Free Speech In Wonderland

ABC Shills Again

2010-02-07T15:31:00.000-08:00

In a completely unsurprising development the ABC website is, as usual, framing the news as one would expect of ALP stooges:

Look, everyone knows that the PM has a temper, particularly regarding those who don't show him sufficient deference, but this is well beyond the brown tongue stage. It is now clear that we will see a stinking brown head if the ABC can bring itself to remove its noggin from the PM's rectum.

Thug Cartel Smacked Down

2010-02-03T16:19:00.000-08:00

The entertainment industry cartel has lost its case against internet service provider iiNet. The movie industry plaintiffs tried to hold iiNet responsible for the actions of its users who allegedly downloaded pirated movies. In a huge victory for common sense, Justice Cowdroy said:

"It is impossible to conclude that iiNet has authorised copyright infringement ... (it) did not have relevant power to prevent infringements occurring,"

Corrupt Government Run Media

2010-02-02T02:08:00.000-08:00

Today Tony Abbott released a new Coalition Climate policy today.

As one would expect government stooges at the ABC presented their political Masters' view of events:

This is nothing more than government funded advertising for .. who would have guessed it .. the Government. I'm feeling sick to the stomach at this blatant partisanship. The ABC 'journalists' responsible for this outrage should pay the cost of the advertisement out of their own pockets.

News.com.au, the Age and the SMH reported it on their websites as a straight news story:

(Screenshots as at approx 21.15 AEDST Tuesday 2 Feb 2010)

Boss Hogg In Adelaide

2010-02-01T19:49:00.000-08:00

In a measure designed to limit free speech at election time South Australian Premier (and grub in chief) Mike Rann has attempted to censor political speech on the internet.

Clearly his ego has gotten the better of his judgment and is driving this naked emperor to drag Adelaide down to the level of a redneck backwater where no one is game to speak out against the powers that be.

Update: The proposal has now been dropped following vigorous public antipathy.

Police Visit

2010-01-26T19:33:00.000-08:00

UK blogger Seismic Shock has received a visit from the local Bobbies because a bully-boy clergyman had his feelings hurt. Predictably the story has now spread far and wide.

It is indeed ironic that as anti-semitism becomes more rampant than ever, those calling out anti-semites and their enablers are being hassled by the constabulary who are assuming the role of thought police.

Climate Fascists

2009-12-11T17:49:00.000-08:00

AGW is an ideology promoted by bully-boy tactics and a consistent refusal to debate the issues. Most supporters are unable to carry the conversation past their blind belief in the "science". They are hopelessly ignorant of the main arguments.

It is not surprising to find radical climate fanatics asserting their right to protest includes the right to shut down free speech of others.

It's not just the radical kooks but alleged intellectuals like David Suzuki who would like to jail those he disagrees with.

The Danes are doing their bit by selling out the Dalai Lama in the hope the Chinese will get on board the train of climate madness.

In Australia the CSIRO is no longer a scientific body. It tried to prevent a scientist publishing a paper which didn't conform to government policy. The scientist, Dr Clive Spash, had the integrity to resign rather than be cowed by these fascists.

It is also not surprising to find that the leading 'scientists' promoting the AGW agenda conspiring to silence scientists who disagree with them in the Climategate emails.

Google, of course, is doing its bit by limiting prompts to "climategate" search enquiries.

Decrypt Or Die

2009-11-25T17:27:00.001-08:00

A UK man has been jailed for not decrypting his computer:

The first person jailed under draconian UK police powers that Ministers said were vital to battle terrorism and serious crime has been identified by The Register as a schizophrenic science hobbyist with no previous criminal record.

His crime was a persistent refusal to give counter-terrorism police the keys to decrypt his computer files.

The 33-year-old man, originally from London, is currently held at a secure mental health unit after being sectioned while serving his sentence at Winchester Prison.

Australia has similar laws in s3LA of the Crimes Act 1914 and s201A of the Customs Act 1901. Failure to comply can result in a penalty of up to 6 months imprisonment.

The New Denialists

2009-11-25T14:46:00.000-08:00

The reaction to the Climategate scandal from the die-hard AGW fanatics has been a thing to behold. They are in complete denial about the emails. The alleged news organisation, the New York Times, is focussing its coverage on the actions of the whistleblower, and running interference for those implicated in this scandal. Funnily enough they do not have the same attitude to other leaked information. In this, as in so many things, they are acting as partisan hacks rather than as journalists.

Worse than even the NYT is the BBC which had the new information for a month before the scandal broke, but did not publish it. They are just another discredited 'news' outlet.

Leftist intellectual George Monbiot is a strong supporter of the AGW thesis. The new information, while not causing him to change his mind on AGW, has given him pause for thought. He apologised to his readers, and acknowledged the seriousness of the now public CRU emails.

The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people's denial. Pretending that this isn't a real crisis isn't going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We'll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.

This ability to engage and deal with new facts as they emerge is the difference between true intellectuals and mere ideologues.

UPDATE:

Andrew Revkin at NYT (who you can see being duchessed in the Climategate emails) is showing signs of critical thinking.

Islam Hates Free Speech

2009-11-19T17:12:00.000-08:00

The push for blasphemy laws to restrict criticism of Islam is being continued at the UN, the lead this time is being taken by Pakistan and Algeria. Islamic countries have no business depriving people of their right to free speech.

Because their are a significant number of muslims prepared to resort to violence, it is no surprise that the makers of the movie 2012 have decided to give Islam special treatment:

'I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie'.

Sadly, most western leaders are too gutless to denounce this sorry state of affairs. The Dutch are subjecting one of their own politicians to criminal prosecution for offending muslims in a 10 minute film.

Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

Schoolies Off Their Facebook

2009-11-17T21:57:00.000-08:00

Unbelievable!

Police try to shut down a Facebook page. They say it might cause even more stupid behaviour.

Words fail me.

Hoodwinked

2009-11-12T16:43:00.000-08:00

Censorship imposed on oneself for the purposes of political correctness is an insidious thing. it is a form of free speech suicide.

It is quite clear that for Obama and the Obama Slobbering Media, speculation about the motivation of the Foot Hood killer is fine so long as it doesn't include speculation about any possible religious motivation, despite the fact that there are many clues pointing in that direction. Some of these are canvassed in this Time piece.

Obama said:

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next.

Sounds like wishful thinking.

The hapless president implored people not to rush to judgment. This is typical. Every time a muslim perpetrates and atrocity on the basis of their religious beliefs, a cry goes out eliciting sympathy for muslims who might be subject to a backlash. Just like when a christian shoots an abortionist the cry goes out for fear of an anti-chrisitian backlash, or not. A little more concern for identifying the cause of the atrocity and the steps necessary to prevent it happening again would be in order, even if it means considering an (in this case) obvious, but unmentionable cause.

The U.S. Army Chief of Staff, George Casey, likewise seemed primarily concerned about the safety of Muslims, not about the safety of the potential victims of the next jihad attack: "I'm concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that." Not "I'm concerned that there could be another jihadist among our Muslim soldiers. And I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that."

Some of the excuses include stress (I assume it was some form of pre-traumatic stress disorder as he hadn't deployed yet), peeling a bumper sticker off his car, that he snapped or that he was "nuts".

In fact Major Hasan explained what the motivations of a muslim might be in a powerpoint presentation (we love death more than you love life).

The Dead Hand Of Capitalism

2009-11-04T17:16:00.000-08:00

Now the US is the driving force behind ever more draconian intellectual property laws. It wasn't always so.

Now the push is on to extend intellectual property even further, including in relation to to the internet. It seems that counterfeiting now includes releasing material without DRM.

Intellectual property laws are granted by society for its own benefit. Unfortunately the laws have created monsters, companies who profit obscenely from exploiting their statutory monopoly. Part of the their ill-gotten wealth is directed at political lobbying, ensuring that politicians screw their constituents as they continually extend the reach of intellectual property laws.

Rudd's Orwellian Regime

2009-10-27T23:37:00.000-07:00

There was a disturbing story in the Daily Telegraph two days ago. Steve Lewis reported that the Rudd government reserved the right to vet government funded communications between MPs and their constituents.

In a move that has incensed MPs, Commonwealth bureaucrats are exploiting new laws that allow them to ban newsletters being sent to voters.

Using Orwellian-type powers, they are putting a black mark through words such as "dreadful", "mismanagement" and "incompetence" - declaring they can no longer be used because they criticise government policy.

The new laws which came into effect on October 1 deliver a big advantage to the Government in the election year.

Senior ministers are even able to access material from Coalition MPs and the minor parties before they are mailed to voters.

The crackdown follows the Auditor-General's criticism of the $300 million parliamentary entitlements scheme.

This is beyond belief. It can’t be right, can it?

UPDATE:

I made enquiries of an ALP MHR who gave me the following reply:

The Telegraph story that you have referred to has arisen out of some changes to Parliamentary entitlements. Essentially, the issue is that a Member of Parliament is not permitted to incorporate party political comment into publications printed at taxpayers' expense.

The details of these requirements are contained in the attached Ministerial Circular and Q & A attachment.
The circular was released by the Special Minister of State following his press release:
http://www.smos.gov.au/media/2009/mr_352009.html
This press release was issued in response to the findings of the ANAO in the attached report.
http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/2009-10_ANAO_Audit_Report_3_.pdf
It is worth noting that an MP only has to comply with these requirements when using taxpayer funded entitlements.

I'll think of that every time I pass one of those school signs that must be kept up until after the next election.

This sounds like doublespeak to me. If this is the approach to be taken, politicians need to be given great latitude as to what they might say. They should certainly be allowed to criticise government policy in the most trenchant terms. Quoting Hansard clearly should be exempt from this regulation.

Moral Rights And Moral Wrongs

2009-10-26T15:13:00.001-07:00

The profit motive drives economic growth, encouraging innovation and producing a cornucopia of goods and services for consumers. However, coupled with a statutory monopoly it draws out niggardly nastiness in those retarded bullies who enjoy nothing more than screwing people.

Performing rights associations specialise in bullying stand over tactics, as these two cases show.

Here we have an attempt to extort money from a shop because a girl stacking shelves was singing out loud. Ultimately the copyright cretins backed off after a public outcry.

The second case involves an attempt by Warner Bros. to shut down a Harry Potter themed party. The party morphed into an ' Anonymous Wizard' party.

Vain Thin-Skinned Thug Attacks Press Freedom

2009-10-25T16:01:00.000-07:00

Obama promised to change the way Washington does business. In a sense he has done that – by importing the even more corrupt Chicago machine school of politics to Washington.

Obama’s administration has taken a rather precious approach to media relations, going to war with his media critics. This is reminiscent of Hugo Chavez’ style, but Chavez has taken things a bit further, closing down critical media. However, Team Obama appears to have crossed a line with its latest move.

An attempt was made to exclude Fox news from an interview with administration official Ken Feinberg. The other networks refused to do the interview if Fox wasn’t invited. Eventually Fox was invited and the interview went ahead. Deputy White House Press Secretary Josh Ernest said:

“This White House has demonstrated our willingness to do a round of interviews with a range of networks but not Fox. Clearly, that didn’t happen yesterday.”

Putin, that great sponsor of a free and independent media would be proud of this attack on press freedom.

Here is the Fox News report on this issue:

And here is the Huffington Post take on it.

Apart from being utterly childish, and possibly unconstitutional it is time that Obama showed some respect for the people he serves, including those who disagree with. This is of a piece with his attempt to foist a rag-tag bunch of charlatans, tax truants and political extremists into high administrative office. Classic was his attempt to put tax cheat Tom Daschle in charge of health immediately after Daschle’s stint earning millions lobbying for private health industry firms.

The Democrat new broom approach can be seen in the fact that Charlie Rangel is still chair of the Ways and Means Committee despite his serious ethical issues. This is Chicago politics writ large in Washington.

Obama's ambition to be a radical reformer coupled with his administration's bare-knuckled brawler style politics does nothing but ensure that he will be one of the most divisive of all presidents. Certainly now people opposed to Obama are reacting angrily, and in some cases dishonestly (see previous post). Such is the circus of U.S. politics

Net Neutrality And Tethering

2009-10-22T15:45:00.000-07:00

Tethering is a means of getting internet access on your computer by hooking up your mobile phone and using the internet access you pay for on your phone plan to get online on your computer.

The natural thing for rent-seeking predatory companies is to block tethering on mobile phones. Many telcos do just that. It allows them to screw their customers harder.

The US FCC has just put out a statement suggesting that the practice of tethering would be offensive against the net neutrality principle, which the FCC has proposed. Basically ‘net neutrality’ is a principle designed to stop the internet being colonised by big business. For example an ISP may be paid by a corporation to prioritise the streaming of its movies, leaving less bandwidth to other traffic.

If the "any device rule" is enacted as a "Rule" with a capital "R," customers must be enabled to utilize any device they choose to connect with a wireless broadband network, as long as it did not harm the network.

Not surprisingly, big business has been lobbying hard against net neutrality, initiating a scare campaign based on an Obama-bashing conspiracy theory:

If you thought Washington—which already took over banking and autos, and is fast-tracking attempts to take over health care and energy—would leave the Internet alone, you were dead wrong. The Internet (perhaps our greatest free market success story in recent years) is squarely in the cross-hairs of the administration and it’s not waiting for Congress to act. The charge is being led by an eager, ideologically committed White House staffer named Susan Crawford.

Unbelievable! You really can’t make this stuff up. As soon as content owners can prioritise their traffic, and reduce your traffic to a standstill the price they charge will go up, and consumer choice will go down. Business has been searching for a means to colonise the internet so they can extract monopoly rent from users. Attempts by government to prevent this are characterised as a leftist conspiracy.

Tweeting For Free Speech

2009-10-20T18:47:00.000-07:00

Suppression orders are a serious impediment to the transparency of the judicial process. There may be situations in which suppression orders are warranted, such as where there is an obvious and imminent danger to a litigant or witness.

However, such orders are becoming commonplace, and are being used more widely:

The use of "super-injunctions", under which commercial corporations claim the right to keep secret the fact that they have been to court, has been growing. Anonymity is also increasingly being granted to individual litigants.

For example Trafigura recently obtained an injunction to stop the Guardian reporting parliamentary proceedings, specifically a question asked in the House of Commons about the dumping of toxic waste. The injunction also prohibited the Guardian identifying the party seeking the injunction or the injunction itself.

An interesting part of the story is the role of Twitter in getting the story out:

First, bloggers and twitterers started linking to a report on the Guardian website, which told people a High Court judge had "prevented" the paper "reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds."

Then, bloggers Jack of Kent and Richard Wilson started chiselling away at clues in the article to find out who had won the injunction and what the story related to.

Next, a steady stream of twitterers started posting links to Guido Fawkes, Don't Get Fooled Again, The Spectator and One Man And His Blog - websites that had decided to post the full text of Farrelly's question - to Twitter hash tags #Trafigura and #CarterRuck.

Around 10am on Tuesday, #Trafigura had become the top trend on Twitter, with #CarterRuck following close behind.

Stephen Fry tweeted 800,000+ followers: "Outrageous gagging order. It's in reference to the Trafigura oil dumping scandal. Grotesque and squalid."

While Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger informed the Twitterverse: "#CarterRuck ... High Court hearing [to challenge the injunction] fixed for 2pm."

Ultimately although a degree of common sense prevailed in this case, the larger issue of judicial transparency remains.

One Ring To Bind Them All

2009-10-18T17:49:00.000-07:00

Fr Brennan has recommended that a Human Rights Act be adopted. Included are the following recommendations:

Recommendation 22

The Committee recommends that, if economic and social rights are listed in a federal Human Rights Act, those rights not be justiciable and that complaints be heard by the Australian Human Rights Commission. Priority should be given to the following:

· the right to an adequate standard of living—including adequate food, clothing and housing

· the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health

· the right to education.

Recommendation 23

The Committee recommends that a limitation clause for derogable civil and political rights, similar to that contained in the Australian Capital Territory and Victorian human rights legislation, be included in any federal Human Rights Act.

Recommendation 24

The Committee recommends that the following non-derogable civil and political rights be included in any federal Human Rights Act, without limitation:

· The right to life. Every person has the right to life. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life. The death penalty may not be imposed for any offence.

· Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. A person must not be

– subjected to torture

or

– treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way

or

– subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without his or her full, free and informed consent.

· Freedom from slavery or servitude. A person must not be held in slavery or servitude.

· Retrospective criminal laws.

– A person must not be found guilty of a criminal offence as a result of conduct that was not a criminal offence when the conduct was engaged in.

– A penalty imposed on a person for a criminal offence must not be greater than the penalty that applied to the offence when it was committed.

– If a penalty for an offence is reduced after a person committed the offence but before the person is sentenced for that offence, the reduced penalty should be imposed.

– Nothing in the foregoing affects the trial or punishment of any person for any act or omission that was a criminal offence under international law at the time the act or omission occurred.

· Freedom from imprisonment for inability to fulfil a contractual obligation. A person must not be imprisoned solely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.

· Freedom from coercion or restraint in relation to religion and belief. No person will be subject to coercion that would impair his or her freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his or her choice.

The right to a fair trial should also not be limited.

Recommendation 25

The Committee recommends that the following additional civil and political rights be included in any federal Human Rights Act:

· the right to freedom from forced work

· the right to freedom of movement

· the right to privacy and reputation

· the right to vote

· the right to freedom of thought, conscience and belief

· freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs

· the right to freedom of expression

· the right to peaceful assembly

· the right to freedom of association

· the right to marry and found a family

· the right of children to be protected by family, society and the State

· the right to take part in public life

· the right to property

· the right to liberty and security of person

· the right to humane treatment when deprived of one’s liberty

· the right to due process in criminal proceedings

· the right not to be tried or punished more than once

· the right to be compensated for wrongful conviction.

Human rights protection is a mixed blessing. Any such legislation that does not entrench a right to free speech in such a way that overcomes the current idiotic laws which may, for example, result in the gaoling of people for ridiculing religion, and which has resulted in the gaoling of Frederick Toben for his anti-Semitic remarks, is worthless.

The sad fact is that this law will be imposed on the people by the parliament. The true nature of a Bill of Rights is one imposed on the parliament by the people. The current proposal does not envision a constitutional amendment, as it is extremely unlikely that it would be agreed to in its current form.

Instead the people will have this pious effluent inflicted on them by a smug righteous soft left government.

There is also a section of the report calling for compliance with Australia’s international obligations. The UN has passed resolutions calling for laws to protect religion from defamation. There is a risk that in future this will be enshrined as a human right and that it may become an ‘international obligation’ for Australia. This is offensive to the concept freedom of speech. This may suit a cleric like Fr Brennan, but it is an abomination in terms of free speech.

Ultimately, the legislation will be a sad compromise. It will be bent to accommodate current law. It is unlikely the government will allow it to overrule current legislation like the Federal sedition laws. In the end it will be a horrible compromise which will not serve the community well. If we are going to enshrine fundamental rights in law, it should be done as a constitutional amendment, which will lead to a fulsome public debate involving ordinary citizens rather than merely the chattering classes.

Self Censorship - The Soft Jihad

2009-10-06T21:51:00.000-07:00

A German publisher has decided not to publish a novel out of fear for the safety of himself, his family and his employees.

Surely he knows that Islam is a religion of peace, and that only a very tiny minority of misunderstanders of Islam would resort to violence, so he has nothing to fear, right?

The novel was about an honour killing, obviously a topic wholly unrelated to Islam. The offending words were "You can shove your Koran up your arse". My thoughts exactly.

Censorship at Stanford

2009-10-06T19:20:00.000-07:00

Stanford university has banned a filmmaker from using footage of an interview he conducted with an academic who had moved from a global cooling alarmist position in the 1970s to a warming alarmist position now.

In the 1970s there was widespread panic in the scientific community (which flowed through into the popular press) about the threat of global cooling.

It would be interesting to hear an interview with a scientist involved in both incidents. Stanford is doing everything it can to prevent this.

US Puts Free Speech On The Alter of Appeasement

2009-10-05T23:48:00.000-07:00

This is quite disconcerting. As part of Obama's policy of "reaching out" to muslims the US has co-sponsored a dubious UN Human Rights Council resolution which sends out very mixed signals in relation to free speech.

The implications are discussed in the linked article.

Book-Burner Denied Top UNESCO Position

2009-09-23T19:16:00.000-07:00

Looks like UNESCO dodged a bullet here:

In his lengthy political career, Hosni has often been accused of promoting anti-Semitism, in particular in 2008 when he told the Egyptian parliament: "I'd burn Israeli books myself if I found any in libraries in Egypt."
Hosni, who has been Egypt's culture minister for 22 years, insists his comment was made during an angry exchange with hardliners from the Muslim Brotherhood and had been taken out of context.

The last thing the UN science and education body needs is someone who threatens to burn books when the Islamists turn up the heat.

Net Neutrality

2009-09-21T22:28:00.000-07:00

There has been a move among ISPs to reduce bandwidth for specific applications such as Skype or bittorrent files. This tactic may easily push internet users to paid services, especially those which encourage or induce ISPs to limit access to free services.

Fortunately the FCC is making a stand in favour of net neutrality which provides for non-discrimination against particular content. The internet is a relatively free, and as such is a tempting prize for potential monopolists who would like nothing more than to colonise it and ration it to users for a price.

Also, the Electronic Frontier Foundation site is a good source of information on freedom in the electronic age.

Don't Offend Muslims

2009-09-20T20:10:00.000-07:00

Apparently if someone is offended because Muhammad is referred to as a 'warlord' the UK police will arrest the perpetrators.

Not with a bang but a whimper, European civilisation is now groveling at the feet of a hideous 7th century religion. This is what happens when a relativistic culture, not even sure of its own values, and without even the self-confidence to reproduce itself, meets a vigourous self-confidant cult.

A Triumph For Junk Science

2009-09-16T17:52:00.000-07:00

English defamation laws are notoriously favourable to plaintiffs, and frequently used to silence debate. Debunking junk science there is a minefield for anyone brave enough to attempt it, as this article amply demonstrates.

Defamation law should be subject to a fair comment exception which requires proof by the plaintiff of bad faith on the part of the defendant.

The internet has only complicated this problem, as its global reach means that unscrupulous plaintiffs can sue in countries with the laws most favourable to them. An example of this is discussed here.

Copywriting The Law

2009-09-16T17:34:00.000-07:00

In an interesting development some governments are starting to use copyright law to make money out of their laws and the guidance they publish regarding those laws.

This is bizarre. People are expected to obey the law, but must pay for the privilege of finding out what the law is and how it is administered. There must be better ways of raising revenue than this.

Scientology Secrets

2009-09-07T22:35:00.000-07:00

The Scientology cult is quite happy to trash free speech to protect itself from scrutiny and criticism. Here are the recommendations in its submission to the Australian Human Rights Commission:

Recommendation 1: The implementation of Criminal and Civil Restrictions on Religious Vilification.

Recommendation 2: Restriction on Anonymity on acts of Religious Vilification:

2.1 Websites created with primary purpose of inciting religious vilification shall be removed or their access to the Australian public restricted.

2.2 Creators of websites whose primary purpose is the incitement of religious vilification shall be prevented from concealing their identity.

Recommendation 3: Restriction on Religious Misinformation and Misrepresentation known or reasonably known to be untruthful in the Media

Recommendation 4: Include a form of Bill or Charter of Rights into the Australian Constitution, which prevents the Commonwealth from making any law, which ‘directly, indirectly or incidentally’ prohibits the free exercise of religion to the extent of such prohibition.

This pathological perversion of religion wants to be left to fester in the dark recesses of society. The last thing it wants is informed discussion of its questionable methods and ridiculous doctrines.

Hitchens on Yale

2009-08-26T15:43:00.000-07:00

Christopher Hitchens has a good column on the disgraceful cowardice of Yale University Press. His point is that not only have deliberately censored themselves, but have said that they would have been culpable for any violence resulting from their publication of Danish cartoons:

But now the rot has gone a serious degree further into the fabric. Now we have to say that the mayhem we fear is also our fault, if not indeed our direct responsibility. This is the worst sort of masochism and it subverts our language as well as our concept of moral responsibility. ...

What a cause of shame that the campus of American hero Nathan Hale should have pre-emptively run up the white flag and then cringingly taken the blood guilt of potential assassins and tyrants on itself.

This craven behaviour is eating away at freedom. If you are not prepared to stand up for your rights you don't deserve them.

Toben Martyred

2009-08-13T21:52:00.000-07:00

Frederick Toben has now been jailed following an unsuccessful appeal against his conviction for contempt of court perpetrated by Toben not taking down anti-semitic statements from his website in accordance with a court order.

Some may say that his jailing is for contempt rather than for exercising his right to say what he pleases. This shallow analysis ignores the fact that it was precisely his continued publication of the offensive speech which constituted the contempt. This is merely a difference in legal terminology, not a difference in impugned conduct.

Sadly we live among the dying embers of the enlightenment, when hard-won freedoms are being rolled back by priggish PC censors. Now society is being made to conform to a new religion, a new set of irrational beliefs inflicted on us to protect the sensitivities of the liberal elite.

This is much more sickening than anything Toben said.

Crypto Fascists

2009-08-13T16:40:00.000-07:00

Apparently privilege against self-incrimination only goes so far. In the UK you can be jailed for up to five years for not letting people view your documents:

Two people have been successfully prosecuted for refusing to provide authorities with their encryption keys, resulting in landmark convictions that may have carried jail sentences of up to five years.

The legal system is spiralling towards insanity. There have been calls for such legislation in Australia.

Utterly Gutless

2009-08-13T00:07:00.000-07:00

Now it seems a prestigious university is too scared to publish a book about the Danish cartoon controversy which actually shows the cartoons themselves, or any other representation of Muhammad. Apparently the editor didn't want blood on his hands.

If there was any blood, it would not be on his hands, but on the hands of the murderous fanatics bent on dictating to speech laws to the rest of the world. Whatever their religion is, it is not a religion of peace.

Freedom Slipping Away

2009-08-12T21:25:00.000-07:00

The Attorney-General, Robert McLelland, is continuing the process of diminishing civil liberties in Australia.

He said:

While I will not attempt to outline in detail all the measures contained in the Discussion Paper, there are a number of key measures that are proposed, including:

expanding the definition of a ‘terrorist act’ in the Criminal Code to include psychological, as well as physical harm;

providing police with new emergency powers to enter and search premises without a warrant where it is suspected, on reasonable grounds, that there is material relevant to a terrorism offence and there is a threat to public health or safety;

extending the time available for police to re-enter a premises under a search warrant from one hour to 12 hours in emergency circumstances;

introducing a new ‘terrorism hoax offence’, punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment, for those that seek to create a false belief that a terrorist act is occurring, or will likely occur;

establishing a maximum seven day limit on the amount of time that can be specified by a magistrate and disregarded from the investigation period in relation to an alleged terrorism offence;

inserting a right of appeal for both the prosecution and the defendant against bail decisions in terrorism and national security matters, including a power to stay a bail order where an appeal is planned;

creating an offence of inciting violence against an individual on the basis of race, religion, nationality, national origin or political opinion to supplement the existing Commonwealth offence of inciting violence against a group;

extending the expiration period of regulations proscribing a terrorist organisation from two to three years;

amending the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 so that national security and counter-terrorism court proceedings may be expedited;

establishing a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement to extend parliamentary oversight to include the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in addition to the Australian Crime Commission (ACC); and

renaming the offence of sedition to ‘urging violence’ and expanding its provisions to include urging force or violence against an individual, not just a group, and including ‘national origin’, as well as race, religion, nationality or political opinion as a reason for urging violence.

Warrantless searches! Terrorism equals psychological harm!

Unbelievable. Philip Ruddock never dreamed he could get away with this nonsense. This will do lasting damage to freedom in this country. It will be applied first to terrorists, then to bikies then to anyone who looks to be guilty of anything at all.

Keysar Trad

2009-08-01T21:19:00.000-07:00

Free speech allows bigots to spread their malicious beliefs. It also allows them to be called out for what they are. You can see how this works in the recent Keysar Trad case:

Keysar Trad's defamation case against a Sydney radio station has collapsed, with a Supreme Court justice saying Trad did in fact make remarks that were ‘‘offensive", "racist" and ‘‘condoned violence".

Note that Trad is not on trial here. He is free to say what he will. The reason he is in court is that he bought a case to penalise people criticising his ridiculous views. The details are in the judgement.

Trad is a someone who often seems to be trying to foster good relations between the islamic community and other Australians. Yet he also seems to be playing a double game, at the same time defending pathetically primitive aspects of Islam. To understand this you need to understand taqqiya.

Trad also seems to have a few supporters among the local muslim community:

Every time I have heard or read what Mr Trad says I have felt that his opinions and views were valid

So there you have it. Trad is free to say what he likes, commentators are free to point out that he his a bigoted buffoon, and his mindless followers can at their two cents worth as well.

Junk (Climate) Science

2009-07-26T23:43:00.000-07:00

Sadly, many of the studies behind the current climate alarmism are not science at all. Scientific propositions are different from other propositions in that they are capable of being verified. However, key studies crucial to the alarmist positon fail this basic test. The 'scientists' achieve this by deliberately failing to publish their data and models. This is often done explicitly to prevent their work from being verified.

See here for yet another example of the tawdry arrogance that characterises the alarmist approach:

The Met Office refuses to release data and methodology for their HadCRUT global temperature dataset after being asked repeatedly. Without the data and procedures there is no possibility of replication, and without replication the Hadley climate data is not scientifically valid.

Of course, the catastrophists who rely on this 'science' for their alarmist views distinguish themselves by arrogantly hectoring their opponents and labelling those who question them as unscientific!

This is is merely another example of censorship to further a political power grab.

Kevin Rudd's Censorship Regime

2009-07-16T23:03:00.000-07:00

This is staggering:

VICTORIAN principals are being forced by the Brumby Government to sign contracts promising not to speak out against Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's computers-in-schools policy — or risk losing tens of thousands of dollars in funding.

It is absolutely unbelievable that Rudd would think he could get away with this. He is trying to shut down criticism by punishing school-kids. If anybody doubted Rudd's overweening arrogance, doubt no longer.

This thin-skinned bullyboy needs a good boot up the bum!

Treason Against Reason

2009-07-14T21:03:00.000-07:00

The standard form of disputation by climate catstrophists is to assert that the science is settled, the debate is over, and anyone who begs to differ is a traitor to humanity. Bjorn Lomborg notes this tendency in an opinion piece in the Australian:

Is it really treason against the planet to express some scepticism about whether this is the right way forward? Is it treason to question throwing huge sums of money at a policy that will do virtually no good in 100 years? Is it unreasonable to point out that the inevitable creation of trade barriers that will ensue from Waxman-Markey could eventually cost the world 10 times more than the damage climate change could ever have wrought?
Today's focus on ineffective and costly climate policies shows poor judgment. But I would never want to shut down discussion about these issues, whether it is with Gore, Hansen, or Krugman.
Everybody involved in this discussion should spend more time building and acknowledging good arguments, and less time telling others what they cannot say. Wanting to shut down the discussion is simply treason against reason.

Conroy - Internet Villain of the Year

2009-07-12T22:03:00.000-07:00

Stephen Conroy has been given this prestigious award for his attempt to screw up the internet:

Stephen Michael Conroy was actually born in England, but has found fame (or should that be infamy) as an Australian politician. Specifically for his role as the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in the Australian Government.

The Internet censorship policies which were pitched as protective measures for children in the face of online pornography, have actually ended up painting a much broader filtering landscape. Indeed, so broad are the censorship brush strokes that they include revolting and abhorrent phenomena that offends standards of morality. Whatever that means.

Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee

2009-07-09T21:10:00.000-07:00

John Mellencamp shares his views on free speech:

“I don’t think people fought and gave their lives so that some guy can sit in his bedroom and be mean. I don’t think that’s what freedom of speech is,”

He seems to view the not being mean rule as not applying to himself. For example at John Kerry fundraiser he referred to George Bush as "just another cheap thug" and a "Texas Bambino" in a song he had specially composed for the occasion.

Doubleplus Ungood!

2009-07-09T15:33:00.000-07:00

The wheel are turning in the Ministry of Truth. A new lexicon is being devised to guide our thoughts in the politically correct direction. How easy it is to achieve hope and change and peace in our time.

Free Speech Denialists

2009-07-02T22:02:00.000-07:00

The thing climate catstrophists fear most is rational argument. Their general approach is to avoid getting into arguments. Al Gore refuses to publicly debate opponents. This is hardly surprising coming from the person who has done the most to publicise the hopelessly flawed 'hockey stick' graph.

As anyone who has tried to reason with a climate catstrophist knows, most of them rely on the ad hominem argument that "the science" is settled, so there is no point arguing. The aim here is not to debate, but to shut down debate. The last thing they want is rational questioning of some of the dishonest scienctific practices that underpin the catstrophist view.

Many non-catastrophist scientists report great difficulty in attracting grants for their research. This is in stark contrast to the billions available to scientists prepared to toe the IPCC line. However, if a private organisation funds an organisation that sponsors a conference that takes a questioning view of the IPCC dogma, the catastrophists froth and squeal, rather than debate the issues.

This is just another way shutting down debate rather than engaging in rational discussion.

It Just Gets Worse

2009-06-25T21:00:00.000-07:00

There are no limits to the dreams of a censor. The only limit is the abiltity to enforce the censor's edicts. The internet represented a burst of freedom that is now being dragged under the jackboot as censors everywhere develop their regulatory schemes. The funny thing is that the world hasn't descenden into perverted chaos in the meantime.

The fact that the interenet has grown organically, initially using existing technology means that it is not owned by governments or corporations. However, both of these pernicious forces are scheming to colonise the internet and use it as instrument to enforce their will or as a source of private taxation.

The link above shows the irrational shameless scheming of Senator Conroy as he seeks more and better ways to follow the lead of the Chinese and other tyrants in censoring the internet, all in the name of protecting us from ourselves.

The net neutrality debate is an example of corporate interests seeking to colonise the internet for profit, essentially by prioritisng traffic that produces profit, and relgating or banning traffic which chews bandwidth, such as Skype or bittorrents.

Insulting Islam

2009-06-25T16:51:00.000-07:00

In a victory for free speech, a Turkish man has been acquitted of insulting Islam.

The sad thing is that such a crime exists at all.

Sickeningly similar crimes exist in Australia.

Sticks and Stones

2009-06-23T00:32:00.000-07:00

There is something wrong with our legal system when a victim of sexual harrassment received $466,000 damages for receiving unwanted advances and explicit picure text messages on her phone, and in another case today a rape victim received $41,250 compensation from her attacker.

Copyright Madness

2009-06-22T16:32:00.000-07:00

Copyright is a restriction on free speech. Some say it is a necessary evil. Intellectual property rights are artificial rules created by society for its own benefit. The reasoning is that better work will be produced since the creators can invest more time in them in the hope of a substantial reward.

Some copyright owners insist on pushing the envelope in the quest for larger profits:

ASCAP (the same folks who went after Girl Scouts for singing around a campfire) appears to believe that every time your musical ringtone rings in public, you're violating copyright law by "publicly performing" it without a license.

This unabashed greed will ultimately be counter-productive. It will demonstrate the unreasonableness of current copyright law and lead more people to flout it.

Strange Bedfellows

2009-06-18T16:31:00.000-07:00

Canadian conservative Ezra Levant is a true hero of the free speech movement. After being subjected to the star chamber of the Canadian human rights bureaucracy he has taken them head on and created a national movement against fascist laws designed to shut down free speech.

Now the Daily Kos has come out in support of Levant, demonstrating once again that free speech is about basic human rights, not which side of the politcal fence you are on.

Hentai Hell

2009-06-18T16:14:00.000-07:00

A US appeals court apparently does not understand the constitutional right to free speech. It has upheld the conviction of a man for possessing a cartoon, and a second conviction for writing an email about his fantasies. Without question the majority judges in this case are much sicker than the defendant. It is bad enough theat they seem unable to follow Supreme Court precedent, but their lack of respect for free speech is disgusting. Read about it here:

an appeals court has upheld an obscenity conviction against defendant Dwight Whorley for possession of hentai, pornographic Japanese comic books. Whorley was also convicted of a second obscenity count for writing an e-mail describing a sexual fantasy that was regarded as deviant by a jury.

Porn

2009-06-17T16:18:00.000-07:00

There is an interesting discussion on the porn industry over at An Onymous Lefty.

Having free speech entails allowing porn, other than that which involves the commission of a crime in its making, such as child pornography.

However that doesn't mean that you have to like the destructive effects that the porn industry leaves in its wake.

It's a bit like legalising drugs. You may choose that path as a lesser evil, without recommending the use of drugs, or liking the destructive effect they have on users.

Obama Slobbering Media

2009-06-17T16:03:00.000-07:00

In a new low, even for the OSM, ABC will broadcast from within the White House on the Obama health reforms.

ABC will not allow any alternative point of view, either by way of having a guest commentator on the program, or by taking paid advertising which differs from the White House view.

With the change of President, the OSM has moved from talking truth to power to being the chief government propagandists. This is a sad day indeed for free speech.

Funnily enough I am finding it difficult to link to a critical story on this issue in the OSM.

Censursula

2009-06-16T23:34:00.000-07:00

Now politicians are trying to foist internet censorship on the German people:

The greatest fear of the protesters is that once in place, the infrastructure will be used to censor other forms of unwanted content, not only child pornography. German politicians already seem to be lining up with their wish-list of content to be censored in future – the suggestions ranging form gambling sites, islamist web pages, first person shooters, and the music industry cheering up with the thought of finally banning pirate bay and p2p.

The internet has benefitted greatly from not being owned by business interests. Censorship in aid of public morals is an important part of the taming and colonisation of the internet by business interests. It is the wedge they need to work their way in. Once politicans have arrogated to themselves the power to censor the internet, the rest is easy. the big palyers in the copyright business have never had any difficulty in bending politicians to their will.

Censorship Glitches

2009-06-15T16:42:00.000-07:00

While the Australian interenet censorship trials continue, China continues to have difficulties with its system.

The last thing Australia needs is a system that bans content, slows down web browsing and emboldens meglomaniac politicians.

We have criminal laws to deal with content which it is a crime to posses, and the means to track that content exist.

Ultimately, these systems don't work, as the Chinese system demonstrated. Not only do they block the wrong content and fail to block a lot of the intended content, they also introduce further complexity into the system. This can result in a less reliable internet, and as the Chinese case demonstrates, security vulnerabilities.

In spite of all of these defects, the real harm in these systems is the very idea that politicians and bureaucrats think that they are entitled to block internet sites at will. The list is secret, and the mere publication of the list will result in the matter being referred to the Federal Police. Most of the banned sites do not involve child pornography.

Three Strikes Out

2009-06-10T17:03:00.000-07:00

The French Constitutional Court has struck down legislation designed to disconnect file-sharers from the internet.

The Court was concerned with the presumption of guilt inherent in the law, and its denial of free communication to citizens. The court also made the following statement about freedom of speech:

"Freedom of expression and communication is so valuable that its exercise is a prerequisite for democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms and attacks on the exercise of this freedom must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the aim pursued."

Global Censorship - Climate of Fear

2009-06-07T21:38:00.000-07:00

One clear example of censorship is the Global Warming debate. The proponents of the proposition that global warming is is significantly affected by human use of fossil fuels have unilaterally claimed victory by declaring the debate over. Al Gore refuses to debate the issue, even though his movie is full of incorrect data. Now the major focus of the climate change alarmists is on vilifying anyone who disagrees with them.

One seriously disturbing aspect of the debate is the unscientific behaviour of the pro-AGW "scientists". Many do not make their data and the details of their models available for checking in a timely manner, or at all. This is the opposite of science. Michael Mann, author of the infamous 'hockey stick' graph only gave up his data years later, and under congressional subpoena.

Mann's graph was hurriedly included in the 2001 IPCC report to dramatic effect and victory in the debate was claimed. Subsequently the discredited graph was quietly dropped by the IPCC.

The censorship in this debate consists of the closed-minded refusal to discuss the issues, with the insinuation that anyone who wants to continue the discussion is rejecting science. In fact the opposite is true. The very essence of good science is robust discussion. Those who prefer to denigrate their opponents rather than to debate with them are unscientific. This issue is all politics and little science.

Visa Denial

2009-06-07T05:23:00.000-07:00

Christoper Hitchens writes on the capricious use of visas by governements as a means to censor:

What is at stake in all these cases is not just the right of the people concerned to travel and to take their opinions with them. It is also the right of potential audiences to make their own determination about whom they wish to hear. As a journalist, I can go and visit Hezbollah spokesmen and report back on what it's like and what they say, but why should a reader have to take my word for it?

He also had this to say on excuses for censorship:

One of the effects of the "war on terror," and of one of its concomitants, namely the attrition between the Muslim world and the West, has been an increasing tendency to make exceptions to First Amendment principles, either on the pretext of security or of avoiding the giving of offense. We should have learned by now that, however new the guise, these are the same old stale excuses for censorship.

Free Speech in Venezuela

2009-06-06T01:19:00.000-07:00

Leftist icon and legendary buffoon Hugo Chavez has ways of dealing with his media critics:

Broadcast regulators last month accused Globovision of inciting "panic and anxiety" by criticizing the government for its slow response to a moderate earthquake, and prosecutors this week opened a second inquiry into Zuloaga for a suspected "environmental crime" related to wild animals he'd hunted and had mounted in his Caracas residence. They said they were acting at the request of pro-Chavez lawmakers.

Free press groups including the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists condemned the investigation of Globovision, while Human Rights Watch said it showed the government is out "to harass its critics."

Since Chavez refused to renew the broadcast license of Radio Caracas Television in 2007, Globovision has been the only anti-government network on public airwaves in Venezuela.

The urge to censor grows with the desire to hang on to power.

Dead Parrot

2009-06-04T15:37:00.000-07:00

Bob Carr on a statutory Bill of Rights.

A Bill of Rights is more likely to be an attack on human rights. The right to free speech would no doubt be constrained by the right of select groups not to be offended.

A constitutional Bill of Rights which enshrined freedom of speech, due process and the equality before the law would be a fine thing. No such thing is presently contemplated.

Two Steps Backwards

2009-06-02T15:56:00.000-07:00

China has banned Twitter, Hotmail and Flickr on the eve of the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square military murders. Once a government has repressive powers it will always find excuses to abuse them.

Idiot Booted

2009-06-02T15:35:00.000-07:00

British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has quit, ostensibly as a result of using her expense account to pay for her husband's porn.

This is the same jack-booted jerk that banned Geert Wilders from entering Britain to accept an invitation to speak at the House of Lords, and pre-emptively banned US shock-jock Mike Savage even though he had not applied to enter the UK.

I suspect that the real reason for her resignation was more related to the fascist incompetence she brought to her ministerial role.

The Terrorists Within

2009-06-01T14:31:00.000-07:00

This is a classic example of how once ceded, rights are further eroded.

Control orders were part of the Howard anti-terror laws. Now, all it takes to apply control orders to other groups is an assertion that that group are "the terrorists within". Now applied to organised criminals, the bureaucrats have just begun to exploit their new toy.

Kiddie Porn

2009-05-31T21:46:00.000-07:00

That fifteen Australians were arrested for possession of a video of an 8 year old girl being raped seems obvious and just. Merely possessing the video invokes visceral disgust in most of us.

I am trying to discern a better reason than sheer disgust for punishing them. Punishing those who posses such images may prevent perpetrators from committing criminal acts so that they can be filmed and sold for gain, or distributed to fulfil someone’s exhibitionist ego.

That argument is weaker in the case of the same actions rendered in life-like CGI graphics where there is no victim involved. Merely depicting a crime cannot be the reason for the punishment. Much literature and art depicts crimes of one sort or another.

The reason could be that persons who possess such images are considered more likely to commit other offences against children. However punishing people on the basis of the likelihood that they are likely commit a crime is wrong.

This is a case where I am prepared to give priority to common sense over reason.

Free Speech at the Writers' Festival

2009-05-27T16:46:00.000-07:00

One place you would expect free speech to be respected is at a writers' festival. Apparently this is expecting too much of the Sydney Writers' Festival, where censorship reigns supreme.

Utter Nutters

2009-05-27T15:56:00.000-07:00

Sharia law, in its traditional form, is per se a crime against humanity. It contains many rules which destroy human rights, including the right to free speech. In the countries where it is fully implemented there are beheadings, stonings and other vile practices masquerading as law Here is a link to an Australian muslim forum which discusses the virtues of the Taliban's approach to the implementation of sharia law.

From the Imam:

Jizya [a tax on non-muslims] is a definitive part of Islam by the clear text of the Qur'an (9:29). So anyone who wants to exclude such defintive parts of Islam is not implementing Shari'ah at all, because they are picking and choosing.

Read it all and weep.

Insulting Islam

2009-05-26T20:18:00.000-07:00

Things like this are daily occurences in the Islamic world. The propensity of muslims to silence their critics is an unpleasant aspect of Islam that needs to be curbed if Islam is to be regarded as civilised, rather than as civilisationphobic.

It may be possible to hope for progress within Islamic culture as it comes to grips with the modern world. There is absolutely no excuse for the UN to participate in the whole sordid business by passing resolutions calling for the banning of "defamation of religion". The UNHRC clearly has nothing to do with promoting human rights and everything to do with eliminating them.

Unbelievably, silencing critics of Islam is gaining traction in the west. The Netherlands is prosecuting Geert Wilders for offending Islam. How is it that a country with a long tradition of fostering free speech has sunk so low?

In case you think that this could not happen in Australia, recall that two clerics were tried for offences against Islam in Victoria. The matter was eventually resolved after a number of hearings, and three years of wasted time. The process was the punishment.

We need a National Desecration Day where people can publicly desecrate scriptures of the various religions. It is time people stood up for free speech.

Athens Riot

2009-05-24T03:06:00.000-07:00

Primitive cultures respond to the speech and actions of others with violence. In this case offence was taken regarding the destruction of a book, resulting in violent riots.

Western societies are too tolerant of this sort of nonsense. Sadly, the usual response from the west is further curtailment of the speech and action.

More Repression

2009-05-14T22:16:00.000-07:00

The goons of political correctness have struck again.

This time it is someone called Brendon O'Connell posting anti-semitic comments on Youtube.

An offensive nutter is not the problem here. It is the actions of the thought-police in closing down free speech that is the problem.

Yes, we know he is a nutter and yes, we know he is offensive, but no, we do not need him fined, locked up, crucified or burnt at the stake. Those things should be saved for those who would squash free speech.

Gruen Fat Ad

2009-05-13T05:34:00.000-07:00

I don't see why there is any controversy about this ad at all.

It must be that people are uncomfortable acknowledging their own prejudices.

We all have them. The challenge isn't to ban as many of them as is possible, but rather to understand that we all have prejudices, and that they are not particularly nice.

The Price of Free Speech

2009-05-12T20:28:00.001-07:00

If ever proof was needed that free speech is dead in Australia this is it. Anti-semite Frederick Toben has been jailed for exercising his right to free speech. Sadly Australian law does not recognise the right to free speech, a fact explicitly noted by Justice Lander in the Toben case.

Dusgusting as Toben's views are, they are not nearly as disgusting as the operation of the law in this case.

Michael Sexton

2009-05-12T05:26:00.000-07:00

New South Wales Solicitor-General Michael Sexton had a piece in today's Australian promoting free speech:

The truth is that almost all countries have unnecessary restrictions on freedom of speech.
The one general exception to this proposition is the US, where a combination of the Constitutional First Amendment and a long history of robust public debate has resulted in the practice of free speech not just its theory.
The answer in Australia is not a bill of rights, because any right to freedom of speech in such legislation would be contradicted by rights not to be vilified on various grounds.
The real answer is to accept that opinions, no matter how offensive to some or all members of the community, should be immune from all civil or criminal proceedings.

Sexton is to be congratulated for his forthright defence of free speech. Free speech is already being kicked to death in this country, and the dogs of censorship are howling for more blood. It is bad enough that such restrictions exist, but it is entirely obscene that many of them are enforced by tribunals where normal legal rules do not apply. In these kangaroo courts the process itself is the penalty.

Sexton quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr as follows:

I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country..

This is line of thinking appears to have lost favour in the corridors of power where the right to not be offended seems to trump the right of free speech, especially within designated victim classes.

Irish Blasphemy

2009-04-30T15:53:00.001-07:00

At least the Irish are honest enough to admit that their new law prohibiting the insulting of religion is a blasphemy law. In Australia plausible deniability is preserved by carefully avoiding the word 'blasphemy' in favour of 'vilification'.

Most religions need vilifying from time to time. Protecting the feelings of their votaries is not sufficient reason to further erode free speech.

Defamation & Privacy Laws Erode Free Speech

2009-04-30T15:32:00.001-07:00

In an excellent article Richard Ackland discusses the ability of defamation law to generate mutant variants which further limit free speech. He also discusses privacy law, the main effect of which seems to be to allow celebrities to more carefully mould their public image.

Janet Napolitano

2009-04-20T15:57:00.000-07:00

US Homeland Security wants to monitor criminal and terrorist activity, not ideology:

We are on the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not – nor will we ever – monitor ideology or political beliefs. We take seriously our responsibility to protect the civil rights and liberties of the American people,

Except of course in the case of right wing ideology.

Looks like the Obama administration's idea of "change" amounts to little more than stinking hypocrisy.

Jonathon Turley

2009-04-16T17:31:00.000-07:00

In a powerful article in the SMH, Jonathon Turley notes some of the attacks on free speech currently draining freedom from the world, including this outrage:

In 2008, a 15-year-old boy was arrested for holding up a sign reading "Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult" outside the organisation's London headquarters.

Abomination

2009-04-16T16:57:00.000-07:00

In a contemptible decision Justice Lander said:

“The courts have held, but his conduct shows he does not accept that the freedom of speech citizens of this country enjoy does not include the freedom to publish material calculated to offend, insult or humiliate or intimidate people because of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin,”

This statement is an abomination. It is calculated to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate the citizens of Australia.

The real offence here is not the hideous speech of the defendant. It is the fact that he is dragged before a court to explain himself for expressing an opinion, and then punished for not bowing to the unreasonable demands of the court.

As people watch and yawn their freedom slips away.