5 ms·
Australians have no constitutional right to free speech, and some forms of speech are expressly criminalised via the sedition and various vilification acts. Th
by astrec 15y ago
Australians have no constitutional right to free speech, and some forms of speech are expressly criminalised via the sedition and various vilification acts.
The only form of speech that enjoys some protection is political speech. So whilst Australian's can freely talk crap about the government, Australia is far from a beacon of free speech.
- keyle 15y agoAre you referring to rights of anarchism? I'm no trespasser and trouble maker, but I can tell you that anybody is free to do whatever they intend to in Australia, so as long as it doesn't impair other people doing so. In other words, you're as free as you can be without causing damage to others. I'm not sure what you're referring to though. On my way home I saw dudes roller-blading half naked in the city. I call that freedom. Do you have examples?
- astrec 15y agoNo. I'm referring to the constitutional right to free speech. The statement "anybody is free to do whatever they intend to in Australia, so as long as it doesn't impair other people doing so" is as absurd as it is false. There are reams of legislation to prevent you from doing everything from arriving unlawfully by boat, to lying about your income, to using a wire carriage service to cause offence. As to speech, here is a simplistic example: Let's say I walk into Federation Square and say to you "Go and burn down the Parliament, you useless white cunt!" Depending on who takes offence to my comments I can be: a) Issued an on the spot fine for AUD$238.50 for using language likely to cause offence in a public place. b) Prosecuted for racial vilification. c) Prosecuted for sedition. The fact that all but a) are highly unlikely does nothing to progress the case that "anybody is free to do whatever they intend to in Australia".
- kgtm 15y agoI'm sorry, but I think you are confused regarding what constitutes free speech. Either that, or a very poor example you chose...
- astrec 15y agoI assure you I am not confused as to what constitutes free speech. In the comment to which you replied I'm merely countering the claim that "anybody is free to do whatever they intend to in Australia, so as long as it doesn't impair other people doing so", with respect to speech. Mind you, I did admit the example was simplistic, but it captured the essence of the three most contentious classes of prohibited speech without verbosity. The only claims I have made with respect to free speech are that: a) Australians have no constitutional right to free speech. b) There are laws that criminalise certain kinds of speech. c) There is no constitutional impediment to the creation of new laws which criminalise other forms of speech. d) Political speech enjoys some protection.
- uriel 15y agoFree speech means being free to say things others might not like being said. If free speech only covers things that others might find acceptable, then it is completely meaningless.
- Vivtek 15y agoI live in a poor neighborhood in Indiana (USA) (ah, but the house was cheap) and I would really like point (a). Speaking personally.
- tommi 15y agoI call that limited. If he was naked then it would be truly freedom, freedom to be a human.
- chad_oliver 15y agoRemember that in Australia, the constitution isn't as foundational as it is in the USA. Just because it's not in the constitution doesn't mean that it's not enshrined in the consciousness of the people. I come from New Zealand, and although there's a lot of rivalry between Australia and New Zealand, I nevertheless consider Australia to be a second home -- even though I've only been there twice.
- astrec 15y agoConsciousness or not, it's not enshrined in law. What is enshrined in law, however, is that certain types of speech are a criminal offence. Further, there is no constitutional impediment to Parliament passing legislation which criminalises other forms of speech.
- bluedanieru 15y agoAnd the American Congress routinely ignores its constitution with the complicity of the Supreme Court. What's your point? Are you suggesting that a constitution is enough? It's matter of who gets elected too, you know.
- netcan 15y agoThe Australian constitution kind of claims New Zealand.
- danssig 15y agoAn Australian friend of mine mentioned that some time ago the British government dissolved the Australian government with a phone call. Can they still do that?