May 02, 2017

Australian Greens on a censorship crusade

Ezra LevantRebel Commander

On Monday's showI spoke with Lorraine Finlay, lecturer at the Murdoch University School of Law, about how a law called Section 18c is being used to silence free speech in Australia.

Section 18C actually bans words that are “offensive,” whatever that means.

Australia, like Canada and the UK, really needs an alternative media outlet like ours. We're building a team of free speech warriors in Australia. So stay tuned as we bring out new videos from Claire LehmannDr. Tanveer Ahmed and Alison Bevege — bringing you “the other side of the story,” from the other side of the world.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-05-03 07:17:25 -0400
Bill Elder, excellent assessment!
commented 2017-05-02 22:09:00 -0400
Free speech suffering from ambiguous subjective laws is a symptom of a much larger problem that is indicative of the degeneration of our law-making bodies.

The core doctrine of the rule of law in a constitutional liberal democracy is that law must be written to clearly state it’s purpose, intent and clearly delineate exactly what is legal and illegal in language such that all can understand. This goes back to the Magna Carta and hundreds of years of common law precedent. Simply laws cannot be ambiguous otherwise you cannot hold those accountable to the law who cannot understand what it wants.

Issuing edicts in statute law outlawing ambiguous things open to subjective interpretation is the very antithesis of justice. Each community, social group and individual has a different concept of what is “offensive” making a fair trial impossible and opening the public to abusive enforcement and malicious prosecution – just like in an authoritarian dystopia.

In the west we are straying frighteningly close to an abusive autocratic plutocracy by our law being written by, interpreted by and only understandable by a small elite clique (the bar) with most of the common public neither knowing what s lawful or not nor understanding the law (Which has mutated into a voluminous work no single man can know completely.) We have a legal system not a justice system, in a justice system the people can understand the law and take part in the justice system – in a legal system only lawyers and autocrats know the law and it is exclusive to them alone.
commented 2017-05-02 21:37:13 -0400
Free speech suffering from ambiguous subjective laws
commented 2017-05-02 16:26:19 -0400
Debates are won and lost based on the ability to speak freely and share your perspective, backed up by facts. Section 18C is supported by the left, as to not engage in debate and rely on facts…their strategy is to limit the speech of free thinking people. Next, there will be a push to legislate acceptable thoughts!