Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

No protected freedom of speech in Australia

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by [FLUX], Jul 21, 2011.

  1. In case anyone doubted for one instance that they have the right to freedom of speech in Australia, don't fool yourself, you don't.


    Now, excluding what you may think of Derryn Hinch, let's focus on the core element of the story here. A court has been able to hand down an order that bans someone from speaking to anyone, or using any mechanism, where that person's speech may be heard or read publically outside of a private room.

    If you ever doubted that we live under the facade of what is currently little more than a semi-benign version of Stalinist style rule, then this story should snap you back to reality.

    We, as Australians, have no legislated freedom of speech. Yes, Derryn did the wrong thing legally (and has many times) and should wear the consequences of that, but banning his ability to speak publically, despite what I think of the man personally, well that is a sentence that I absolutely refuse to support. Imagine a court handing that sentence down on a political member, or the members of an activist organisation, or anyone else who might have something to say in public that the establishment doesn't want heard.

    This sentence has spiked my outrage meter off the chart.
  2. And if he'd been jailed instead (the magistrate said it was his ill-health that saved him from a jail sentence) ?

    Would he have freedom of speech in jail? Be able to do media interviews? Blog?

    He's (the magistrate) simply imposed orders that mimic the restrictions he would have been placed under, should he have been jailed.

    I can see both sides of the argument.
  3. The order said that Hinch isn't even allowed to speak through others. If he were in jail, he'd still be allowed visitors who would be allowed to speak publically for him, as is normally the case.

    As it stands, the sentence is significantly more restrictive than being placed in jail.

    Further to that, as the order says that others are not allowed to convey Hinch's words, then really Hinch isn't allowed to say anything to anyone, lest that other person screws up and repeats publically what he's heard Hinch say in the next 5 months.

    Are you still thinking that this is similar to going to jail? This is more akin to solitary confinement for 5 months straight.
  4. You have obviously never spent any time in Solitary Confinement. :-s
  5. True. I meant with reference to being unable to speak to anyone to convey messages. I did not mean with respect to the physical isolation aspect of it. I had kindof thought that would've been clear, given that it was the point being discussed (speech, not physical liberty). Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to detail exactly what was meant for you.
  6. Nothing new here we've been saying this for a long time.
  7. Australia is the only Western country with neither a constitutional nor legislative bill of rights.

    I don't understand why this is.
  8. basically at the time of federation they figured that the courts would take care of the rights. so they wrote some vague guidelines and let the courts set up precedents as to the specifics..... like most law, its all up to the interpretation.

    (e.g. find me a law that states that sitting in the drivers seat of a vehicle under tow is drink driving....... this was set as a precedent thanks to the courts interpretation of the legislation, why its written kinda vague)

    personally i think its a good system society's values are changing and the courts change with theses, alot better then trying to get amendments through parliament and more efficient. look at all the problems that occur over in the US - especially gun laws.

    now when it comes to freedom of speech i believe that there is no need for any amendment to the constitution to place these rights in, im happy for it to be left up to the courts to decide where the line is etc.... and i think the government is pretty lax about it. if they clamped down then there would be a backlash and with the current political climate they could kiss their positions goodbye.

    plus it has its benifets there has been outcrys in the US of people encouraging terrorist activity, as well as all the neo-Nazis, holocaust deniers etc... over here we dont really care as they would be banned from speaking publicly about it. over here the worst we've got is mufti hilaly, and we got a measure to stop him. it cant swing both ways. Hinch i am sure was very aware of where his actions would lead, and knew these laws well. yet he still went against them which is why he should be subject to penalty's incurred for his actions
  9. No worries,
    Thank-you for clarifying that I am unable to take you literally, since the previous posts stated that:

    This post actaull refered to the physical liberties of the case, and why the judge sentanced him to home detention and not a penal term... did it not?

    Then you replied:

    I can clearly see now that you did not mean anything near what you had posted.
    Thanks again for letting me know that whatever you post is possibly not what you actually mean to convey in your message.

    When one is incarcerated one has no access to any social media, fakebook or twatter. As Darren's crimes where a direct result of his use of the media it was always going to be a condition of any sentance handed to him that he have no media infulence.

    I can clearly see now this is a I.D 10 t problem.
  10. But did the judge have any other choice in this case? He couldn't send him to gaol because of his health and with the interweb being so readily available and Hinch showing no remorse for his crime, what else was to be done?

    I agree with freedom of speech, but certain individuals are abusing that in Australian broadcasting.
  11. It really is.
    The judge mentioned irony about Hinch campaigning against home detention. If the judge truly wanted to enact a display of irony, he'd have sentenced Hinch to gaol anyway despite his health, declaring that since Hinch has actively campaigned against home detention then the judge will give Hinch exactly what he has asked for publically.

    To me, that would have a greater effect on causing Hinch to become contrite, because it would leave Hinch in a position where he can still "broadcast", but he'd likely need to switch his tune, and actively appeal for home detention, thereby showing up Hinch as a total hypocrite, thereby destroying his credibility entirely.

    By imposing a gag order, the judge is turning Hinch into a free speech martyr. Instead the judge should send him to gaol in his medical condition, and let Hinch appeal for the right to be sentenced to home detention. Put Hinch in the position where he has to choose between his grandstanding blabbermouthing, and his health.

    Now THAT would be delicious irony, don't you think?
  12. Pity Derryn isn't black, yellow, caramel, Muslim Cleric, then he could've sued for racism!

    Free speech went away the day Pauline Hanson made her introductory speech. people have confused opinion for racism etc ever since!
  13. Lets all take a chill pill and look at the facts shall we?

    Derryn Hinch was charged with breaching "gag" orders imposed on cases involving Rock spiders, (paedophiles).
    In these cases (and certain sexual assualt cases) it is routine to ban reporting.
    The idea is to protect the victim who (often) is underage.

    This is not a free speech issue, its a Hinch committing contempt of court (again) issue.

    The reason the judge put the conditions on his home detention was to stop him using the press to make a mockery of the sentence.
  14. Well said
  15. calm and precise, (y)

    whether you agree with what the Human Headline did, he DID break the law; are we suggesting that the enforcement of the law should be conditional on whether or not we are media personalities?

    the supression of Hinch's right to speak during his sentence is not a denial of freedom of speech, it is a curb on the very things that brought him the sentence in the first place.
  16. I would have thought the answer to this, for most prisoners, esp in minimum security, would be yes.
  17. And it's not like he's a big tough hero fighting the man. He's been in the slammer several times, and he's whimpering for protective custody before he's in the gate every time. I don't know how the underworld see him today, but back in the day he was just a high profile dog with a big mouth. And you know what's funny? If they put him on protection, guess who he has to spend his time with? And we all know how much Hinch loves rock spiders.
  18. I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it
    - Voltaire and my own sentiments as well

    I refuse to be silenced by some bureaucratic scumbag piece of shit never did a hard days work in their life parasite
  19. I'm actually surprised with some sane comments in here. Come on, aren't we all supposed to be sticking it up at any authority?

    Unfortunately protecting paedophiles is a responsibility of legal authorities and could only be overwritten if we reevaluate significant aspects of our society.
    Unfortunately the law places children at risk. It's hard to know whether Hinch is truly worried, or does these things as a gimmick; but you need to be aware of what occurs when you're breaking the law (for the umpteenth time).

    More generally, I think it sucks that judges seems to like hitting paedophiles with a feather duster. It seems to me as if judges believe that kid's lives don't matter. But anyway, I won't go into rant mode.
  20. If I believed for a minute that Hinch actually cared about anything except ratings then I might have more sympathy for him but since I don't I find it a bit difficult to care much.

    And it's not like he hasn't been done for the same thing before, either he's too thick to learn his lesson or he believes that the sentences act to increase his media profile and indirectly his ratings.

    I believe it's the 2nd...