Australia needs free speech, and we need it now.
Nazis and abortion are two guaranteed topics to push the boundaries of free speech online. Sadly it is usually the vocal minority (isn’t it always) that tend to shout and scream until things are banned or censored.
Slowly liberties are eroded and the rights of one group begin to trump that of another group. This post isn’t about whether or not I agree with Nazi philosophy or whether I am pro abortion or not; it’s about respecting people’s rights to act within the law.
The government won’t let you sell what you want to sell, teach your kids what you want to teach or post anything online that they find objectionable.
Welcome to the new Australia.
These days it’s pretty safe to assume that unless you belong to a giant media corporation, the previous political freedom of speech Australian’s had is all but dead. Camberwell market operators Balwyn Rotary recently closed down a Word War II memorabilia stall run by Tony Dunlap.
Balwyn Rotary received six complaints over an unknown period of time and twice police were called to close down the stall after Mr. Dunlap rightfully told people where to go when they tried to shut him down.
What did the complaints revolve around?
No it wasn’t the fact he was selling amongst other things Nazi memorabilia, complaints were raised over the close proximity of the Israeli flag and various Nazi paraphernalia for sale.
That’s right, six Jews complained about their flag placement and the next thing you know the stall is shut down and the cops are called. If you’re walking down the street and the worst thing that happens to you is you walk past a shop selling flags next to nazi paraphernalia in a World War 2 theme based store then you’ve had a pretty good day.
oh-oh, the nazi and israel flag are touching-QUICK SOMEONE CALL THE POLICE!
Of course there’s no free speech in Australia so if the cops come and order you to close it down because it’s “objectionable” then you do what they say or risk being arrested.
Continuing on the theme of Nazi’s, the family court recently banned a woman from
taking her six year old to political rallies, viewing Nazi websites when the child is in her care and that she be restrained from inciting racial hatred.
Seriously though, I’m all for stopping her from inciting racial hatred and readily concede she is probably a major whackjob but really, who’s going to monitor her internet use 24/7? Further to that we have thousands of children involuntarily indoctrinated into religion annually, some of which are just as offensive to some as the Nazi’s were.
So really, is the crime here that she’s indoctrinating her child like so many others do, or the fact that it’s Nazi doctrination in particular. If it’s the latter (and it is), then who asked the government to be the thought police?
Why don’t we let society sort these cretins out? If Australian’s tolerate nazi’s as a society then they will flourish, likewise they’ll feel ridiculed and outcast like the ignorant morons they are if society doesn’t tolerate them. Either way, why the hell do we need the government telling them what they can and can’t believe.
Unless they’re killing jews or breaking the law in some other way then what is it anyone’s business what they choose to believe or teach their own kids?
Of course there’s no free speech in Australia so bullshit cases like this get heard in family courts. The government could be preventing parents from killing their kids but instead they waste their time thought policing Nazi parents. Yeah, I’m sure a court order is going to turn the mother into a jew loving peaceful beatnick.
Finally we return to a topic I blogged about extensively over the last few months, Australian internet censorship. It wasn’t all that long ago that online forum Whirlpool received a takedown order and the threat of $11,000 a day fines because somebody linked to a legal abortion website that was on ACMA’s blacklist.
Almost two months after threatening Whirlpool the idiots at ACMA are at it again.
This time they’ve issued a takedown notice to the EFA, despite the link being used in a political discussion about Labor’s internet censorship policy.
There are many reasons why this should alarm Australian net users. Most significantly, the link was part of a political discussion about the merits of the existing and future Internet censorship policies. The link was offered as a demonstration of the sorts of controversial content that could and would be included in any such proposal. No “offensive” material was included on our site itself.
Nevertheless, we were forced to remove the link on pain of severe penalties.
In fact I’m willing to bet that more people get their fix of disturbing material from search engines then Whirlpool or the EFA combined. For example I’m getting a rather disturbingly constant stream of traffic for child pornography related searches… and I can assure you there’s no kiddie porn to be found here.
So what do takedown notices like this really achieve?
Well for starters they trash the credibility of any government policy when it comes to the internet. We’ve got fines being issued now pre-filter so one can only imagine what a draconian nightmare the internet will be in Australia post-filter.
Of course there’s no free speech in Australia so if you run a .au website and the government orders you to take something legal down, you do so or risk paying $11,000 a day in fines.
From online to offline and nazis to abortion it is clear that Australia desperately needs some kind of free speech model. In all three of the above examples no illegal acts were committed yet each produced government sanctioned binding results that resulted in censorship or the banning of something.
Sure it might sound ok when we’re dealing with Nazi’s and fetus photos but from there it’s only a small step to something less objectionable and then it’s only a matter of time before some minority group (Aborigines I’m looking at you) start harping on about how something offends them and then it’s all of a sudden banned or censored en masse.
Why free speech hasn’t been a political issue thus far in thus country yet I’m unsure. I guess the Australian public are complacent enough with the ideal of free speech peddled to society despite the opposite being the harsh reality we’re only starting to come to grips with.
I can’t remember prior to this year the government ever threatening fines and takedown notices for links to objectionable material, yet here we are with two instances in as many months and the threat of total internet censorship pounding on our virtual doors.
Democracy what?
May 6th, 2009 at 10:48 pm Cuteface(Quote)
Is it really that bad? Well, let’s just hope Austrlia doesn’t turn into China… going to jail for criticising something online… watch out Oz!
May 7th, 2009 at 4:19 am weez(Quote)
OzS, please take this as being from a staunch anti-censorship activist.
The nazi memorabilia and nazi mum are really rather poor examples to defend the case for anti-censorship. There’s a great big difference between hate speech and free speech. When you use your free speech rights to take away the human rights of others, you really haven’t got a leg to stand on. The UN Universal Declaration on Human rights in fact specifies that one may not use their rights to deny others their own rights.
Trade in nazi memorabilia is a very grey area. There’s no point in pretending Hitler & WWII didn’t happen, but it is fair to suggest that there’s still living people who were profoundly damaged by the acts of the 1923-1944 German nazi party. There’s assholes running around in Australia as we speak who call themselves nazis, claim the holocaust never happened and think this is a great thing- although those in the know understand that anyone who espouses neo-nazism is defending a massive inferiority complex and seeks membership in a group they consider powerful to quell their fears. All the while, neo-nazis seek to victimise certain ethnic or religious groups, attacking what they say is ‘a threat to their race,’ celebrating their wise choices in where they were born and what parents they’d be born to by claiming to be ‘pro-white.’
Free speech is not absolute. Implicit in any right is a responsibility to exercise the right responsibly. You can’t shout false claims of ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre due to the danger to the public and neither should you be able to shout defamatory lies about your fellow citizens just because you have some protected speech rights.
May 7th, 2009 at 8:19 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
1. Selling Nazi memorabilia isn’t denying anyone their human rights to anything.
2. Free speech isn’t all roses and sunshine. If you grant the country free speech there are lunatics who will be free to voice their opinions on the holocaust. Seperating free speech from crime is important, currently it is illegal to discriminate or commit a hate crime or to use your example to cause public panic in this country and that isn’t going to change if free speech was entered into the constitution.
As much as I disagree with Nazi philosophy and ideas, I accept that under a guaranteed free speech model there are going to exist nazis who operate within the law by expressing their views. How do you think sites like Stormfront operate out of the US?
Whilst not neccesarily the best canditate to convince people to fight for free speech, I feel that pointing out free speech applies to everyone provided they operate within the framework of the law is something that’s not pointed out enough.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:05 pm Van(Quote)
You put it better than I ever could, Oz.
Sure, ones freedom of speech could be anothers freedom to be pissed off (i.e. – I don’t have to like what someone says) but the debate and respect for and about topic(s) seem to be gone substituted with simply attacking others.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:25 pm weez(Quote)
under a guaranteed free speech model there are going to exist nazis who operate within the law by expressing their views. How do you think sites like Stormfront operate out of the US?
They operate under the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, which does guarantee freedom of expression, but there’s also enumerated rights in the US Constitution to ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,’ and equal protection under law (14th Amendment) which can be abrogated when another party spreads harmful falsehoods and calls them exercises of free speech (see ‘blood libel,’ ‘holocaust denial,’ etc.).
Being an American, I’m quite aware of the US Supreme Court decision which permitted the American Nazi Party to march in Skokie, Illinois, a suburb with a large number of Jewish residents. In their infinite wisdom, the SC made no distinction between hate speech (specifically characterised by falsehood and malice)and free speech- and it is long past due time that they did so.