I agree. I read the affidavits in support of the FFC fine which contained what Howard Stern said. No i was expecting to be shocked. But, he was matter of factly, discussing the terms for some pretty kinky stuff engaged in by some persons. I don't think it was obscene and I don't think he should have been fined. But, at the end of the day, its cheaper for the station to pay the fine, then go all the way to the Supreme Court and have them um and ahh about what 'obscene' is.
That is right, in Australia there is no freedom of speech protected by a constitutional right. The older High Court (like maybe 10 years ago) found an implied freedom of political speech, ie, if there was meant to be a free electoral process, than you should be equally free to talk about it ( Theophanus' case'). Hmm - never much grabbed by implied rights..... but I don't know if its still good law, cause ive been overseas for about 4 years.
In addition, the right to remain silent has been eroded in Australia. In New South Wales, you must give a version of a motor accident you took place in. Also there are notices that the Taxation Office can send you which you must report to the ATO and 'answer all questions truthfully' - incriminating yourself hand over fist. I don't agree with this. There is also special legislation enabling National Crime Authority agents (a bit like a cross between the FBI and the CIA, no1 you want to get caught by) to interrogate you, detain you without charge to do so, and you must answer all questions - no right to silence.
I think that the right to speak, as well as not to speak, should be absolute rights and it is troubling to see the inroads into freedoms of speech and the right to remain silent. One could never remain silent at Royal Commissions (a bit like perhaps Senate INquiries in the USA, or Grand Jury investigations....but not quite) and they have a special historical role in our jurisprudence and I accept it. But the latest inroads into the right to silence, with the ATO and the national Crime Authority, I do not like.
Equally, on the side of the USA - is the troubling charges of lying to the FBI, and other law enforcement agencies. I think that such charges should be laid only in the circumstances where they lead to the wasting of public money significantly, ie I tell the police there was 747 Crash on the 101 - but there is no such thing. Because, the Supreme Court says, that the Police, can, lie repeteadly to the suspect - but the suspect must always tell the truth to the police? I find this troublesome. The interest in the accused having accurate information is perhaps more accute than that of the authorities. But, just my view.
Someone mentioned the Queen, but she has nothing to do with any of this anymore. The Australia Acts in 1984 mean that the UK Parliament or the Queen cant make laws and apply them to the Australia. ANd it was similtaneously passed as a law by both the UK Parliament and Australia, so pretty hard to say its not the law. The reason we keep the Queen, is because the constitution, drafted in 1901, is a house of cards without the Queen and the Governor-General. The constitution is a good document that has worked well - if it needs to be redrafted to remove the Queen, we will end up with a load of politcally correct sound byte drivel.......and messing with constitutions, shakes the foundations of our system. The Queen even if she wanted to, can neither make nor change law in Australia. Keeping her as the figurehead of state prevents the Constitution from falling apart and heads off mass division because of arguments over wholesale amendment. And if that troubles other people of the world (when really its a triumph of pragmatism over emotional calls for 'Australian Head of State' when if the Head of State does nothing, why does it matter who they are?) well - too bad. Not your call. Australia made its decision, and until it goes to a vote again. Thats no1s business but ours.
Calanen
