Australia Latest Country To Attack free Speech Using "Right Not To Be Annoyed"

[WildCat]

We've seen it in France (Brigette Bardot) and Canada (the HRC abuses), now Australia has decided that free speech tales a back seat to the right not to be annoyed (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/07/01/pope.australia.ap/index.html):

Australians have been warned: Don't get caught annoying the crowds when they gather here later this month to see the pope.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif


New regulations give police and emergency services workers the power to order anyone to stop behavior that "causes annoyance or inconvenience to participants in a World Youth Day event," according to a New South Wales state government gazette. Anyone who does not comply faces a $5,300 fine.
A $5,300 fine for "annoying" someone.

Is the United States the only country left that believes in free speech?

[Damien Evans]

This is what happens when free speech comes from a parliamentary bill and not the constitution.

Absolute Horse Feces.

[Wildy]

To be fair here in Australia we don't actually have the right to free speech. There is, technically, nothing unconstitutional with passing laws that prevent people from speaking their mind, as long as it doesn't infringe on the implied "right to freedom of political communication".

Look it up, the HCA case in question is Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth 1992.

[Damien Evans]

To be fair here in Australia we don't actually have the right to free speech. There is, technically, nothing unconstitutional with passing laws that prevent people from speaking their mind, as long as it doesn't infringe on the implied "right to freedom of political communication".

Look it up, the HCA case in question is Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth 1992.

Hence what I said above. Great minds think alike and all that.

[Beerina]

To be fair here in Australia we don't actually have the right to free speech. There is, technically, nothing unconstitutional with passing laws that prevent people from speaking their mind, as long as it doesn't infringe on the implied "right to freedom of political communication".

Look it up, the HCA case in question is Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth 1992.

The problem here, though, is the government decides what is political communication and what is not.

People may very well want to demonstrate against this Youth Day because it is attached to god knows what supporters and founders.

Hence a constitutional right, absolute, prevents any mucking about by officials.


And we do have issues in the US, too, though they usually get cleared up by the courts eventually. One current one is the creation of "free speech zones" for parades, motorcades, appearances, etc., that are well away from, and often out of sight of, the actual event. This impacts two fundamental rights in the very first ammendment: Right to free speech, and right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

We've seen it in France (Brigette Bardot) and Canada (the HRC abuses), now Australia has decided that free speech tales a back seat to the right not to be annoyed (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/07/01/pope.australia.ap/index.html):

A $5,300 fine for "annoying" someone.

Is the United States the only country left that believes in free speech?

You have seen nothing of the sort with respect to Canada. In the "the HRC abuses", one Commission said it did not have any authority, one said that it was a silly claim and easily dismissed it and one is yet to rule.

For the reality of free speech in Canada see the recent 9-0 ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court as explained here, for example:
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1095648

Said the judge: "An individual's reputation is not to be treated as regrettable but unavoidable roadkill on the highway of public controversy, but nor should an overly solicitous regard for personal reputation be permitted to 'chill' freewheeling debate on matters of public interest."

"Is the United States the only country left that believes in free speech?" All I can say is, "believe away".

[billydkid]

It's funny, I always thought of Australia as being a real frontier, wild and wooly, Crocodile Dundee, independent/individualist kind of place and yet is seems to be one of places most inclined towards social engineering and such. I have also wondered this at times - Australia has truly vast unused tracks of lands - the desolate "outback" places which constitute most of the continent - seems like a perfect sort of place to put a Las Vegas kind of place or two. Nevada can't be very much less desolate.

[WildCat]

You have seen nothing of the sort with respect to Canada. In the "the HRC abuses", one Commission said it did not have any authority, one said that it was a silly claim and easily dismissed it and one is yet to rule.
Except that they have in fact ruled in other cases. Such as this one: http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf



13. The Panel does find that Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as a result of his complaint. The Panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some compensation.

14. The Panel finds, and the Panel orders as follows:

a. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging

5

remarks in the future about Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund’s witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.


b. That The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. and Mr. Boissoin shall, in future, be restrained from committing the same or similar contraventions of the Act.


c. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. provide Dr. Lund with a written apology for the article in the Red Deer Advocate which was the subject of this complaint.


d. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall request the Red Deer Advocate publish a copy this Order in the Red Deer Advocate and that they request their written apology for the contravention of the Act be published in the Red Deer Advocate.


e. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall pay to Dr. Lund an award for damages, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,000.00.


f. That Ms. Dodd shall provide a list of expenses incurred as a result of her testimony at the hearing to the Panel Chair for review and such sum shall be paid to her for her actual expenses associated with this matter up to the maximum amount of $2,000.00 as directed by the Panel Chair upon receiving her list of expenses. Such amounts so ordered by the Panel Chair shall be paid jointly and severally by Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.

Gord, do you not see what a travesty this is?

[Wildy]

Hence a constitutional right, absolute, prevents any mucking about by officials.

Is an implied right really absolute?

[WildCat]

Is an implied right really absolute?
Nothing implied about it:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[Wildy]

Australia has truly vast unused tracks of lands - the desolate "outback" places which constitute most of the continent - seems like a perfect sort of place to put a Las Vegas kind of place or two. Nevada can't be very much less desolate.

Actually Nevada probably has more of something then the outback does, water.

And then we have the other problem, there is no need for a "Las Vegas kind of place" because firstly, most of the population lives along the coast, and mostly because we don't have the same restrictions on gambling as the US does.

[Wildy]

Nothing implied about it:

We've got our wires crossed here. I'm talking about Australia, not the US.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Except that they have in fact ruled in other cases. Such as this one: http://albertahumanrights.ab.ca/Lund_Darren_Remedy053008.pdf


[/LIST]
[/LIST]Gord, do you not see what a travesty this is?

Yes I can. I suggest this is an abuse of the Act, though I have never read it. The World is not a perfect place and not all decisions by any court, trbunal or commission are correct. The Supreme Court has recently ruled very much in favour of free speech. I'll stick with what the Court says.

The US court system is just as fallible as anyone else's and it's record on free speech is by no means perfect.

[Damien Evans]

The problem here, though, is the government decides what is political communication and what is not.

People may very well want to demonstrate against this Youth Day because it is attached to god knows what supporters and founders.

Hence a constitutional right, absolute, prevents any mucking about by officials.

snip

Haven't you been reading? WE DON'T HAVE THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Oh, and everyone knows who and what runs World Youth Day. It's run by the Catholic Church.

[Damien Evans]

Nothing implied about it:

I believe you meant to cite this document, given yours is totally irrelevant: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/

Note the complete lack of mention of freedom of speech.

[Damien Evans]

It's funny, I always thought of Australia as being a real frontier, wild and wooly, Crocodile Dundee, independent/individualist kind of place and yet is seems to be one of places most inclined towards social engineering and such. I have also wondered this at times - Australia has truly vast unused tracks of lands - the desolate "outback" places which constitute most of the continent - seems like a perfect sort of place to put a Las Vegas kind of place or two. Nevada can't be very much less desolate.

We don't really need Las Vegas, we already have casinos and poker machines all over the place.

[Magenta]

We've seen it in France (Brigette Bardot) and Canada (the HRC abuses), now Australia has decided that free speech tales a back seat to the right not to be annoyed (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/07/01/pope.australia.ap/index.html):

A $5,300 fine for "annoying" someone.

Is the United States the only country left that believes in free speech?


Just to clarify, it's the New South Wales government, not Australia as a whole.

It sounds like an invitation to mass civil disobedience, IMO.

[WildCat]

I believe you meant to cite this document, given yours is totally irrelevant: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/

Note the complete lack of mention of freedom of speech.
Wildy was responding to Beerina's mention of the right guaranteed in the US Constitution, so that's what I thought Wildy was commenting on. My mistake.

We don't really need Las Vegas, we already have casinos and poker machines all over the place.
My computer is now a poker machine thanks to the internet. In fact, my balance is now over $250,000!

In play money unfortunately. :boxedin:

[Wildy]

Just to clarify, it's the New South Wales government, not Australia as a whole.

It sounds like an invitation to mass civil disobedience, IMO.

So it's probably just a re-wording of the APEC powers.

[Damien Evans]

Wildy was responding to Beerina's mention of the right guaranteed in the US Constitution, so that's what I thought Wildy was commenting on. My mistake.


My computer is now a poker machine thanks to the internet. In fact, my balance is now over $250,000!

In play money unfortunately. :boxedin:

Ah, I see. Entirely understandable.

I wish I was that good at poker.

[Mobyseven]

This is what happens when free speech comes from a parliamentary bill and not the constitution.

Absolute Horse Feces.

A constitutional bill of rights would certainly be a step in the right direction...good luck getting people to draft it though. And agree on what should be in it.

That said, the Victorian bill of rights would be a good starting point.

The problem here, though, is the government decides what is political communication and what is not.

No they don't. That's up to the judiciary to interpret.

[ponderingturtle]

We've seen it in France (Brigette Bardot) and Canada (the HRC abuses), now Australia has decided that free speech tales a back seat to the right not to be annoyed (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/07/01/pope.australia.ap/index.html):

A $5,300 fine for "annoying" someone.

Is the United States the only country left that believes in free speech?

Oh this happens in the US too. Look at how they handeled protestors at the 04 republican convention. They set up protestor cages to keep them out of sight of the convention.

[WildCat]

Oh this happens in the US too. Look at how they handeled protestors at the 04 republican convention. They set up protestor cages to keep them out of sight of the convention.
Not even comparable to fining people for being "annoying", whatever the hell that means.

You can't get fined for the content of your speech in the United States, no matter how "annoying" it is. And that's what the right of free speech is about - the right top say whatever you'd like without government interference, not to be able to do so any place you choose.

[ponderingturtle]

Not even comparable to fining people for being "annoying", whatever the hell that means.


The goal was to keep people who would annoy the members of the convention away, so the intent is similar, just useing a different set of laws.

[Bob Blaylock]

The goal was to keep people who would annoy the members of the convention away, so the intent is similar, just useing a different set of laws.


I must admit to not being completely familiar with all the details relevant here, but it seems obvious that those conducting and participating in the convention have a right and an expectation to be able to conduct that meeting in peace, without it being disrupted by outside protesters. Now where the line is between this and the protesters' right to express their views; and which side of the line this sequestering of the protesters fell on, is a whole other matter.

I suppose there exists some possibility that the same principle applies to this matter in Australia. Is this being done to suppress the legitimate expression of opinions that might “annoy” the participants in this “World Youth Day”, or is it being done to allow those who want to participate in this event to do so without having their event disrupted by unwelcome intruders?

[ponderingturtle]

I must admit to not being completely familiar with all the details relevant here, but it seems obvious that those conducting and participating in the convention have a right and an expectation to be able to conduct that meeting in peace, without it being disrupted by outside protesters. Now where the line is between this and the protesters' right to express their views; and which side of the line this sequestering of the protesters fell on, is a whole other matter.

And that extends to the public streets? So you cage the protestors in a park several blocks away?

I suppose there exists some possibility that the same principle applies to this matter in Australia. Is this being done to suppress the legitimate expression of opinions that might “annoy” the participants in this “World Youth Day”, or is it being done to allow those who want to participate in this event to do so without having their event disrupted by unwelcome intruders?

Then don't hold your events in public.

[Magenta]

Just to clarify, it's the New South Wales government, not Australia as a whole.

It sounds like an invitation to mass civil disobedience, IMO.So it's probably just a re-wording of the APEC powers.


I was wondering about that, but apparently it's not according to today's SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/catholics-split-on-freedom-to-annoy/2008/07/02/1214950851278.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1):

For the first time, the NSW Government confirmed that the clause had not featured at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit or the 2000 Olympics. But it produced a list of 15 pieces of law where the clause had been replicated permitting removal of people from venues including Parramatta Stadium and the Sydney Cricket Ground.


And as for mass civil disobedience, from the same article:

Father Brennan's attack came as groups that had had no plans to protest during the event vowed to do so in response to the new laws. World Youth Day organisers said they had no objection to the open-ended nature of the regulations and confirmed the church had "discussed" with the Government the use of "standard laws" for the efficient running of the event.
[...]
The director of GetUp.org.au, Brett Solomon, did not rule out a campaign of protests or pranks among his 280,000 members to highlight what he called the "absurdity" of the rules, even if it meant fines of $5500. Many had not been angry before about the papal visit. "We could organise 1000 people in annoying or inconvenient T-shirts to people the route," he said.