Got some bad news for you, Stephany. You do not have a right to freedom of speech. In Australia, the only type of speech which is protected is political communication (meaning comment about the affairs of government), and even this is only protected by implication. http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/RN/1997-98/98rn03.htm

Regardless what you think of it, Australian states are free to make laws limiting particular types of speech, and most have done so.

When people abuse their freedoms, the pressure increases for governments to make laws limiting certain types of speech. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4813#52952

Of course, if you think that the freedom to speak your mind should be guaranteed, then I would urge you to contact your member of parliament and express your strong support for a Bill of Rights: http://www.humanrightsact.com.au

w,

I am well aware of the appalling absence of free speech guarantees in Australia. I know that the states and the Commonwealth can and do curb free speech.

Fortunately in Australia we do enjoy, de facto, a high degree of freedom of speech. But it is being steadily eroded. The so-called Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is but one example of this erosion.

Thank you for drawing my attention to the proposed Human Rights Bill. I shall study it.

This may surprise some, but I agree most with Stephany here. I think that the Victorian legislation goes too far, and its application in this case was heavy-handed in the extreme.

On the other hand, I think that the protection of individuals from vilification for whatever reason that is afforded by common law is an essential corollary to the principle of free speech.

Of course, if we had a Bill of Rights in this country it could take care of both of these aspects of public discourse.

Religious antivilification laws only serve to keep lawyers in business and free speech in private. When should it ever be the state's role to adjudicate in religious affairs? Effectively, the expression of religious believers is subject to the approval of the state. If believers of one faith wish to affirm their beliefs by denying the beliefs of any other faith they risk being brought before a tribunal and fined or imprisoned. It is a ridiculous and deplorable state of affairs!

grn, are you nit picking (they have to strap bombs to themselves) or are you willing to accept other acts of terror?

Ignoring the acts of nominally christain governments - the issues do get more complex there.
You might consider the reign of terror run by the IRA across parts of Ireland and Britain in the not so recent past. Plenty of innocents killed there by avowed terrorists who considered themselves christain (even if some other christains disown them). You might also consider the involvement of some of the prodestants in that conflict, different but also innocents killed.

You might consider the actions of christains who have murdered people as part of a stance against abortion including those not actually involved in the abortion business itself.

You might consider the need for Nato intervention to save the lives of muslims at the hands of christains in bosnia/serbia not so long ago.

You might consider Hitlers statements clearly attributing his work to doing gods will - plenty of muslims don't consider the terrorists muslim.

And of course you can look back a bit further in history to see the mass slaughter of innocents in the name of christ.

Now back to the topic.
None of what I've heard looks like the truth was told "in love" but that can be a fairly handy excuse to say pretty much what you like and pretend to be the good guy.

Still I'm glad to see the possibility of this intrusive restriction on free speech being wound back. Free speech has it's pains and it's responsibilities but we loose much if we surrender it.

R0bert

R0bert: "None of what I've heard looks like the truth was told "in love" but that can be a fairly handy excuse to say pretty much what you like and pretend to be the good guy."

Now who else does that remind me of...?