Dear Yuyutsu,

I love library jokes.

Here's another:

A man walks into a library and asks for a book on
Tourette's.

Librarian says: "F- off, you twat!"

Man: "Yes, that's the one!"

Yuyutsu, NO, a society may not do anything, if in doing so contravenes any laws, or even by-laws for that matter.
I think I have already covered this one.
That's why it is such a moot topic (freedom of speech in public places).
AS for your disdain and disgust at the mere mention that the Queen owns Australia.
She does, by her birth right and inheritance.
It all started with Captain Cook and Queen Victoria, when Cook landed and claimed this land in the name of her Majesty, Her Royal Highness Queen Victoria.
Sound familiar?
I love telling that story reminding all the whinging snivelling lefties who's in charge.
HAH they hate it!
Now back to your question.
The reason it is so, is that the queen as the owner of this land holds sway over our military, judiciary, well every office other than private industry, which she controls through other instruments and resources.
As for parks and libraries and anything with reference to the 'public', the same applies.
Now all you red necks calm down.
You have nothing to worry about.
Like all the other countries owned by the British Kings and Queens of past and present, this one will relinquish control, one day, and may God have mercy on our souls when that day comes.
It will be just another acquisition by the Illuminati and their goal of world domination.
The evidence is there just look it up.
Now as for free speech in libraries.
Firstly I have never had time to sit around reading other peoples utterings on life, either real or fantasies.
I chose to 'live' life and in doing so have experiences so much more than 'anyone' I have ever come across.
It is these experiences which have put me in good stead for my journey through life up till now, and for as long as I am able, going forward.
So NO, could not give a rats whether one has the freedom to speak or for that matter fart, a library.
I hope this clears up any points or issues you may have had.

//when Cook landed and claimed this land in the name of her Majesty, Her Royal Highness Queen Victoria.//

Wow, a real history buff we have here! James Cook died 14 February 1779, when the Hawaiians ate him. Queen Victoria was born 24 May 1819, Only 40 years after Cook got roasted. What happened to George III? Did Cookie make a come back, from beyond the grave to claim Aussie

Paul, I stand corrected.
I had federation in mind.
Got the two entwined in my mind and Federation came out.
My points still stand.
Thanks for that.

Dear Altrav,

«NO, a society may not do anything, if in doing so contravenes any laws, or even by-laws for that matter.»

By "society" I referred to that group of people that [think it] owns the land over which it makes the laws and by-laws, then change them as it wills. Now I'm aware that this term is very inaccurate, very sloppy, but that's what most OLO members here refer to, so I presumed that you too use "society" in that manner - sorry for placing you in the same basket. So indeed, no society (think of it as a state, although calling a state "society" is very sloppy indeed) can do anything if it contravenes the laws of God and/or the laws of physics, those being the only formidable, stable and legitimate laws.

«AS for your disdain and disgust at the mere mention that the Queen owns Australia.»

My disdain and disgust is at the childish concept as if any human or any group of humans owns the whole of one of God's blessed continents, so it has nothing to do with kings and queens. Pointing your finger at the moon doesn't make the moon yours - that's plain childish!

If someone were to own the whole place, then (like you, I presume) I rather have it be the Queen than that mob which you call "Illuminati", however neither does.

So we could go on discussing a comprehensive theory of land-ownership, which could be very interesting, but that would take us way beyond this topic, which is:

SUPPOSE a group of people collectively owns a land - and let us not get into the nitty-gritty discussion on whether or not they indeed own that land, THEN I believe that they may legitimately and morally, decide/legislate to limit free-speech within that land or parts thereof, perhaps for the sake of providing its members with a more peaceful and comfortable environment.

Do you agree or not?

ALTRAV- It appears that some are arguing from a moral stance and you are arguing from a legal stance. Queen Victoria signed the Australian Constitution into Law and so is a document based on British Law. There have been changes over the years as to British control over Australian Law. Most know that the Queen trumps our constitution in Military issues due to the "Royal Perogative over the military" based on 1600's precedent from memory. This was the basis of the "Military Callout Legislation 2000".

http://www.peo.gov.au/uploads/peo/docs/closer-look/CloserLook_Constitution.pdf

As Laurie in "The Castle" pointed out Constitutional Law is a specialist area