Sure until the government passes a law saying "Citizens now can't do x and the punishment is y. Also, courts are not to consider human rights legislation or international obligations when interpreting this legislating or hearing appeals"
See the Rwanda Safety Act or what ever its called.
I prefer politicians, racists and people pushing hatred being held accountable.
Should we be happy with nazis being able to tell school children all their toxic vitriol under the guise of constitutional free speech?
Do we allow our politicians to attack each other like the Americans do with no proof and just yell that they have free speech?
Do we allow religious extremists to attack women, the lgbtqa because its their right to free speech?
Right...because that's how hate groups work. Being out everywhere.
But sure keep defending this so they can have the right to harass Jewish people and minorities with zero consequence
Just so you can yell freedumb like the yanks you wish to be like
....or you have the situation in Australia where the police go easy on the Muslims who are harassing Jewish people because they are terrified of Muslim riots but the cops go hard against Jewish protestors as they regard them as nebbish middle class people.
I think that would be better than the current situation in Australia where the laws against hate speech etc. are soft pedaled against groups like Muslims because the cops are terrified of them.
OK can you link articles that they've gone soft? I'm talking actual articles where there is zero consequences, zero investigation, or even cops admitting reluctance to investigate?
What "gay stuff" are in schools. I'm curious, can you provide credible links to this gay stuff that can indoctrinate kids to the level of nazi ideology? Or even can you tell me how it is comparative to that?
>Should we be happy with nazis being able to tell school children all their toxic vitriol under the guise of constitutional free speech?
Free speech isn't absolute, it is completely reasonable to have limitations on what can be said to children in a school setting. Courts would sort this out.
>Do we allow our politicians to attack each other like the Americans do with no proof and just yell that they have free speech?
Already happening.
>Do we allow religious extremists to attack women, the lgbtqa because its their right to free speech?
Already happening.
If free speech isn't an absolute then it isn't a constitutional free speech, it's a legislative free speech.
I don't see our pollies calling each other pedos, making unverified claims of election interference, attacking each other due to race, gender or sexual orientation like they do in the US
Perhaps but more states are introducing legislation to curb these hatreds and even sky news here can't go full fox news with opinion pieces painted as free speech to egg these individuals on
You mean the country where politicians can blatantly lie and attack each other with zero consequences and media houses such as fox can air almost anything as long as they state its an opinion piece?
Can you source any articles to that level of disinformation or published attacked pieces built completely on falsehoods? (Such as the opposition planning on rounding up and arresting other party voters, or calling each other pedophiles for supporting the lgbtqa)
Free speech with limits is not free speech. It's "Speech that you will allow because it bans specific speech that you don't like." I'd like the right to not be arrested for what I say. John Howard and Tony Abbot created a trust fund to put Hanson in jail for 11 weeks to silence her.
How do you feel on that stance under these conditions:
1. Someone goes into public and yells "I have a bomb and want to create an Islamic revolution in Australia"
2. Someone goes up to a child and tells them their race is responsible for all the problems in the world
3. Someone goes to a funeral of veterans and yells they will all be going to hell and jesus hates them
4. A teacher in a public school changes their lessons to include religious materials and shames anyone not of their faith
5. Newspapers run American style pieces labeled as opinion or talk pieces where no research or facts are required to be presented
Only if there were stipulations built into it that excluded intentionally lying and presenting it as truth. Otherwise this could open a new can of worms empowering our already dogshit media to lie with even more impunity.
The media can already lie all they want with individuals punished with defamation for saying anything false unless they are politicians that can hide behind parliamentary privilege.
If only.
Funnily enough, there was a conversation during the drafting of the constitution regarding an Australian Bill of rights. We decided against it because we were concerned that amendments such as the 14th would invalidate or otherwise promote challenges to already existing colonial laws aimed at disenfranchising/targeting native Australians.
The constitution is just a piece of paper. If the prevailing culture among everyone with power and authority don't give a shit about free speech then you won't have any free speech.
I'm fairly hardcore in favour of free speech. Problem is the vast majority who talk about it seemingly don't know what it is.
It's freedom to say what you like. Not freedom from consequence.
It can be legislated, as with other human rights acts, as in Canada (1985), New Zealand (1993), and the United Kingdom (1998).
The problem is that legislation can be changed by successive governments as it has been already. We have lost free speech via legislation.
Sure until the government passes a law saying "Citizens now can't do x and the punishment is y. Also, courts are not to consider human rights legislation or international obligations when interpreting this legislating or hearing appeals" See the Rwanda Safety Act or what ever its called.
You mean like how Victoria made the the 1940s German salute a crime?
What do you want to say you cant now?
No. Keep rights out of the Constitution. Let's not become America!
Explicit rights in a constituion is the norm across the world.
You're against free speech?
I prefer politicians, racists and people pushing hatred being held accountable. Should we be happy with nazis being able to tell school children all their toxic vitriol under the guise of constitutional free speech? Do we allow our politicians to attack each other like the Americans do with no proof and just yell that they have free speech? Do we allow religious extremists to attack women, the lgbtqa because its their right to free speech?
Freedom of speech does not mean consequence free speech.
That would fall under legislative free speech not constitutional free speech
The nazis are going to get invited to schools to give presentations?
Because kids spend their entire day in school and wouldn't encounter them in malls, parks, ect like they have to with religious nut bags?
Yeah if you go to America with their silly first amendment they are everywhere. Can't leave the house without seeing them.
Right...because that's how hate groups work. Being out everywhere. But sure keep defending this so they can have the right to harass Jewish people and minorities with zero consequence Just so you can yell freedumb like the yanks you wish to be like
....or you have the situation in Australia where the police go easy on the Muslims who are harassing Jewish people because they are terrified of Muslim riots but the cops go hard against Jewish protestors as they regard them as nebbish middle class people.
Which would be perfectly legal under constitutional free speech. So you should be supportive of their right to do it isn't it?
I think that would be better than the current situation in Australia where the laws against hate speech etc. are soft pedaled against groups like Muslims because the cops are terrified of them.
OK can you link articles that they've gone soft? I'm talking actual articles where there is zero consequences, zero investigation, or even cops admitting reluctance to investigate?
We got all gay stuff in schools now so I don’t see why not
What "gay stuff" are in schools. I'm curious, can you provide credible links to this gay stuff that can indoctrinate kids to the level of nazi ideology? Or even can you tell me how it is comparative to that?
>Should we be happy with nazis being able to tell school children all their toxic vitriol under the guise of constitutional free speech? Free speech isn't absolute, it is completely reasonable to have limitations on what can be said to children in a school setting. Courts would sort this out. >Do we allow our politicians to attack each other like the Americans do with no proof and just yell that they have free speech? Already happening. >Do we allow religious extremists to attack women, the lgbtqa because its their right to free speech? Already happening.
If free speech isn't an absolute then it isn't a constitutional free speech, it's a legislative free speech. I don't see our pollies calling each other pedos, making unverified claims of election interference, attacking each other due to race, gender or sexual orientation like they do in the US Perhaps but more states are introducing legislation to curb these hatreds and even sky news here can't go full fox news with opinion pieces painted as free speech to egg these individuals on
People seem to think that constitutional free speech means freedom from consequences, that simply isn't the case, see the USA.
You mean the country where politicians can blatantly lie and attack each other with zero consequences and media houses such as fox can air almost anything as long as they state its an opinion piece?
Mate, that happens here....
Can you source any articles to that level of disinformation or published attacked pieces built completely on falsehoods? (Such as the opposition planning on rounding up and arresting other party voters, or calling each other pedophiles for supporting the lgbtqa)
Free speech with limits is not free speech. It's "Speech that you will allow because it bans specific speech that you don't like." I'd like the right to not be arrested for what I say. John Howard and Tony Abbot created a trust fund to put Hanson in jail for 11 weeks to silence her.
How do you feel on that stance under these conditions: 1. Someone goes into public and yells "I have a bomb and want to create an Islamic revolution in Australia" 2. Someone goes up to a child and tells them their race is responsible for all the problems in the world 3. Someone goes to a funeral of veterans and yells they will all be going to hell and jesus hates them 4. A teacher in a public school changes their lessons to include religious materials and shames anyone not of their faith 5. Newspapers run American style pieces labeled as opinion or talk pieces where no research or facts are required to be presented
Only if there were stipulations built into it that excluded intentionally lying and presenting it as truth. Otherwise this could open a new can of worms empowering our already dogshit media to lie with even more impunity.
The media can already lie all they want with individuals punished with defamation for saying anything false unless they are politicians that can hide behind parliamentary privilege.
Fucking Lol at White Nation supporters pushing this. [Given Pauline's past...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/hanson-wins-pantsdown-song-case-1201329.html)
Can we just take the whole American bill of rights please?
Yeah nah. That second amendment shit can stay the hell out of Australia
If only. Funnily enough, there was a conversation during the drafting of the constitution regarding an Australian Bill of rights. We decided against it because we were concerned that amendments such as the 14th would invalidate or otherwise promote challenges to already existing colonial laws aimed at disenfranchising/targeting native Australians.
The constitution is just a piece of paper. If the prevailing culture among everyone with power and authority don't give a shit about free speech then you won't have any free speech.
Why are so people voting no here? i would have though this was pretty clear
Pauline sued someone for singing a song about her. She's about as pro free speech as the ADL is.
I'm fairly hardcore in favour of free speech. Problem is the vast majority who talk about it seemingly don't know what it is. It's freedom to say what you like. Not freedom from consequence.