Craig, when did I ever say that I “can’t see a case where civil dissent or disobedience undermines democracy”? There are dozens. But the plethora of ‘illegitimate’ cases should not justify absolute silence and censorship when it comes to civil disobedience. I was merely making the point that the occasional act of civil dissent and disobedience can lead to democratic change.

Then the comparison. How dare I compare the grandeur of Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela to a group of students? The gap may be great indeed, but there seems to be an underlying assumption that King and Mandela have a greater right to dissent and free speech than some unknown students. This is what I find disconcerting. Certainly, governments alongside the dominant ideology at the time, would have classed acts of defiance by King or Mandela as enacted by “small minds on tiny issues”. It is only after committing to their cause that its legitimacy has been acknowledged.

Equally, the methods of execution in medieval times are today labeled ‘barbarism’ as part of an uncivilized culture back then. But Craig, if you or I would be living in those very times, we’d be cheering and applauding the public execution of some person deemed a witch or homosexual. We’d be shouting hang ‘em.

And that’s why Rex is absolutely right, who decides what laws are worthy of disobedience? In centuries from now people will be opening their history books and labeling us barbarians. So neither you nor I are in a position to deem acts of defiance “irrelevant”. Neither you nor I are in a position to distinguish “real change in real situations” from unreal ones.

Ironically, it was civil disobedience by the High Court that has led to our implied constitutional right to political communication. Conservative circles have suggested that this spells out the “death of the rule of law” as a result of activist judges. Even the Mabo judgment, among many others, is still believed to have been fuelled by activism for human rights, despite subverting the doctrine of precedent.

Cont'd.

I am not suggesting that the right to free speech should be absolute. I am also not suggesting that inciting crime is warranted. But I think the case of students advocating theft because they truly felt disadvantaged by our alleged “evil” capitalist culture (and the article discusses the gap between the bourgeoisie and proletariat) is legally valid enough to outweigh the unrealistic prospect of people actually deciding to steal something as a result of that article. Some call it satire, others call it criminal.

I nevertheless recognize your view that the crime factor, in this instance, overrides free speech. The issue with free speech or “political communication” is that it’s a matter of balancing one interest with the other. Striking that balance makes one sweat, as you can see.

I was not advocating absolute silence. Censorship is a slippery slope and we should be vigilant about its capacity to undermine what we value. What I do advocate is the responsibility that comes with the right of free speech.
Does the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. or Nelson Mandela have a greater right to dissent than a group of students that propagate 'illegitimate' cases, such as the theft issue, regardless of your case of trying to legitimate it? Morally, of course they do, and to suggest otherwise puts us on a different page entirely, I am afraid.
King and Mandela were never seen as advocating small issues by anyone. The issues preceded them both and were manifestly and prodigiously unjust on basic human rights issues. Democratic change, if we are indeed at a point where that is necessary, does not come from disobedience validated by cherished mantles of victimhood, it is arrived at by those that stand and have the courage of their convictions: Those that refuse to be victims. That sounds a bit harsh, even to me, but it has been my observation that, in many cases though far from all, victimhood has been a refuge from responsibility.
Would the writers of the article on theft have taken responsibility for their words if it led to someone stealing? There would be differing views on that, I would imagine.
With rights come responsibilities. The former is almost always carried as a flag, the latter is almost always forgotten.
As for activism from the Bench, that was a tremor put forth by the conservatives of the day regarding the Mabo(2) decision. Precedent, by definition, must start somewhere and the Judges created precedent by rejecting the Terra Nullius doctrine. That previous judgments did not reject the doctrine tells of a failure of former judicial processes not any alleged activism or subversion by the Mabo judgment. Law, like statistics, is a quagmire of interpretation.
So, MarkdMark, we certainly see from different perspectives on some issues. That we are able to do so, freely, speaks volumes for the society in which we live.

Christopher, you're wrong to equate vsu with censorship. VSU is about letting students choose whether or not they join a student union.

Currently money is taken from students without their consent, and some of that is used to subsidise student papers. Now that this illegitimate confiscation of students' money is to end that means students will have control over that part of their property.

It also means student papers will no longer be able to gain access to illegitimately-acquired monies. If this means papers are no longer financially viable then that is a result of individual students regaining rightful control of their property. It has nothing to do with censorship.

Student papers that relied on politically controlled, illegitimately-gained subsidies have always been subject to some form of control. If student papers want to be truly free they should source their income from the market instead of relying on compulsion.