A US judge has finally ruled what we knew all along — that it’s not OK for The US Government to collude with Big Tech to silence critics and political opponents.
It’s a reminder that Australians have no right to free speech. It’s time we had our own “First Amendment” written into the constitution. Instead of a referendum for a Voice for some Australians (which is happening this year) we need a Referendum for a Voice for All Australians — one that guarantees their right to speak, no matter what color their skin is, where their ancestors lived, or which team they vote for.
Newseum Tablet of the First Amendment | Photo by DBKing. Amended.
The US Republican States may yet save us all — the Attorney Generals of Louisiana and Missouri accused the Biden bureaucracy of actively colluding with the Tech Giants to suspend critics or remove comments. Finally, a judge in a District Court has ruled that this must stop.
Judge Delivers Major Blow to Biden Admin in Social Media Censorship Case
By Tony Ozimek, The Epoch Times
A federal judge has made a historic ruling by partially granting an injunction that blocks various Biden administration officials and government agencies such as the Justice Department and the FBI from working with big tech firms to censor posts on social media.
Finally, something that slows the Industrial Censorship Complex — look how many government agencies are named:
Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana wrote in the July 4 ruling (pdf) that various government agencies, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the State Department, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are prohibited from taking a range of actions regarding social media companies.
Effectively immediately, these agencies are not to phone, email, message or communicate with the social media giants with any sort of pressure to suppress opinions. It’s already having an effect. The State Department has just cancelled meetings with Facebook.
“This could be arguably one of the most important First Amendment cases in modern history,” Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, one of the plaintiffs, told The Epoch Times’ “American Thought Leaders” in an interview following the ruling.
“If you look at the opinion that the judge lays out, he takes from our argument that this is basically one of the most massive undertakings of the federal government to limit American speech in the history of our country. The things that we uncovered, in this case, should be both shocking, appalling, and concerning for all Americans.”
The Judge explained that the government had used its power to silence the opposition:
“Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed,” Doughty wrote.
— Read it all at The Epoch Times
This ruling is still three years too late, and still subject to appeal. Many have died or suffered debilitating injury who might have been spared if voices had not been suppressed. People might have voted differently had they known about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Wars might not have been fought.
The Biden administration has already appealled, as any wannabee tyrant would — which shows how important this power to censor is to them. The two key Attorney Generals have vowed to fight all the way to the Supreme Court. Robert Malone was advising Attorney General Jeff Landry of Louisiana. He writes that even State AG’s struggle against the ocean of money that Big-Tech-Giants can bring to any legal battle. As Malone says, the State AG’s are constantly working with a limited budget, picking battles within a four year term, and probably worried about future political donations. It takes a brave AG to tackle Big Tech and the Biggest Government of all.
Australians never seem to be offered the referendums that matter the most
Two Australian Senators tried in 2019, and they say freedom of religion is a part of the Australian constitution, but freedom of speech and a free press are not:
Section 116 of the Australian Constitution protects freedom of religion by providing that the Commonwealth Parliament “shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”
“Freedom of religion is enshrined in our Constitution, but freedom of speech and a free press are not subject to explicit protection; this is a deep-seated flaw in the foundations of Australia’s democracy”, Senator Patrick said.
— Centre Alliance Senators Rex Patrick and Stirling Grif, 2019
A deep seated flaw indeed.
The constitution itself is no magic talisman against evil — not without people prepared to die to defend it. But without the words to begin with, what is there to defend?
h/t to Philip P, David Maddison, Bill in AZ, Stephen Neil, David in Cooyal, Old Ozzie, Gab, Matt Taibbi.
Statue of Liberty Photo: Dominique James
And the judge made that ruling on 4th July, what a fantastic Independence Day present for Americans (assuming the ruling is upheld).
Meanwhile, Australia is going in exactly the opposite direction with proposed legislation against supposed “misinformation” and “disinformation”. Remember that in the US case the “misinformation” and “disinformation” that was censored all turned out to be TRUE.
Make a submission to the Australian Government at:
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-powers-combat-misinformation-and-disinformation
One in six Biden voters would have changed their vote if they had known the Biden laptop story was true and it hadn’t been censored.
https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2020/nov/26/cooper-biden-voters/
That alone would have changed the US electionn result, even with the election fraud and Donald Trump would be the rightful President.
480
This wording is from the explanation ‘blurb’ of the proposal-
“The ACMA will not have the power to request specific content or posts be removed from digital platform services.”
Really?
So, what is this proposed Bill going on about then?
Is it up to the digital platform services provider to determine what is Miss Information and Dis Information or what? And if not who determines this? A new Ministry called the “Ministry of Truth” which is just waiting in the wings ready to pounce?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
300
I have read the Bill only once but it seems that under its provisions ACMA would require the digital platforms to devise codes of conduct regarding mis-and disinformation. If content on websites contravened those codes—according to ACMA—then the owners of the websites (or digital platforms as they are termed) could be fined, and very seriously so.
It is a point of major contrast between Oz and the US that the latter has the law regarding free thought and free speech, as well as religion. Not only that but a Supreme Court that has made its attitude very clear. As Justice Gorsuch remarked the other day:
Too true, but of no account to Mr Albaneze and is undergraduate clown car who, clearly, wish to terminate Australians’ liberty to think and give expression to their thinking.
240
Exactly Johnny, everyone should refer to it as the
and make sure to rub it right up the leftards noses!!
180
The fundamental difference between Australia and other former British colonies and the US is that the US Founding Fathers looked to John Locke as their moral philosopher and the British to Jeremy Bentham.
Locke believed in natural rights such as life, liberty and property and these were written into the US Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Locke saw men as naturally born free and equal and endowed with certain natural rights, that the role of government was to protect those natural rights of the people and that governments that failed to do that should be resisted and replaced. (Hence the purpose of the US Second Amendment.)
The moral philosopher of the British however was Jeremy Bentham who did not believe in Natural Rights (thought they were “nonsense”), rights only existed that were granted by Government (which can and does easily take them away).
The difference in the two moral philosophies is stark.
Free speech is entirely consistent with the philosophy of Locke and a natural right (hence the US First Amendment), but as with any right granted under the British-derived countries, any such thing is only really a privilege at best and subject to withdrawal at any time and without notice.
SEE essay:
https://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html
“The Declaration of Independence and Natural Rights”
460
Thank you, David! Good to see a s Aussie dive deep into our Bill of Rights. But it goes further that that.
Our 2nd Amendment is enshrined to make sure the 1st amendment stays intact. The 2nd is there to protect the first. Without it we’d get steamrolled. Too bad your laws are antithetical to that.
20
There are a raft of exemptions whereby the government can (and will) continue to involve themselves in social media speech.
On the face of it these exemptions seem ‘reasonable’, such as “informing social media companies of postings involving criminal activity and conspiracies; as well as notifying social media firms of national security threats and other threats posted on platforms”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/biden-administration-blocked-from-working-with-social-media-firms-about-protected-speech
The reality is that these exemptions make the injunction unenforceable.
100
Yes and the Regressives will likely continue to exempt the likes of StopOil using the (anti-)social platforms for organising their type of “threatening” behaviours.
70
Are there none among us not flawed?
00
The Australian position is odd. Freedom of speech come before freedom of religion, not the other way around. Without freedom of speech there will be no religious freedom, because religious freedom implies ones right to bear witness to it in public and that could ‘offend’ others and thus be prohibited.
271
One HAS to ask, Just HOW did it ever get to this situation. When did the rot set in. “Need a royal commission” to find out, spending mega£$ to find out and do nowt about anyway, as usual
210
It happened when conservatives and fellow rational thinkers remained silent.
The Left then saw it as their opportunity to impose their ideal form of government, totalitarian rule and ran with it.
It has many of its origins in the 1967 plan of the German Communist Rudi Dutschke and his “long march through the institutions” to infiltrate Marxists everywhere.
Conservatives did nothing. Some even swapped sides such as Rinos in America and Linos in Australia (in fact a vast majority of the Liberal Party of Australia).
An additional factor was the quite deliberate dumbing-down of the education system, transforming schools into indoctrination centres.
No longer teaching reading, writing, arithmetic, history, critical thinking, respect for the law, patriotism etc., but instead family-destroying Marxist values, transgenderism, Marxist “economics”, envronmentalism as a cult rather than genuine care for the environment, hatred of Western Civilisation and its Judeo-Christian foundational values etc..
330
Yes David
Comparing today’s values with yesterday’s reveals just how much has changed.
Henry Lawson called it mateship ,,,, the spirt that makes men stick together. In Australia by sticking together men have defied drought, bushfire and flood. In war they scorned hardship, danger and death because no Digger would ever let his cobbers down.
In Tobruk for the first time in WW2 the Germans were thrust back by a spirit that even tanks, dive bombers could not conquer. The lost spirit of the Rats of Tobruk is where we have come from to the family destroying Marxist values of today.
20
I just hope the Republican state Attorney Generals hold their ground, but the Biden loonies will desperately fight this down to the wire.
If they can’t change this ruling by 2024 we could see a very messy and costly Presidential election campaign and hopefully the DEMs will suffer at the ballot box.
210
Meanwhile in New Zimbabwe, former PM Jabcinda Ardern once told her fellow New Zimbabweans that the Government would be their “single source of truth”. Her replacement, Hipkins, is no better.
https://youtu.be/ENEUktOrQV8
310
Just because free speech is not in the constitution doesn’t mean that it should be. The common lawright of free speech in Australia is way better than a single sentence enshrined as a ‘right’. Those American rights, like freedom and equality must have come as a surprise to those millions of slaves.
334
Freeing the slaves was one of the reasons, probably the main reason that the US fought a civil war Peter. And it was your beloved Democrats that fully supported slavery.
Also, it was white Europeans, those people most hated by the Left that were first to stop slavery and free the slaves.
Meanwhile slavery still exists in your beloved Africa, the Arab Middle East and southern Asia.
All countries/cultures have practised slavery against their own people or others at one time or another. And what do you think European serfs were? They were almost slaves, the main difference was that they weren’t considered items of property.
Six hundred thousand African Slaves went to the United States but between 11.5 million and 20 million went to Arab countries. Also, 2 million Europeans were taken by Arab slavers.
And here’s a bonus question for you. What was the job of the British West Africa Squadron 1806-1867?
432
Don’t be mistaken or mislead slavery is alive and rampant in USA coming through the Southern Boarder by the millions, not just slavery but CHILD SEX SLAVERY actually encouraged by the US administration as “Unaccompanied Alien Children”, never mentioned by the MSM and the elites and denied by child sniffer Biden and probably bought and sold by his coke head son!!
241
. . and Disney stalled the release of Sound of Freedom for five years.
110
The unrestricted Third World War has been raging for years and the target is ‘We the People’ and their Constitution.
Kinetic wars are difficult since the age of the Machine Gun. The charge has been replaced by creeping misinformation and manipulation. Whoever is running the war will have to somehow find another way to undermine this breach in the wall around the Republic afforded by the Constitution.
From Sefton Delmer’s Book ‘Black Boomerang’
Does this sound similar to another war being waged at this moment
The Burgomaster was an actor too!
90
Sefton was rightly worried!
80
I am sorry David but you missed the point.
The right of freedom existed in the USA well before the civil war. It did not include slaves. After the civil war it did, what had changed? Same goes for the right of Free Speech, its meaning is contingent on society. For example – What is your position on ‘Critical Race Theory’ or given your age ‘communism’. Should they be granted protected status?
The fact is that Australian common law affords better protections for free speech than any written in stone sentence. That is because the of the nature of common law, which is defined both by precedent and usage
315
Peter, you’ve missed several centuries of “points” in your ideological zeal. A bit of History.
The first Slave Owner in the British Colonies in the Americas was Anthony Johnson, and his Slave was John Casor. This was legally decided in a British Court in Virginia in 1654. Both Johnson and Casor were Africans, arrived in the Colonies between 1619-1622. Johnson argued that the poorly written contract for indentured servitude allowed him to claim Casor as a Slave in perpetuity. The British Court allowed this because Casor was not a British Citizen and was not entitled to protections under British law. This was the basis of all slavery in the Americas, prior to the United States independence some 122 years later. The USA inherited the British legal decisions, along with land surveys, marriages, deaths, debts, Wills, contracts, etc, in 1776. Some 360,000 Union soldiers died to end Democrat maintained Slavery between 1861-1865. The Republican Party was created in 1854 to oppose slavery. The NRA was created to oppose the Democrat laws restricting Blacks from owning firearms and the ability to protect themselves. It is an immutable Fact that the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution is superior to any common law protection of Free Speech. Common law may be amended by a legislative or judicial interpretation. A foundational, Constitutional, Right, may only be amended by a 66% majority vote in both houses of the US Congress and then only by a request of 66% of all US States. Nearly Impossible. The US 1st Amendment is “enshrined in stone” Because it rightly separated from transient emotions and political ends or the objectives of malfeasance.
Refs: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/horrible-fate-john-casor-180962352/
Court Ruling https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Court_Ruling_on_Anthony_Johnson_and_His_Servant_1655
150
And further on, in light of how things are “written in stone”:
13th Amendment, 1865, abolished slavery
14th Amendment, 1868, established citizenship for the children of former slaves, against the protestations of Democrats/Liberals.
15th Amendment, 1870, sanctified the voting rights of former slaves and their descendents over the protestations of Democrats/Liberals.
At every turn, the Democrats/Liberals sought to diminish human rights, abridge them, or encumber such rights.
It was the Republicans who enshrined the Rights of all Citizens to be Free, Fully empowered, and to have equal Right under all laws and to protect their Voting rights. Democrats/Liberals opposed every single one of these Rights.
So, Yes. A Constitutional Republic is far more secure for citizen’s Rights than a “common law” state.
190
you missed the pic in the original post – there words are literally written (or incised) in stone.
And you missed to point about slavery – the constitution of the USA proclaimed freedom in the 1776 – it took 100 odd years for those rights to be extended to slaves. Again what changed? the words are exactly the same, but society now viewed slavery differently.
16
Mr. Fitzroy: Your “point” is that common law is better because slaves were not protected under the First Amendment. How would the slaves have fared under common law? Oh wait, Lance showed common law WAS THE ORIGINAL SOURCE OF SLAVERY. HIS POST UTTERLY TOOK YOU DOWN- AND YOU MISSED IT!
Missing the point is all you got. Common law not only failed to protect their rights, it enslaved them.
I will say, your common law certainly protects you, evidently you can post any fool comment you like.
40
Where is your outrage over the enslavement of millions of Europeans by the Barbary pirates? Slavery still exists in Somalia and Sudan and much of the Middle East. Today. Why aren’t you railing against that as well? Your selective outrage is nothing but marxist virtue signalling and willful historical ignorance. Have fun in your echo chamber.
40
Peter Fitzroy: Just because free speech is not in the constitution doesn’t mean that it should be
So say the left who don’t want it anyway.
290
Good old Pete,
Typical Socialist wanting to keep everything vague & ambiguous and therefore subject to modification/change at a later date, at midnight on a public holiday, followed by some or other exciting event to prevent anyone noticing the left’s normal devious & immoral manipulation!
The coalition are not much better. Remember “ net zero “!!
251
It could be argued that the coalition are just as bad or worse.
They promise much and when the crunch comes they pack up their balls and go home.
Yes, the use of the word “balls” is meant as an innuendo.
130
Or more precisely a double entendre. From Wikipedia; “A double entendre is a figure of speech or a particular way of wording that is devised to have a double meaning, of which one is typically obvious, whereas the other often conveys a message that would be too socially awkward, sexually suggestive, or offensive to state directly.”
20
Try telling that to Andrew Bolt or Bromberg for that matter….
10
Our problem stems from being home to a reasonably large number of hard core left wing Marxists that support an end to free speech and seek to establish a hard line censorship and punishment regime. In the USA there is a constitution that protects against such tyranny, but in Australia we have no such document. All it takes down here is for an act of parliament that gets up and it’s a case of goodby to democracy. The ALP can see a path to this road to tyranny with support from the communist loving Greens in the senate and David Pocock, who is really just another green Marxist parading as an independent. If the bill is put forward I have little doubt it will get traction in the senate and sites such as this blog will become an instant target. I suppose it might be possible to host sites in offshore locations that don’t come under our jurisdiction, but the effect on our democracy and free speech would be devastating. I’ve already signed the petition on Senator Babet’s FB page and suggest everyone do the same. Dutton needs to dump the hormone blockers and grow a pair if we’re to survive this onslaught.
190
You can sign Senator Babet’s petition at:
https://senatorbabet.com.au/petition-censorship-bill/
110
I was fortunate enough to Meet Sen Babet at a UAP rally in Bendigo. He spoke convincingly and more importantly listened to me. At the time I got to tell him my opinion of the scamdemic. A true polititian. Now he is a Senator, dropping truth bombs on the senate floor I note the “Uniparty” senators walking out of the chamber. So he has to address a nearly empty chamber for his speech to be “Allowed”. Now it seems this is to be official government policy a la “Brazil” and “1984”. We are all to get with the “Vibe” and ignore the reality and moving parts, and even more importantly embrace the ineffable as scientific certainty.
140
Senator Babet is great and one of no more than five pro-freedom people in the Federal Parliament.
I had a beer* with him the other day and he is utterly dedicated to the freedom cause.
*I don’t drink, it was a Pepsi Max, but it would have been a beer if I did drink. It served the same purpose for me.
160
On the subject of members walking from the chamber when another member rises to raise a subject which offends their sensibilities.
As all of these reprobates are supposedly elected by their constituents to represent their views, they should all be made to listen to the views of other members representing their own constituents. After all, how can any politician be fully informed when it comes to voting on any matter if they refuse to countenance the views espoused by the opposition parties or indeed others of their own persuasion?
We know that the reason is that they are ‘rusted on’ to their viewpoints, as well as being constrained along party lines. It’s just a pity so few have the cojones to actually listen and think alternatively to their instincts. It is called a parliament after all, which means they are supposed to discuss all matters before them. Walking out should be disallowed, within reason, and these parasites should be made to earn their keep.
150
Well said. The walking out of the chamber indicates their opinion on FREE speech, regardless of the issue presented. A nest of vipers.
60
+100
But I doubt if he knows where he misplaced them.
31
During the last fed election I knew my lower house vote was wasted. ( one party majority electorate) But, I have some satisfaction that my senate voting may have contributed to BABET getting in.
60
My observations from afar are that, in spite of the US Constitution being virtually carved in stone, many politicians are fast and loose with it and activist SCOTUS judges are intent on “reinterpreting” it. [Depends what the meaning of “is” is.] Biden seems the worst but I don’t know US history.
So what chance have we got?
80
So Aussies do have freedom of religion at least. Or do they? In the U.S. churches are tax exempt , even from property taxes, only if they qualify for 501(c)(3) tax status — and the government can take that away. Many people think this keeps the churches in line and compliant with government policy.
Is it the same in Australia ?
40
Will the US government obey this ruling? Not if you go by their track record, they are happy to break the law.
50
This is like I reject your view of reality and I substitute it with my own. The really sad thing is a supine populace who think they are being protected by the state. Who will know or care. Not enough I think .
60
Now, this will draw out the “howler monkeys”:
The SECOND Amendment in the US Bill of Rights was put in that place, SPECIFICALLY to protect the First Amendment.
Note also that the US “Bill of Rights” is HEAVILY based on the British “Bill of Right”, the signing of which into law was a precondition for the ascent of William and Mary of Orange to the British throne.
It was a part of the colonial legal structure and precedents that form the foundation of what passes for a legal system in Oz. Apparently, here in the penal colonies, “Statute Law” trumps “fundamental precepts, every day.
This will NOT end well, nor is it so intended.
140
And we most probably cannot rely upon ‘Common Law’ as the Judicial System here seems to be ‘all over the shop’. Unlike the US Supreme Court which is doing its best to uphold the US Constitution.
60
Fred Flintstone has now come up with a new Social Media messaging Platform called ‘Freds’. Not to be confused with the other new Platform ‘Thread’ backed by ‘Farcebook’.
To date 3 users have signed up and those users are – Wilma Flintstone, Barney Rubble and Betty Rubble.
Fred stated to a Bedrock TV Station news reporter – “This is a great start and nepotism doesn’t come into it.”
Further to Fred’s ‘Fred’, Fred stated that there would be ‘three’ speech for the three users or something that sounded like that and that there would be no need for any censorship as long as the users abided by his rules and did what he said………………
70
Yeah, Aussie referenda seem to be couched in ambiguous terms that reek of plausible deniability, confected by wordsmiths of the legerdemain school of doublespeak.
100
If the current administrations in the US and Aus continue we will be fully “soviet” . Lies and waste backed up by an unwinnable war . Winston would be proud . Its still possible to stop but its a conflict being fought in so many ways that its hard to see a clear path . If you kill free speech negotiation stops and we know where that leads .
80
We’re always so quick to sign up to any crazy climate UN agreement. Isn’t there already a charter of Human rights which also solidifies freedom of speech. Just need to adopt it more stringently into all our federal and state legislatures. Because , it would appear (post COVID experience) that what happens at state level really affects your day to day life. Dictator Dan Andrews was heard to say in a presser during 2021 ” human rights are overblown “- just as he announced the 6th COVID lockdown. To use one of his sayings “ we need some guardrails” to keep the tyrants at bay. This would apply particularly to State of Emergency legislation.
100
Rules and charters in themselves are worthless unless there is a social contract to uphold them. There is no interest from western authorities in these matters, so the rules are ignored.
80
And what’s with the recent banning of non account holders from even looking at Facebook or Twitter? You can’t even use marketplace without a FB account. I have zero interest in participating in social media (apart from the odd blog), but this not even being able to look at them nonsense strikes me as rather discriminatory.
80
But…won’t the whiny lefties and every other fringe minority group that are members of the Professional Victims Association complain? 😁
Politics with its pollie-tics has to be reinvented to eliminate the corrupt, self-serving, egocentric, totalitarian rubbish pollies currently destroying our lives.
A free speech clause alone won’t do much – look at the USA and how much good it’s done them.
We need a great reset of the political system.
Maybe AI will do a better job…
50
“Instead of a referendum for a Voice for some Australians (which is happening this year) we need a Referendum for a Voice for All Australians — one that guarantees their right to speak, no matter what color their skin is, where their ancestors lived, or which team they vote for.”
Beautifully put Jo.
70
New proposed legislation will give the Australian Communications Media Authority powers to decide if anything is misleading, misinformation or not the truth. Websites and individual social accounts will be deleted as a result of their decisions.
It is rather ironic that while attempting to give indigenous Australians a “Voice” they are at the same time attempting to take away the voice of anyone who’s opinion they consider to be not the truth or misleading.
These topics could be on the government censorship hit list;
Coal Mining, Gas exploration, Immigration, Meat manufacturing, Mining, Climate change, The condition of Great Barrier Reef, Vaccines; Is it safe? Is it effective? Has it been tested? Cattle farming, The use of fertilisers, Transmission lines, B.O.M. data hidden or modified, Taxes, Cost of living, Environmental damage caused by renewables, Electric vehicles, Wind farms, Road safety, The environment, Health, Education, Food safety, the Voice referendum.
Any existing government policy or planned to be introduced.
R.I.P. conservative politics.
The Federal government is seeking your feedback and there are only about 30 days to stop this attack on Australian democracy.
You can post your feedback on the link below, either by leaving your name or doing it anonymously. After the “have your say” submission date expires, you may not be able to speak your truth on what you consider to be the facts.
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-your-say/new-acma-powers-combat-misinformation-and-disinformation
60
So the Government is now in charge of deciding what is truth or fiction, with the latitude to define misinformation or disinformation, (fact or fiction).
That’s a frightening power assumed by itself, for itself. Deciding what constitutes Truth by fiat is what dictatorships do. Unless some claim is, by its own claims, treasonous, blatantly inciteful or immediately dangerous (with references) , what proper right does any politician have to criminalize or restrict the speech of the People? The Citizenry have a proper Right to discuss things. The Pollies have no Right to restrict that discussion. Unless a Police State is the objective.
90
The Australian government says “some states may seek to characterise legitimate debate and commentary that is objectionable to them as disinformation or misinformation.“. Naturally, ‘some states’ includes Australia.
See Disinformation & Misinformation.
OK, so I have posted this before, but I reckon it needs to be posted everywhere as often as possible, so that people understand where the government is coming from – or rather, where it is going.
30
Censorship – Latest piece of totalitarian response
The Voice – Race based
Climate Catastrophe – Fear based scientism – Representative democracy ignored. Based on computer models
Destruction of FF industry – Based on computer models
Mandates – Based on computer models.
Loss of industry – Cost of energy, lack of competitiveness
Cost of living – Interest rates, inflation
Consumer confidence – For the last year the index has held around levels we have not seen on a sustained basis since the deep recession of the late 1980s/early 1990s.
Business confidence – down, all leading indicators weak.
Gender wars – Women – what is a woman?
DEI
ESG
…….going well so far Albo! — sigh……
90
Speaking of THE VOICE.
Who will present THE VOICE. Are they elected officials or appointed. If elections, can a third generation Australia vote for the Voice representative? If appointed, how many Australian born generations must you have before qualifying? How many “new” Australians can you have in your lineage before you qualify for appointment, for election or for voting?
Surely these are important questions to resolve before we eliminate racism in Australia.
70
Personally, I’d like to know when old white guys get a special voice to Parliament.
50
So if a particular religion settles scores by chopping off the head of their enemy, that’s fine and dandy.
But don’t dare say anything that may offend someone.
90
Like certain USA agencies redefined “vaccine” perhaps religion can be redefined?
Any group asking for that designation must NOT advocate the killing of another human being for any reason other than self defense. If they do, the group is not to be recognized as a religion
30
https://www.facebook.com/groups/409535516388621/posts/1197693970906101/
If you’re still wondering what the Voice to Parliament is really about, this video is for you.
Thomas Mayo wrote the book on the proposed constitutional change, and here he is explaining what the Voice plans to achieve in his own words
30
Clause 116 of the Australian constitution:
116. Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
I’d like to use it to stop this entire climate change scam, on the grounds that it’s a religion. But the High Court is very far to the left and would just tell me not to be a smart arse.
40
It’s about the ability to make informed decisions, more than about free speech. Without access to information one cannot make a valid, informed decision.
30