Auggie
|
freediver wrote on Mar 12 th, 2017 at 10:26am: Auggie wrote on Mar 12 th, 2017 at 10:15am: freediver wrote on Mar 12 th, 2017 at 10:10am: Auggie wrote on Mar 12 th, 2017 at 10:01am: freediver wrote on Mar 12 th, 2017 at 9:59am: Auggie wrote on Mar 12 th, 2017 at 9:54am: freediver wrote on Mar 12 th, 2017 at 9:51am: Auggie wrote on Mar 12 th, 2017 at 9:44am: freediver wrote on Mar 12 th, 2017 at 9:41am: His "contempt of court" consisted of refusing to censor his own website. The court was basically backing up the findings of the HREOC under section 18c with a jail sentence for anyone who refuses to comply. So you can literally be jailed for your opinion in Australia.
I am sure Brian sees it as a fantasy come true. Mmm. Ok, so this a bit of grey area. He wasn't jailed for his views, but for refusing to comply with the court. These are two different offences. I don't agree that the court should be able to force him to shut it down; but he went against the court action. The way you said it was in such manner as though he were jailed 'for publishing anti-Holocaust literature.' When this was not the case. The case of Brian Ross simply has no equivalence. It is the case. He was jailed for publishing an incorrect opinion on matters of history. The fact that it took a long time, and a court order, does not change this. The court order was only possible because 18c effectively made it a jailable offence for him to express his opinion. It is not logically possible to separate his jailing from his expression of his opinion or section 18c. The first charge was according to German laws, which explicitly criminalizes such views. In the Australian courts, he was jailed for refusing to comply with a court order, not because of the views he expressed. They may be related, but we must look at the charge of the court. Of course they are related. The court order was that he stop expressing his opinion. If he had self censored he would not have been jailed. He continued expressing his opinion, so he was put in jail. Expressing his opinion was the act that got him in jail. The court order did not change whether he is allowed to express his opinion. It merely increased the punishment beyond what the HREOC could impose in order to achieve compliance with the HREOC and section 18C. The bottom line is, 18C means we cannot promote an incorrect and unpopular version of history, and our legal system will impose whatever penalty is necessary to enforce this, including imprisonment. The court order was merely an expression of 18C. Ok, so we need to be specific here. Did the court order that he take down his website? If so, would he have been allowed to propagate his views via another medium, such as in writing or otherwise. If the latter is no, then I agree the law goes beyond the limits of Freedom of Expression, in which case you and I agree. He was not ordered to take down his website. He was ordered to stop saying certain things on it. The court took it upon itself, under the auspices of 18C, to impose what opinions he could express on his own website. Not sure if he was allowed to express his opinions elsewhere, and I don't think it makes a difference to whether this violates freedom of expression. Nor can you justify saying it is not a limitation on freedom of expression if he was ordered to take down his own website because of his opinions on it. It is no different to the government banning a book because of the opinions in it, but making no specific rulings on whether the author is allowed to write another book. I agree that it was a 'limitation' but you and I need to be specific about what is going on here. We're not sure that it was a blanket ban on his views. Ultimately, the issue is whether or not that case and this case, the Brian Ross case, have any equivalence; and I don't believe that they do. As I stated in a previous post, I don't condone what Brian said, and I believe he should apologize for it. After that, let's move on. It was not a blanket ban. It was a ban on specific views. Holocaust denial in particular was one of them. He was still allowed to offer an opinion on which breakfast cereal tastes best. The wording of the ruling is hopelessly legalistic and convoluted, as you would expect from something born of 18c, but that is the consensus on what it meant for his right to express his opinion. Ok, let's leave at that. There's no point going on about a legal case we can't change. We both agree that the 18C needs to be revised. That's all that matters.
|