There is no freedom of speech is Australia

[Jolene]

Hmm yes I have always been against freedom of speech. It seems to me it is just an excuse for people to say mean things about each other. I am sure all the moderators here will agree with me that freedom of speech is wrong.

 

[Silver]

Your freedoms end when they affect the freedoms of other people. And I honestly think that posting "offensive pictures, including a headless corpse and vagina" on a memorial website is not something that should be protected, mainly because their only effect is insulting the memory of the dead person and hurting the family's feelings without any clear reason. I don't know about the US, but that's perfectly punishable in my country.

Defamatory Speech
A statement that damages another person's reputation is considered defamatory and unprotected.

I myself consider mocking a dead person (without justification, as the own figure says) an example of this.

QFT.

If your right to say freedom of speech infringes on another persons right(s), whatever they may be, you no longer have that freedom imo.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The government decides what speech is inappropriate. The government is elected by the people. Therefore it is the people who decide what speech is inappropriate in a very direct way. And it's just as easy to be anonymous offline as it is online, just put on a mask and change your voice and no one will ever know.

So now anything "the people" want flies? So I guess you support Proposition 8 since it was passed by "the people". And I'm sorry but the United States isn't an oppresive dictatorship, the government doesn't exert control over its people like that. That would negate value this nation was founded on. Either you are suggesting tryanny of the majority by stating that "the people" should decide what people are aloud to say or a tryranny of the few as in a dictatorship.

Hmm yes I have always been against freedom of speech. It seems to me it is just an excuse for people to say mean things about each other. I am sure all the moderators here will agree with me that freedom of speech is wrong.

Without freedom of speech, you might not have the right to say what you just said because I find it offensive:p

QFT.

If your right to say freedom of speech infringes on another persons right(s), whatever they may be, you no longer have that freedom imo.

Defamation of character, like I've said a few times before, isn't a crime, it's a civil issue.

 

[twocows]

Free speech, or rather expression, in all forms should be defended. While certainly I may think that this woman's character needs some improvement, it should be her right to speak her mind. At worst, she should have been banned from Facebook (it is their right as a private enterprise to choose the rules that their users must abide by). Perhaps there were mitigating circumstances I don't know about; maybe this lady felt the deceased had wronged her in the past somehow. Regardless, if we don't defend those whose speech we find offensive now, we won't have much ground to stand on when others start deeming our own opinions and beliefs as offensive.

EDIT: After reading the article, I doubt there were any mitigating circumstances; it seems more likely she was just being a jerk. Still, I stand by my rhetoric.

 

[Dawn]

Freedom of speech is a fundamental value of the American concept of freedom. It isn't the very first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for a reason. You said we should ban inappropriate speech but you haven't answered my question. Who gets to decide what speech is considered inappropriate? It all sounds good on paper but the same human selfishness you described will cause the people who decide what speech is inappropraite to abuse it, thus corrupting the entire idea. Look at communism, it looked great on paper with everyone's needs being taken care of and what not but look how human selfishness corrupted that. And I don't think the offline world will become anything like the online world. You lose the sense of anonymity when you have to say something IRL is a big detterent. And if that was true the United States would already be like that since we have freedom of speech.

We don't technically have "freedom of speech".
The way you're defining it? We don't have that.

Defamation of character, like I've said a few times before, isn't a crime, it's a civil issue.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Defamation of character is not covered under free speech. I'm sorry but have you researched this part of the law at all? Freedom of speech is limited, even in countries with relatively free speech such as the USA.

https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation.html Here, read this to see the limitations of freedom of speech regarding defamation.

Do you think you can yell fire in a crowded movie theater when there's no fire and not get arrested? Hey look, lack of free speech. Is that wrong? Heck no.

Who decides whether freedom of speech covers something? We have this legal system here, where you go to court, and they decide whether freedom of speech covers it on an individual basis.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Defamation of character is not covered under free speech. I'm sorry but have you researched this part of the law at all? Freedom of speech is limited, even in countries with relatively free speech such as the USA.

https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation.html Here, read this to see the limitations of freedom of speech regarding defamation.

Do you think you can yell fire in a crowded movie theater when there's no fire and not get arrested? Hey look, lack of free speech. Is that wrong? Heck no.

Who decides whether freedom of speech covers something? We have this legal system here, where you go to court, and they decide whether freedom of speech covers it on an individual basis.

I never said defamation of character was protected speech, I just said it wasn't a crime. A civil issue, or a tort, is a civil wrong where the damaged part may sue for damages. It is not a crime that you can be arrested for, but rather a tort that you can sued over; but I never said that it was protected speech.

And yelling fire in a crowded movie theater is way different than what this woman did. One, she wasn't present IRL so there's no way she could have posed an "immediate danger" or "causing an immediate riot", which is the rationale for not protecting yelling fire in a crowded theater. I agree that she should be sued for damages if the plantiff's can prove that her actions caused them undue emotional distress and can prove things like libel and defamation of character.

 

[Ivysaur]

But the point is, the US law system isn't absolute. If the representatives of the Australian citizens (aka the Parliament) have decided to consider that kind of Internet vandalism it a crime, it's their call.

Because, it's just a matter of restricting the woman's right to put images of dead corpses on a memorial website and insult a dead person? Or is she just being treated as some vandal who graffitied somebody's house with "Ha-ha, your ___ is dead, loser! *image of a vagina*" under a disguise?

And no, putting some rules (or laws) doesn't turn a country into an "opressive dictatorship". There are some levels in between "No rules" and "Fascism". And your "checks and balances" should prevent the tyrannies you described in the previous page.

 

[Dawn]

And yelling fire in a crowded movie theater is way different than what this woman did. One, she wasn't present IRL so there's no way she could have posed an "immediate danger" or "causing an immediate riot", which is the rationale for not protecting yelling fire in a crowded theater. I agree that she should be sued for damages if they plantiff's can prove that her actions caused them undue emotional distress and can prove things like libel and defamation of character.

So you're acknowledging the limitations... I think that's basically admitting to my original point. Do you see now why that women was treated the way she was?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

So you're acknowledging the limitations... I think that's basically admitting to my original point. Do you see now why that women was treated the way she was?

No, what happened to her was completely unacceptable. She wasn't sued, she was arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to time behind bars. I might be able to understand making doing these things in public without a permit illegal because it's disruptive but not measures this extreme.

But the point is, the US law system isn't absolute. If the representatives of the Australian citizens (aka the Parliament) have decided to consider that kind of Internet vandalism it a crime, it's their call.

Because, it's just a matter of restricting the woman's right to put images of dead corpses on a memorial website and insult a dead person? Or is she just being treated as some vandal who graffitied somebody's house with "Ha-ha, your ___ is dead, loser! *image of a vagina*" under a disguise?

And no, putting some rules (or laws) doesn't turn a country into an "opressive dictatorship". There are some levels in between "No rules" and "Fascism". And your "checks and balances" should prevent the tyrannies you described in the previous page.

You do have a point there, but I still think allowing a government that much power over citizens is dangerous. If the elected officials are the ones who decide what speech is not protected, then the party in power could easily criminalize support for their opposition or expressing viewpoints that differ from the party in power. The checks and balances system is the reason why the U.S. has one of the most generous freedom of speech laws in the world. Different state, local, and even federal laws have tried to create speech codes and anti-hate speech laws, and most of them get thrown out by the courts.

 

[Dawn]

No, what happened to her was completely unacceptable. She wasn't sued, she was arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to time behind bars. I might be able to understand making doing these things in public without a permit illegal because it's disruptive but not measures this extreme.

You know what's not acceptable? Expecting to be able to pay your way out of deliberately trying to screw with other people's lives like this person did. The sheer magnitude of how much she abused "freedom of speech" is just incredible. There's no excuse for abusing it this badly. If she pulled that without a government around to protect her by putting her behind bars, there's a good chance she'd be murdered. What she's getting right now is some controlled mercy. If the government doesn't step in and say, "Hell no you are not getting away with a slap on the wrist" someone else will, and they probably won't be very fair about it.

It's scum like this lady that make it difficult to have free speech, and quite frankly I have no sympathy for her. If she wanted to avoid jail she shouldn't have been been going out of her way to make people suffer. Call me crazy here, but if you're going out of your way to cause suffering, you're pretty much making it ideal for the rest of the population to throw you in jail to protect others from you.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

You know what's not acceptable? Expecting to be able to pay your way out of deliberately trying to screw with other people's lives like this person did. The sheer magnitude of how much she abused "freedom of speech" is just incredible. There's no excuse for abusing it this badly. If she pulled that without a government around to protect her by putting her behind bars, there's a good chance she'd be murdered. What she's getting right now is some controlled mercy. If the government doesn't step in and say, "Hell no you are not getting away with a slap on the wrist" someone else will, and they probably won't be very fair about it.

It's scum like this lady that make it difficult to have free speech, and quite frankly I have no sympathy for her. If she wanted to avoid jail she shouldn't have been been going out of her way to make people suffer. Call me crazy here, but if you're going out of your way to cause suffering, you're pretty much making it ideal for the rest of the population to throw you in jail to protect others from you.

The same freedom of speech that would protect this woman would also give you the right to give her a piece of your mind and her know what you think about her.

 

[Ivysaur]

The same freedom of speech that would protect this woman would also give you the right to give her a piece of your mind and her know what you think about her.

The difference is, is PkMnTrainer Yellow causing unnecessary suffering and grief to other people with her statement? Nope. So both situations aren't the same anymore.

Because, let me ask, why are there even exceptions to the freedom of speech, if, according to you, it happily protects insults? The same way that girl is mocking a dead person, I should be able to call anybody a criminal for no reason or stir up racial hate with derogatory mocking statements against black people.

 

[Morgnarok]

Wow,I never even thought they could do such a thing due to freedom of speech is a usa right.Except certain places such as court,school and few others.

I find the judges ruling very off and unfair.

 

[KanadeTenshi]

It is fair, because you can use the freedom of speeech up to a certain extent, and when you push it too far... I think it's acceptable. Isn't this one of the few things democracy is about?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The difference is, is PkMnTrainer Yellow causing unnecessary suffering and grief to other people with her statement? Nope. So both situations aren't the same anymore.

Because, let me ask, why are there even exceptions to the freedom of speech, if, according to you, it happily protects insults? The same way that girl is mocking a dead person, I should be able to call anybody a criminal for no reason or stir up racial hate with derogatory mocking statements against black people.

In America, you CAN call people criminals and express how much you hate a certain race. All of that is protected here.

 

[Dawn]

The same freedom of speech that would protect this woman would also give you the right to give her a piece of your mind and her know what you think about her.

What Went said. That comparison is insulting...

Further, my word probably doesn't mean anything to that woman. I mean look at her, look at what her actions say about her personality. What are the chances she doesn't care about anyone but herself and people that agree with her points of view? Pretty high, if you ask me.

So how satisfying is giving her a piece of my mind going to be? Probably just frustrating. I want more. The family that suffered because of her idiocy probably wants more.

What she did was not protected by free speech. It was defamatory and could pretty easily be argued to have been inciting violence or even riots as well. She was not even trying to be a decent person. INB4 it's the internet.

In America, you CAN call people criminals and express how much you hate a certain race. All of that is protected here.

You are not protected. Calling someone a criminal is defamatory and you would lose in court if someone sued you over it, unless of course it were true. In addition, racism is such a sensitive topic that if you're spouting racist crud you are quite in danger of inciting violence, which also removes your protection under freedom of speech.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

What Went said. That comparison is insulting...

Further, my word probably doesn't mean anything to that woman. I mean look at her, look at what her actions say about her personality. What are the chances she doesn't care about anyone but herself and people that agree with her points of view? Pretty high, if you ask me.

So how satisfying is giving her a piece of my mind going to be? Probably just frustrating. I want more. The family that suffered because of her idiocy probably wants more.

What she did was not protected by free speech. It was defamatory and could pretty easily be argued to have been inciting violence or even riots as well. She was not even trying to be a decent person. INB4 it's the internet.



You are not protected. Calling someone a criminal is defamatory and you would lose in court if someone sued you over it, unless of course it were true. In addition, racism is such a sensitive topic that if you're spouting racist crud you are quite in danger of inciting violence, which also removes your protection under freedom of speech.

I'm not saying she was right, becuase I too am appaled at what she did, but as a person who's studying law I'd would expect her actions to be protected by the 1st Amendment if this happened in the U.S.

Okay, so calling someone a criminal may not fly in all circumstances, but racist speech is generally protected except in professional situtaions. Hell, we've even had federal elected officials make racist remarks and not be arrested or sued, or even removed from office.

 

[Dawn]

Okay, so calling someone a criminal may not fly in all circumstances, but racist speech is generally protected except in professional situtaions. Hell, we've even had federal elected officials make racist remarks and not be arrested or sued, or even removed from office.

Why should one trial mean anything to another though? The decision is made on an individual basis and one racist remark may get you sued while another may fail. The point is, what she did is not covered by the 1st amendment of the US, let alone Australia. There's really no room to say it should have because it clearly wasn't. What she did was not even controversial. It was very clearly offensive to a very large majority of people. Once again going back to the fact she did all this deliberately with the intent of causing harm.

There was no mistake, there was no lapse of judgement. She's just a sick, sick person who needs some serious help. Paying money is not the kind of help she needs. Do you see why she's a lot different, and a lot worse, than a politician saying something racist due to his judgement failing.

 

[Porygon-Z]

It's all completely irrelevant, because you're discussing American laws, when this incident happened in Australia to an Australian citizen. Their laws are their laws and it's got nothing to do with the laws of the U.S.A.

If you're going to complain about other countries not having freedom of speech laws, I think you should maybe start with countries like the Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., and North Korea. Compared to those countries Australia should come pretty far down the list.

 

[Dawn]

It's all completely irrelevant, because you're discussing American laws, when this incident happened in Australia to an Australian citizen. Their laws are their laws and it's got nothing to do with the laws of the U.S.A.

If you're going to complain about other countries not having freedom of speech laws, I think you should maybe start with countries like the Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., and North Korea. Compared to those countries Australia should come pretty far down the list.

This is not irrelevant because pointing out that this would be unacceptable in a country considered to have some of the greatest levels of Freedom of Speech suggests that this would be unacceptable in a country with lesser levels of freedom of speech. I'm not going to pretend I know enough about Australian law to argue this topic natively, so I'm using comparisons.

It is irrelevant to discuss who has the most freedom of speech, however. =/