How could legislation like this even be considered, I mean it would directly contravene our freedom of speech as outlined in our charter of human rights
I don't think you are the only democracy or pretend-democracy that doesn't have free speech
That's worse though!
We're certainly not the only COUNTRY without one, just the only democracy, according to what I've read. I don't know what the specific criteria are for deciding which countries are actually democracies and which just claim to be though.
BTW it's point 10 on that list that actually backs up what I was saying.
Butler on
0
Options
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
How could legislation like this even be considered, I mean it would directly contravene our freedom of speech as outlined in our charter of human rights
I don't think you are the only democracy or pretend-democracy that doesn't have free speech
That's worse though!
We're certainly not the only COUNTRY without one, just the only democracy, according to what I've read. I don't know what the specific criteria are for deciding which countries are actually democracies and which just claim to be though.
BTW it's point 10 on that list that actually backs up what I was saying.
Point ten is a load of shit we have plenty of rights.
Name one that is actually required that we don't have.
How could legislation like this even be considered, I mean it would directly contravene our freedom of speech as outlined in our charter of human rights
In 1992 and 1994, the High Court of Australia found that the Constitution contained an "implied" right to freedom of political communication, in a series of cases including the Australian Capital Television case and the Theophanous case. This was seen as a necessary part of the democratic system created by the Constitution. The application of this "implied right" has, however, been restricted in later cases, such as Lange v ABC. It is in no way equivalent to a freedom of speech, and only protects individuals against the government trying to limit their political communication: it offers no protection against other individuals.
Butler on
0
Options
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
How could legislation like this even be considered, I mean it would directly contravene our freedom of speech as outlined in our charter of human rights
In 1992 and 1994, the High Court of Australia found that the Constitution contained an "implied" right to freedom of political communication, in a series of cases including the Australian Capital Television case and the Theophanous case. This was seen as a necessary part of the democratic system created by the Constitution. The application of this "implied right" has, however, been restricted in later cases, such as Lange v ABC. It is in no way equivalent to a freedom of speech, and only protects individuals against the government trying to limit their political communication: it offers no protection against other individuals.
Fantastic.
Now find me an example of Free Speech where the government hasn't limited it in some capacity.
Seriously all those people are people with a hardon for america and want an explicit section in the constitution devoted to it.
The current campaign is actually for a legislative charter of rights. Essentially, if a law contravenes the rights as set out in the charter, parliament must decide whether they want to amend that law or not. They still have the power to go "fuck it, we're keeping it as it is". All it does is put a spotlight on human rights issues when they crop up, it doesn't force the lawmakers to act one way or another.
The fact of the matter is that it is limited all the time by governments all around the world.
There is no such thing as free speech.
Yes, but isn't it worth at least trying to stop that from happening?
Butler on
0
Options
ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
edited March 2009
you know
he looks pretty much the way I imagine Satan to look like (e: mostly because of the tea cup)
Zoel on
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
ZoelI suppose... I'd put it onRegistered Userregular
edited March 2009
how did he pull off that tie
Zoel on
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
The fact of the matter is that it is limited all the time by governments all around the world.
There is no such thing as free speech.
Yes, but isn't it worth at least trying to stop that from happening?
ehhhhhh.......
Are you feeling particularly restricted at the moment?
I mean it's not like this shit is going to pass. And while I'm doing all I can do with the signing of petitions and telling people about it and how messed up it is I'm not going to jump up and down and act all silly.
The fact of the matter is that it is limited all the time by governments all around the world.
There is no such thing as free speech.
Yes, but isn't it worth at least trying to stop that from happening?
In Canada we have laws against hate speech. I'm not sure if that is the case in America.
Sort of
Here you can't say things that will entice a riot or start violence
There was a supreme court case involving a KKK rally walking through a predominantly black neighborhood that coined the legal "fighting words" , if I'm not mistaken
The fact of the matter is that it is limited all the time by governments all around the world.
There is no such thing as free speech.
Yes, but isn't it worth at least trying to stop that from happening?
In Canada we have laws against hate speech. I'm not sure if that is the case in America.
Well! We sort of do.
Mostly though it's just a loophole to allow the feds to prosecute in cases that would normally be a local jurisdiction. Like someone might murder some guy and put a swastika in his yard and he's jewish or whatever but it's the south in the 1960s so~ The feds can't actually book the guy for murder, but back in the 1970's it was pretty common for those cases to get charged as infringing someone elses civil liberties. (e: by reason of murder!)
Zoel on
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
0
Options
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
The fact of the matter is that it is limited all the time by governments all around the world.
There is no such thing as free speech.
Yes, but isn't it worth at least trying to stop that from happening?
In Canada we have laws against hate speech. I'm not sure if that is the case in America.
Sort of
Here you can't say things that will entice a riot or start violence
There was a supreme court case involving a KKK rally walking through a predominantly black neighborhood that coined the legal "fighting words" , if I'm not mistaken
Before that people would just go, "Thems, thems, thems... well I don't know what thems words was but we'll be punchin' on with ya know!"
The fact of the matter is that it is limited all the time by governments all around the world.
There is no such thing as free speech.
Yes, but isn't it worth at least trying to stop that from happening?
ehhhhhh.......
Are you feeling particularly restricted at the moment?
I mean it's not like this shit is going to pass. And while I'm doing all I can do with the signing of petitions and telling people about it and how messed up it is I'm not going to jump up and down and act all silly.
I'm personally not feeling very restricted at the moment, no. If we waited until the political climate changed and we WERE being restricted, presumably for the convenience of the government, it would be much harder to argue for a charter that protects our free speech (among many other rights), wouldn't it? A stitch in time saves nine and all that.
The fact of the matter is that it is limited all the time by governments all around the world.
There is no such thing as free speech.
Yes, but isn't it worth at least trying to stop that from happening?
ehhhhhh.......
Are you feeling particularly restricted at the moment?
I mean it's not like this shit is going to pass. And while I'm doing all I can do with the signing of petitions and telling people about it and how messed up it is I'm not going to jump up and down and act all silly.
I'm personally not feeling very restricted at the moment, no. If we waited until the political climate changed and we WERE being restricted, presumably for the convenience of the government, it would be much harder to argue for a charter that protects our free speech (among many other rights), wouldn't it? A stitch in time saves nine and all that.
Legislating for legislature's sense is just retarded though.
Take this, tries to infringe, doesn't get through.
Simple see?
Regardless you said these numnuts wanted Legislature passed through government. That'd be a waste of time, it would change nothing and as soon as they wanted to change shit they'd do it anyway.
I might move to England. They got some lovely looking houses over there.
Uh, England?
See, I think the problem is that you hate living in Perth.
Maybe you should try not living in Perth.
Hmm, maybe.
Still, I'd like to live in England, just so I could use a lot of English slang and swear words. I've always wanted to say words like "Quid" in normal conversation.
The fact of the matter is that it is limited all the time by governments all around the world.
There is no such thing as free speech.
Yes, but isn't it worth at least trying to stop that from happening?
ehhhhhh.......
Are you feeling particularly restricted at the moment?
I mean it's not like this shit is going to pass. And while I'm doing all I can do with the signing of petitions and telling people about it and how messed up it is I'm not going to jump up and down and act all silly.
I'm personally not feeling very restricted at the moment, no. If we waited until the political climate changed and we WERE being restricted, presumably for the convenience of the government, it would be much harder to argue for a charter that protects our free speech (among many other rights), wouldn't it? A stitch in time saves nine and all that.
Legislating for legislature's sense is just retarded though.
Take this, tries to infringe, doesn't get through.
Simple see?
Regardless you said these numnuts wanted Legislature passed through government. (1)That'd be a waste of time, it would change nothing (2) and as soon as they wanted to change shit they'd do it anyway.
1. The British experience of their Bill of rights has been positive, and it has changed things for the better.
Let me amend that, just linking to the wiki article on British Human rights is a bit vague. Here are some examples of where British laws have been changed as a direct consequence of their Bill of Rights, taken from Geoffrey Robertson (QC)'s book "The Statute of Liberty:
The Mental Health Act (1983): this will be amended so that patients can challenge the appointment of a "nearest relative" on the grounds that the appointed relative had abused them when they were children.
The 1861 law in Northern Ireland, which made consensual buggery a criminal offence: Repealed because it interfered with consensual sexual behaviour between adults.
The Mental Health Act: amended so that persons who could not be shown to suffer from a mental disorder could be discharged from a mental hospital.
A section of the Immigration Act, which imposed massive and mandatory fixed fines on trucking companies for unknowingly transporting stowaways: amended so that the penalty could be decided fairly by an independent tribunal.
An amendment to the Mental Health Act: passed so that persons detained after serving the penal part of their sentence could not have their access to a court blocked by the government.
Several provisions of the Social Security Act: amended after the courts pointed out, by declaration, that they discriminated against men by providing, for example, bereavement benefits to widows and not to widowers.
Sections of the Housing Act, which required certain classes of children, and pregnant mothers, to be disregarded in determining priority for council accommodation: amended so that children's needs were always taken into account.
Posts
That's worse though!
We're certainly not the only COUNTRY without one, just the only democracy, according to what I've read. I don't know what the specific criteria are for deciding which countries are actually democracies and which just claim to be though.
BTW it's point 10 on that list that actually backs up what I was saying.
Point ten is a load of shit we have plenty of rights.
Name one that is actually required that we don't have.
Satans..... hints.....
Satans..... hints.....
Which is good, really
Teach those Australian weeaboos
They're a bunch of hippys that want to cry about everything and change the constitution for no real reason.
Satans..... hints.....
Satans..... hints.....
Don't mind if I do!
Fantastic.
Now find me an example of Free Speech where the government hasn't limited it in some capacity.
Satans..... hints.....
People bang on about free speech all the time.
The fact of the matter is that it is limited all the time by governments all around the world.
There is no such thing as free speech.
Satans..... hints.....
Uh, England?
See, I think the problem is that you hate living in Perth.
Maybe you should try not living in Perth.
The current campaign is actually for a legislative charter of rights. Essentially, if a law contravenes the rights as set out in the charter, parliament must decide whether they want to amend that law or not. They still have the power to go "fuck it, we're keeping it as it is". All it does is put a spotlight on human rights issues when they crop up, it doesn't force the lawmakers to act one way or another.
We have Libel and Slander rules and fightin' words etc.
so even we're restricted
unless im missing the point you're trying to make in which case disregard this entirely
It's Kevin.
Kevin Rudd you imbeciles.
edit: Look at his sexiness
Serious fucking business:
Yes, but isn't it worth at least trying to stop that from happening?
he looks pretty much the way I imagine Satan to look like (e: mostly because of the tea cup)
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
In Canada we have laws against hate speech. I'm not sure if that is the case in America.
ehhhhhh.......
Are you feeling particularly restricted at the moment?
I mean it's not like this shit is going to pass. And while I'm doing all I can do with the signing of petitions and telling people about it and how messed up it is I'm not going to jump up and down and act all silly.
Satans..... hints.....
Yeah essentially.
Also, he licks his lips like a fucking reptilian lizard man when he speaks.
works every time
Sort of
Here you can't say things that will entice a riot or start violence
There was a supreme court case involving a KKK rally walking through a predominantly black neighborhood that coined the legal "fighting words" , if I'm not mistaken
You mean her?
Well! We sort of do.
Mostly though it's just a loophole to allow the feds to prosecute in cases that would normally be a local jurisdiction. Like someone might murder some guy and put a swastika in his yard and he's jewish or whatever but it's the south in the 1960s so~ The feds can't actually book the guy for murder, but back in the 1970's it was pretty common for those cases to get charged as infringing someone elses civil liberties. (e: by reason of murder!)
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
Before that people would just go, "Thems, thems, thems... well I don't know what thems words was but we'll be punchin' on with ya know!"
Satans..... hints.....
I didn't say it would be easy
I'm personally not feeling very restricted at the moment, no. If we waited until the political climate changed and we WERE being restricted, presumably for the convenience of the government, it would be much harder to argue for a charter that protects our free speech (among many other rights), wouldn't it? A stitch in time saves nine and all that.
I'm pretty sure they're like legally blind at this point
thems... well, thems be fightin words
also I read that in Hank Hill's voice and it was really, really funny
Legislating for legislature's sense is just retarded though.
Take this, tries to infringe, doesn't get through.
Simple see?
Regardless you said these numnuts wanted Legislature passed through government. That'd be a waste of time, it would change nothing and as soon as they wanted to change shit they'd do it anyway.
Satans..... hints.....
Still, I'd like to live in England, just so I could use a lot of English slang and swear words. I've always wanted to say words like "Quid" in normal conversation.
1. The British experience of their Bill of rights has been positive, and it has changed things for the better.
2. You could say the same of any legislation.
EDIT: See two posts down.
I wear mostly yeast allergy.