech, isn’t it?
- wolco 7y ago
  Without freedom of speech you lose freedom of thought. Unkniwn journalists will be affected by removing press credentials.
  - emn13 7y ago
    That sounds like a slogan, not something founded in reason. No country has freedom of speech; it is heavily regulated... everywhere. The world hasn't collapsed yet. How it's regulated probably matters; granted! But let's not get too apocalyptic about the issue. Not every regulation will turn everyone into mindless drones overnight. And for the flipside: speech is only worth protecting because it's powerful; it's influential. You can insert the cheesy line about power and responsibility yourself... It's a natural and good use of regulation to turn consequences for others into consequences (both good and bad!) for the person triggering them. Communication is not, and should not be, an exception.
    - tus87 7y ago
      And one day a right wing government will shut down left wing speech they call "hate speech" or "harmful" and your "reason" will take flight to the winds.
howiroll 7y ago
Ooh, it’s a wonderland for free speech haters in the US. They should move there.
ThrowXAwaux 7y ago
The United States drone-killed Anwar al Awlaki, an American citizen, because of his speech. I don't disagree with that action, but it does illustrate that there are limits, even in the United States, despite claims to the contrary.
- sambal 7y ago
  There are no claims to the contrary in this thread, or this article.
  - ThrowXAwaux 7y ago
    Unfortunately, people, particularly those who subscribe to a certain ideology that is (was?) popular in tech circles do tend to lecture others about free speech, using the United States as a gold standard.
- alacombe 7y ago
  important omission: "under a democrat administration".
- looeee 7y ago
  > even in the United States The United States has become an oligarchy over the last few decades. It's basically the worst Western country that you could use as an example of freedom right now.
- sampo 7y ago
  > The United States drone-killed Anwar al Awlaki, an American citizen, because of his speech. Did Hitler ever do anything else than talk, talk and talk. And write. And the allies sure tried to kill him, too.
  - tluyben2 7y ago
    Hilter was not targetted for his (bad) writing or speeches; he gave commands to his troops via his henchmen; that is not free speech.
- 7y ago
suspectdoubloon 7y ago
I have once concern with this article. The ABC isn't a state broadcaster its a public broadcaster.
- kube-system 7y ago
  Edit: nevermind, it seems that “state broadcaster” implies more than I thought.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    State broadcaster implies the state controls the content, in particular has editorial control, over the content, and that's not the case with ABC. The wikipedia page says this, which highlights that ABC isn't a state broadcaster. > but is expressly independent of government
  - te_chris 7y ago
    A state broadcaster implies state control. Public broadcasters such as PBS, BBC, ABC, RNZ, CBC, RTE etc are state owned but independently run
kchoudhu 7y ago
Australia is usually a canary in the coal mine for the effectiveness of resistance to repressive speech laws in the Five-Eyes countries. The Spycatcher affair in the late 80s is the first one I can remember, although I am sure there are other, earlier instances that the commentariat can point to.
- Creationer 7y ago
  Teens watch Youtube more than TV. Youtube has been far more censorious and disregarding of Free Speech than anything the Australian Government has done.
  - x3ro 7y ago
    Are you suggesting that having your video taken down from YouTube and going to jail are equally problematic?
    - Creationer 7y ago
      If journalists are going to jail in Australia its because they have broken the law. At least you can vote for politicians with a different approach. Channels (conservative ones) are banned and disappeared on Youtube for holding the wrong opinions, in violation of no laws, and there is no recourse.
      - brokenmachine 7y ago
        People are free to use any video sharing website they want, or even set up their own, but it is significantly more difficult to change your country.
  - codedokode 7y ago
    At Youtube you can at least upload your video. Try uploading your video on TV. TV is much more easier to control and censor.
    - 7y ago
tus87 7y ago
Before you try and understand this, first understand the extremist left wing media has been howling FOR free speech restrictions for individuals, especially around race/religion related matters. This has already led to human rights abuses like what happened with the students at QUT. The media is as power hungry as politians and would love a world in which only they may talk. This sort of tyranny is why the US made free speech it's first right. They recognize the first step of any power hungry tyrant who are inevitably born by society will be to shut down the expression of others.
mehdix 7y ago
Not directly related but here is my story. Some years ago I was still a student in Iran. I was watching a satellite tv show as an Australian military officer appeared on screen and looked into our eyes and in an intimidating way told in Persian "Australia will not be your homeland" apparently to discourage seeking asylum there. Fast forward years ahead. Every year I keep hearing more bad news from them. Australia's treatment of asylum seekers in Manus Island (as if this huge land isn't made of migrants in the first place), attack on cryptography, war on whistleblowers, wierd announcements as part of five eyes alliance, and etc. Somehow those moves all point toward a dystopian mindset.
- sjy 7y ago
  Thank you for sharing your story. It is important that Australians understand the way the messages our government sends to the outside world are perceived by the people targeted by them.
- equdi 7y ago
  Your message seems to say that countries must accept immigrants/refugees left and right otherwise they are some kind of dystopian nightmare. I disagree and I think disagreeing with that is a completely normal political stance. A country owes itself to its citizens--nothing more, nothing less.
  - codedokode 7y ago
    I think the problem is with the attitude. It would be better to quote a law or give a neutral comment, instead of this looking down style. Furthermore, it is not nice that they show this ads in one country and ads to attract tourists in other countries.
  - brokenmachine 7y ago
    As an Australian our treatment of (some) immigrants is a national disgrace. I would like it if our government gave more consideration to legitimate refugees instead of the completely selfish attitude that you describe. Rich immigrants coming by plane are welcomed in massive numbers, while the tiny numbers of poor refugees forced to risk their lives on boats are used as some kind of political pawns/dog whistle for racists and held in secret concentration camps in my name. It's disgusting. Also our laws are already a dystopian nightmare. Look at the AABill that was introduced recently.
fmajid 7y ago
The Australian TV series "Secret City" (available on Netflix) and featuring a plot on gross abuse of power by the security establishment, is looking increasingly like a documentary.
xfitm3 7y ago
Australia and New Zealand are ground zero for chinese influence: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/627249909/australia-and-new-zealand-are-ground-zero-for-chinese-influence https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/627249909/australia-and-new-z...
- cdmckay 7y ago
  So why exactly would the Chinese care if it was revealed that Australian soldiers were committing atrocities? It’s unclear what your connection is here.
  - xfitm3 7y ago
    We're discussing free speech and journalism, not the specifics of the soldiers actions.
smartbit 7y ago
https://outline.com/H7dDuF https://outline.com/H7dDuF
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
cletus 7y ago
Speaking as an Australian I'd put the key difference between Australians and Americans this way: Americans feel like every surface is a slippery slope. Australians don't. It's why Americans (many anyway) resist even toothless firearm regulations, for example. "If they take away our bump stocks then before you know it they'll take all our guns and we'll have no defense against the tyranny of government!" While I certainly don't support raiding the ABC, for example (as opposed to News Corp, which needs to burn to the ground followed by exiling every Murdoch on Earth to Tristan da Cunha), an important question to ask--which I haven't seen the answer to--is did the AFP obtain the source of the leak from the raids or not? If no then things are pretty complicated, for David McBride at least. He himself wasn't (and isn't) a journalist. He did obtain classified material in his capacity as a lawyer for the Defense Department, which is a bit of a double-whammy. Even if you can get passed the classified part, having your lawyer make unauthorized disclosures of professional work product (essentially) is a problem. Even in America this would be a problem. It was certainly a problem for Chelsea Manning.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  Is there anything more stereotypical than an Australian lecturing Americans on the slippery slope of gun control? Preface... In Australia 1997 there was a gun confiscation (buy back if you wanna call it that, but be honest) on any gun deemed suitable for defense. It coincided with an almost double number of police per capita. Crime fell! Unfortunately for that argument crime fell by a greater rate in the USA over the same time period, no gun ban, no major increase in police per capita. We talk about the slippery slope being real, because we have so many examples of it being so: - Capacity of magazines... No magazine limits country-wide, then in areas... 100 round drums banned, large capacity firearms regulated as destructive devices, a brief period where they tried to say “no larger than what the gun was designed for”, 30 round magazine limits, 15 in New Jersey in Colorado now, 10 in ban states like California Maryland Connecticut, New York went 7 with the mostly failed SAFE ACT, Canada has 3 and 5 on rifles depending on situation and I’ve already heard that come up in interviews in the USA. There is no number ever safe enough to satisfy people who argue for disarmament. Goal has always been to the define an arbitrary number and re-define it later. It’s the very system of getting you to accept an arbitrary number in the first place. - Want to go again? The SKS rifle, a Soviet precursor to the AK-47... no restrictions in the USA, after an SKS is illegally converted to full auto and used in a shootout with police in California… CA decides this gun is unusually dangerous (it’s not), state wide sales of SKS rifle’s are halted, a registration program is instituted, despite assurances grandfathering will remain allowed, not long later that registry is used to door to door confiscate those rifles. Something the felt comfortable doing because of the small number of registered owners. A single crime with and illegally converted gun directly led to the confiscation of a rifle that is typically less dangerous than common alternatives. - You gave the example for bump stock ban. Ok, The 1934 National Firearms Act defines that a machine gun is a firearm that fires two or more bullets for every one press of the trigger pull. Bump stocks do not fall under this category in any way, the trigger must be activated multiple times for multiple shots. The ATF approves a product called the Atkins Accelerator; think of it as a bump stock with a spring for 22 rifle, later after approval the ATF decides because it’s spring operated it is a machine gun, they ask for registration, use the registration for confiscation (as is always the plan) - but not of the stock! Only the spring in it. Many years later bump stocks become popular the ATF examines and okays them because it meets no definition machine gun, has no spring for automated actuation, and does nothing an experienced shooter can’t do without the help of that stock. And here we are again, now the ATF has decided that despite no bump stocks being used in crimes, no spring, and despite previous approval, they are now illegal. With no registration there has been no confiscation. Last I heard the number willingly turned in is in the low hundreds, with of hundreds of thousands sold. Possession of a previously legal plastic injection molding, with no change in law, only opinion, has now made you a felon. - More examples would include ammo shape and metal contents under the entirely arbitrary guise of “armor piercing”, the NFA itself, import restrictions, ITAR continually evolving, the “approved handgun lists” that states have adopted but intentionally failed to maintain, etc Might have better luck arguing that the slippery slope regarding guns isn’t real, if we didn’t have so many examples of it being so. Edit: All historical facts.
Bizarro 7y ago
Australia used to have a very good record on individual rights, but in the past 20 years has headed towards authoritarianism. I guess PC/Statist/Collectivist culture has infested Australia too.
rstuart4133 7y ago
As others have said it's not really about free speech. What a citizen is allowed to say in public isn't effected by this. It's not anything particularly new either. Governments have always been pissed off by civil servants leaking things, and there have always been vindictive who rather than find the disgruntled employee and fire them, will lash out in the worst possible way and create more disgruntled employees. What's changed is technology. Before someone had to tap explicit telephone's, someone had to listen to them. The journo's are just waking up to the fact that when the Australian government gave themselves the power to force the telco's to record the "meta data" about every phone call and web access and store it for two years, and granted themselves unlimited warrantless access to said data keeping your sources from the government became a little more difficult. Not a whole pile more difficult mind you - but you suddenly had to be computer savy. You had to know to use a mail provider out of Australia's jurisdiction. You had to use encrypted communications whose end points didn't reveal who you were talking to. It not complicated, and nothing that Wikileaks hasn't been doing for years, but it's definitely new. Then we moved onto stage 2 - the Access and Assistance bill, in which the government gave themselves the power to force Microsoft / Google / Apple's / Facebooks of this world to silently install bugs on your phone / computer / tv. The raids being discussed by the article were covered by a warrant that specifically allowed them to delete and change data on the targets computers, which is decidedly weird when you think about it. [0] Surely they aren't planning to present data in court when there is a possibility they planted or modified it? Obviously that wasn't the intention. However replacing keyboard drivers and the like with something that does log data does require you to modify & delete data - so my guess is they were covering their arses. These seems to be little doubt they were planting bugs. Avoiding the seeing eyes implanted by Assistance and Access bill is a damned sight harder than avoiding meta data collection. Again, not impossible - but now you have to avoid software that knows who you are. Software that is dispensed from centralised app stores that insist on identifying you and your device first is a definite no-go. Android is out, Apple is out, Microsoft is out. In fact most of the computing infrastructure they are comfortable with is out. Linux distributions are OK and open source communication apps like Signal are OK - but only those that have thought about and implemented evil maid protections. It's all doable, and it's all cheap and once you do it you are even safer then you were pre Assistance and Access bill. But geeze you have to be really tech savy to get it right, and right now they are just waking up to the fact their lives and sources are an have been open book because they didn't do it. As an aside, if this is the first time we've seen the Assistance and Access bill in action, it's poignant to note despite all the rhetoric of it being needed to keep Australian's safe from terrorists and paedophiles, it was in fact first use by the government against it's own citizens - public servants and journo's in this case. [0] https://twitter.com/TheLyonsDen/status/1136126140882440193 https://twitter.com/TheLyonsDen/status/1136126140882440193

230 points by mastazi 7y ago

andrewstuart 7y ago

I don't think there's any legal basis for the idea of free speech in Australia.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
twelvechairs 7y ago
Yes there is though it's not in the constitution directly its been inferred by the high court https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Human-rights-scrutiny/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Righttofreedomofopinionandexpression.aspx https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Human...
- cormacrelf 7y ago
  It would be almost misleading not to mention that the implied freedom of political communication is very limited and doesn't have even close to the depth and breadth of jurisprudence that 1st Amendment arguments have in the US. The argument at its most extreme that various unauthorised disclosure criminal provisions could be invalid for IFPC reasons is outlined here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0067205X1804600301 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0067205X1804600... (Or as a blog post if you don't have access: https://auspublaw.org/2016/04/public-sector-whistleblowing/ https://auspublaw.org/2016/04/public-sector-whistleblowing/) But it's shaky at best. Who is to say that the nature of Special Intelligence Operations and the restrictions on their existence don't justify having no public interest exceptions to disclosures about them, for example? The paper makes this point accidentally (via a Wotton v Queensland analogy, at 362). I just don't see the current applications as being strong enough, especially where the legitimate object of the legislation is national security.
- cyphar 7y ago
  There isn't. The High Court's decision on political freedom of speech is ridiculously limited in scope and doesn't apply to the vast majority of actions most Aussies would call "free speech". I also want to point out just how much the High Court has been forced to stretch the wording of the constitution in order to grant rights which are "obviously present" in our society: * The amount of decisions which had a basis on "on just terms" had such a massive effect that almost every piece of legislation drafted in the past 50 years has a special provision saying that it should not be interpreted to violate the "on just terms" section of the constitution. * The freedom of political speech comes from the High Court's reading of the preamble of the constitution, and the fact that it mentions Australia as being a representative democracy. They then ruled that in order for a representative democracy to exist you must have freedom of political speech. We're very lucky that our High Court is ruling in favour of the public's freedom rather than against it, because some people might see that as reason to question the legitimacy of the High Court (which would end very badly).
cylinder 7y ago
There's an implied freedom of political speech. The rest can be regulated by law. By the way the way Americans view the constitution as some sort of divinely bestowed natural law document is highly unusual. For example the Australian constitution is literally an act of Parliament.
- SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
  This comment looks like it got voted down, probably because the tone sounds a little patronising to what it characterises as the American view. But nothing it says is to my knowledge inaccurate or even a twisting of facts. The constitution of America is explicitly stated to be a statement of natural law. This view is highly unusual. The Australian constitution IS literally an act of parliament to my understanding. Freedom of speech IS only intimated by the courts and is not explicitly stated in any part of the Australian constitution.
  - sonnyblarney 7y ago
    "The constitution of America is explicitly stated to be a statement of natural law. This view is highly unusual." It's not highly unusual, see my comment below: it's normative. As for 'natural law' - well, the Canadian constitution essentially indicates that our rights are bestowed by the 'Supremacy of God' [1] which is kind of like 'natural law'. [1] https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-39 https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-39
    - SuperNinKenDo 7y ago
      Your comment below doesn't demonstrate that constitutions being considered statements of natural law is normative at all. Constitutions far outdate the very concept of natural law, and your comment doesn't contain any evidence that this has become the norm in modern times. I dunno if I accept that the Canadian constitution does or not, it doesn't matter, one other country would not tip the balance.
      - 7y ago

threeseed 7y ago

Free speech is a very different subject than the rights of journalists. Australians by and large don't want American style, unfettered free speech. And are quite happy with "say whatever you want so long as you don't libel or slander someone or some group of people" approach. It's what keeps our very multicultural society together. What happened with the recent investigation of journalists is about the Australian government's right to see the drafts and sources for articles that involve investigating national security matters. And in general harass and intimidate journalists to discourage such articles in the future. You can fix the second problem by enshrining the rights of journalists in legislation without having to make it a freedom of speech issue.

howiroll 7y ago
Yeah, let’s let the government decide whether a speech is a libel or slander. It’s still a freedom of speech, isn’t it?
wolco 7y ago
Without freedom of speech you lose freedom of thought. Unkniwn journalists will be affected by removing press credentials.
- emn13 7y ago
  That sounds like a slogan, not something founded in reason. No country has freedom of speech; it is heavily regulated... everywhere. The world hasn't collapsed yet. How it's regulated probably matters; granted! But let's not get too apocalyptic about the issue. Not every regulation will turn everyone into mindless drones overnight. And for the flipside: speech is only worth protecting because it's powerful; it's influential. You can insert the cheesy line about power and responsibility yourself... It's a natural and good use of regulation to turn consequences for others into consequences (both good and bad!) for the person triggering them. Communication is not, and should not be, an exception.
  - tus87 7y ago
    And one day a right wing government will shut down left wing speech they call "hate speech" or "harmful" and your "reason" will take flight to the winds.

howiroll 7y ago

Ooh, it’s a wonderland for free speech haters in the US. They should move there.

ThrowXAwaux 7y ago

The United States drone-killed Anwar al Awlaki, an American citizen, because of his speech. I don't disagree with that action, but it does illustrate that there are limits, even in the United States, despite claims to the contrary.

sambal 7y ago
There are no claims to the contrary in this thread, or this article.
- ThrowXAwaux 7y ago
  Unfortunately, people, particularly those who subscribe to a certain ideology that is (was?) popular in tech circles do tend to lecture others about free speech, using the United States as a gold standard.
alacombe 7y ago
important omission: "under a democrat administration".
looeee 7y ago
> even in the United States The United States has become an oligarchy over the last few decades. It's basically the worst Western country that you could use as an example of freedom right now.
sampo 7y ago
> The United States drone-killed Anwar al Awlaki, an American citizen, because of his speech. Did Hitler ever do anything else than talk, talk and talk. And write. And the allies sure tried to kill him, too.
- tluyben2 7y ago
  Hilter was not targetted for his (bad) writing or speeches; he gave commands to his troops via his henchmen; that is not free speech.
7y ago

suspectdoubloon 7y ago

I have once concern with this article. The ABC isn't a state broadcaster its a public broadcaster.

kube-system 7y ago
Edit: nevermind, it seems that “state broadcaster” implies more than I thought.
- DanBC 7y ago
  State broadcaster implies the state controls the content, in particular has editorial control, over the content, and that's not the case with ABC. The wikipedia page says this, which highlights that ABC isn't a state broadcaster. > but is expressly independent of government
- te_chris 7y ago
  A state broadcaster implies state control. Public broadcasters such as PBS, BBC, ABC, RNZ, CBC, RTE etc are state owned but independently run

kchoudhu 7y ago

Australia is usually a canary in the coal mine for the effectiveness of resistance to repressive speech laws in the Five-Eyes countries. The Spycatcher affair in the late 80s is the first one I can remember, although I am sure there are other, earlier instances that the commentariat can point to.

Creationer 7y ago
Teens watch Youtube more than TV. Youtube has been far more censorious and disregarding of Free Speech than anything the Australian Government has done.
- x3ro 7y ago
  Are you suggesting that having your video taken down from YouTube and going to jail are equally problematic?
  - Creationer 7y ago
    If journalists are going to jail in Australia its because they have broken the law. At least you can vote for politicians with a different approach. Channels (conservative ones) are banned and disappeared on Youtube for holding the wrong opinions, in violation of no laws, and there is no recourse.
    - brokenmachine 7y ago
      People are free to use any video sharing website they want, or even set up their own, but it is significantly more difficult to change your country.
- codedokode 7y ago
  At Youtube you can at least upload your video. Try uploading your video on TV. TV is much more easier to control and censor.
  - 7y ago

tus87 7y ago

Before you try and understand this, first understand the extremist left wing media has been howling FOR free speech restrictions for individuals, especially around race/religion related matters. This has already led to human rights abuses like what happened with the students at QUT. The media is as power hungry as politians and would love a world in which only they may talk. This sort of tyranny is why the US made free speech it's first right. They recognize the first step of any power hungry tyrant who are inevitably born by society will be to shut down the expression of others.

mehdix 7y ago

Not directly related but here is my story. Some years ago I was still a student in Iran. I was watching a satellite tv show as an Australian military officer appeared on screen and looked into our eyes and in an intimidating way told in Persian "Australia will not be your homeland" apparently to discourage seeking asylum there. Fast forward years ahead. Every year I keep hearing more bad news from them. Australia's treatment of asylum seekers in Manus Island (as if this huge land isn't made of migrants in the first place), attack on cryptography, war on whistleblowers, wierd announcements as part of five eyes alliance, and etc. Somehow those moves all point toward a dystopian mindset.

sjy 7y ago
Thank you for sharing your story. It is important that Australians understand the way the messages our government sends to the outside world are perceived by the people targeted by them.
equdi 7y ago
Your message seems to say that countries must accept immigrants/refugees left and right otherwise they are some kind of dystopian nightmare. I disagree and I think disagreeing with that is a completely normal political stance. A country owes itself to its citizens--nothing more, nothing less.
- codedokode 7y ago
  I think the problem is with the attitude. It would be better to quote a law or give a neutral comment, instead of this looking down style. Furthermore, it is not nice that they show this ads in one country and ads to attract tourists in other countries.
- brokenmachine 7y ago
  As an Australian our treatment of (some) immigrants is a national disgrace. I would like it if our government gave more consideration to legitimate refugees instead of the completely selfish attitude that you describe. Rich immigrants coming by plane are welcomed in massive numbers, while the tiny numbers of poor refugees forced to risk their lives on boats are used as some kind of political pawns/dog whistle for racists and held in secret concentration camps in my name. It's disgusting. Also our laws are already a dystopian nightmare. Look at the AABill that was introduced recently.

fmajid 7y ago

The Australian TV series "Secret City" (available on Netflix) and featuring a plot on gross abuse of power by the security establishment, is looking increasingly like a documentary.

xfitm3 7y ago

Australia and New Zealand are ground zero for chinese influence: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/627249909/australia-and-new-zealand-are-ground-zero-for-chinese-influence https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/627249909/australia-and-new-z...

cdmckay 7y ago
So why exactly would the Chinese care if it was revealed that Australian soldiers were committing atrocities? It’s unclear what your connection is here.
- xfitm3 7y ago
  We're discussing free speech and journalism, not the specifics of the soldiers actions.

smartbit 7y ago

https://outline.com/H7dDuF https://outline.com/H7dDuF

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

cletus 7y ago

Speaking as an Australian I'd put the key difference between Australians and Americans this way: Americans feel like every surface is a slippery slope. Australians don't. It's why Americans (many anyway) resist even toothless firearm regulations, for example. "If they take away our bump stocks then before you know it they'll take all our guns and we'll have no defense against the tyranny of government!" While I certainly don't support raiding the ABC, for example (as opposed to News Corp, which needs to burn to the ground followed by exiling every Murdoch on Earth to Tristan da Cunha), an important question to ask--which I haven't seen the answer to--is did the AFP obtain the source of the leak from the raids or not? If no then things are pretty complicated, for David McBride at least. He himself wasn't (and isn't) a journalist. He did obtain classified material in his capacity as a lawyer for the Defense Department, which is a bit of a double-whammy. Even if you can get passed the classified part, having your lawyer make unauthorized disclosures of professional work product (essentially) is a problem. Even in America this would be a problem. It was certainly a problem for Chelsea Manning.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
Is there anything more stereotypical than an Australian lecturing Americans on the slippery slope of gun control? Preface... In Australia 1997 there was a gun confiscation (buy back if you wanna call it that, but be honest) on any gun deemed suitable for defense. It coincided with an almost double number of police per capita. Crime fell! Unfortunately for that argument crime fell by a greater rate in the USA over the same time period, no gun ban, no major increase in police per capita. We talk about the slippery slope being real, because we have so many examples of it being so: - Capacity of magazines... No magazine limits country-wide, then in areas... 100 round drums banned, large capacity firearms regulated as destructive devices, a brief period where they tried to say “no larger than what the gun was designed for”, 30 round magazine limits, 15 in New Jersey in Colorado now, 10 in ban states like California Maryland Connecticut, New York went 7 with the mostly failed SAFE ACT, Canada has 3 and 5 on rifles depending on situation and I’ve already heard that come up in interviews in the USA. There is no number ever safe enough to satisfy people who argue for disarmament. Goal has always been to the define an arbitrary number and re-define it later. It’s the very system of getting you to accept an arbitrary number in the first place. - Want to go again? The SKS rifle, a Soviet precursor to the AK-47... no restrictions in the USA, after an SKS is illegally converted to full auto and used in a shootout with police in California… CA decides this gun is unusually dangerous (it’s not), state wide sales of SKS rifle’s are halted, a registration program is instituted, despite assurances grandfathering will remain allowed, not long later that registry is used to door to door confiscate those rifles. Something the felt comfortable doing because of the small number of registered owners. A single crime with and illegally converted gun directly led to the confiscation of a rifle that is typically less dangerous than common alternatives. - You gave the example for bump stock ban. Ok, The 1934 National Firearms Act defines that a machine gun is a firearm that fires two or more bullets for every one press of the trigger pull. Bump stocks do not fall under this category in any way, the trigger must be activated multiple times for multiple shots. The ATF approves a product called the Atkins Accelerator; think of it as a bump stock with a spring for 22 rifle, later after approval the ATF decides because it’s spring operated it is a machine gun, they ask for registration, use the registration for confiscation (as is always the plan) - but not of the stock! Only the spring in it. Many years later bump stocks become popular the ATF examines and okays them because it meets no definition machine gun, has no spring for automated actuation, and does nothing an experienced shooter can’t do without the help of that stock. And here we are again, now the ATF has decided that despite no bump stocks being used in crimes, no spring, and despite previous approval, they are now illegal. With no registration there has been no confiscation. Last I heard the number willingly turned in is in the low hundreds, with of hundreds of thousands sold. Possession of a previously legal plastic injection molding, with no change in law, only opinion, has now made you a felon. - More examples would include ammo shape and metal contents under the entirely arbitrary guise of “armor piercing”, the NFA itself, import restrictions, ITAR continually evolving, the “approved handgun lists” that states have adopted but intentionally failed to maintain, etc Might have better luck arguing that the slippery slope regarding guns isn’t real, if we didn’t have so many examples of it being so. Edit: All historical facts.

Bizarro 7y ago

Australia used to have a very good record on individual rights, but in the past 20 years has headed towards authoritarianism. I guess PC/Statist/Collectivist culture has infested Australia too.

rstuart4133 7y ago

As others have said it's not really about free speech. What a citizen is allowed to say in public isn't effected by this. It's not anything particularly new either. Governments have always been pissed off by civil servants leaking things, and there have always been vindictive who rather than find the disgruntled employee and fire them, will lash out in the worst possible way and create more disgruntled employees. What's changed is technology. Before someone had to tap explicit telephone's, someone had to listen to them. The journo's are just waking up to the fact that when the Australian government gave themselves the power to force the telco's to record the "meta data" about every phone call and web access and store it for two years, and granted themselves unlimited warrantless access to said data keeping your sources from the government became a little more difficult. Not a whole pile more difficult mind you - but you suddenly had to be computer savy. You had to know to use a mail provider out of Australia's jurisdiction. You had to use encrypted communications whose end points didn't reveal who you were talking to. It not complicated, and nothing that Wikileaks hasn't been doing for years, but it's definitely new. Then we moved onto stage 2 - the Access and Assistance bill, in which the government gave themselves the power to force Microsoft / Google / Apple's / Facebooks of this world to silently install bugs on your phone / computer / tv. The raids being discussed by the article were covered by a warrant that specifically allowed them to delete and change data on the targets computers, which is decidedly weird when you think about it. [0] Surely they aren't planning to present data in court when there is a possibility they planted or modified it? Obviously that wasn't the intention. However replacing keyboard drivers and the like with something that does log data does require you to modify & delete data - so my guess is they were covering their arses. These seems to be little doubt they were planting bugs. Avoiding the seeing eyes implanted by Assistance and Access bill is a damned sight harder than avoiding meta data collection. Again, not impossible - but now you have to avoid software that knows who you are. Software that is dispensed from centralised app stores that insist on identifying you and your device first is a definite no-go. Android is out, Apple is out, Microsoft is out. In fact most of the computing infrastructure they are comfortable with is out. Linux distributions are OK and open source communication apps like Signal are OK - but only those that have thought about and implemented evil maid protections. It's all doable, and it's all cheap and once you do it you are even safer then you were pre Assistance and Access bill. But geeze you have to be really tech savy to get it right, and right now they are just waking up to the fact their lives and sources are an have been open book because they didn't do it. As an aside, if this is the first time we've seen the Assistance and Access bill in action, it's poignant to note despite all the rhetoric of it being needed to keep Australian's safe from terrorists and paedophiles, it was in fact first use by the government against it's own citizens - public servants and journo's in this case. [0] https://twitter.com/TheLyonsDen/status/1136126140882440193 https://twitter.com/TheLyonsDen/status/1136126140882440193