Slashdot Mirror

Not even free speech like the 1st Amendment in Australia: http://www.findlaw.com.au/arti... No bill of rights. It is a country of serfs.

A very big problem in Australia is that we have no right to free speech like Americans do: http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4529/do-we-have-the-right-to-freedom-of-speech-in-austr.aspx

Under the Public Figure Doctrine US journalists can report corruption in a timely manner. In Australia we have nothing like that - not even a public interest test - so journalists must sit on stories for years. The Australian media couldn't even tell the people of New South Wales that their Premier (Governor) was manifestly-corrupt until the day after he died. http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/Martin_def.html http://victimsofdsto.com/online/#freespeech

The right to free speech is so limited in Australia that this public servant was fired for anonymously tweeting her own opinion on her own equipment on her own time: http://www.psnews.com.au/Featurespsn3834.html In the US the Supreme Court holds that public servants (government workers) have the right to express their own opinions. In Australia, they don't.

Any free speech story on slashdot inevitably involves international comparisons. If this had happened in the US, I'd expect comments about Canadian free speech laws as well as a variety of European ones. Likely Australian ones too.

FYI, there's no such thing as free speech in Australia. We don't have any equivalent to the Bill of Rights (or Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

There's an implied freedom of speech in our constitution, but it's certainly not explicit. It's been tested a number of times (with the result going both ways) in the High Court.

Yet in Australia, the most corrupt and inequitable country in the English-speaking world, the courts ruled that the BRCA1 patent owners can screw 'we the people' for all they are worth, all the while their porcine politicians snorted and squealed in delight.

Gene patenting: Australian court rules BRCA1 patent is legal http://theconversation.com/gene-patenting-australian-court-rules-brca1-patent-is-legal-12240

This is nothing new. When asked to rule if Australians had free speech the Australian courts wouldn't even grant them that: http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4529/do-we-have-the-right-to-freedom-of-speech-in-austr.aspx http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1741850/QA-What-are-the-limits-to-free-speech http://www.ask.com/question/what-countries-don-t-have-freedom-of-speech

Well, nice to see America putting Australia to shame: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implications_of_US_gene_patent_invalidation_on_Australia

Aussies do not have free speech ""Some of us may presume that because we live in a liberal democracy like Australia, certain personal freedoms are a given "like free speech" Additionally, we presume that many Australians would be familiar with the US Constitution and specifically the First Amendment which states; "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press", and we’re going to also guess (again for efficacy) that some people may believe that we here in Australia also enjoy a similar type of Constitutional protection: But do we? Well it must be said that Australia’s free speech laws are interesting to say the least...""

""First, let's get the easy part out of the way: Australia does not have an explicit First Amendment equivalent enshrining the protection of freedom of speech in our Constitution." http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4529/do-we-have-the-right-to-freedom-of-speech-in-austr.aspx

Talk to Aussies and you find they hate their government and think politicians are lying cheating scumbags with their snouts in the trough, but if you criticize them you can be charged by sedition laws by John Howard: "Sedition: An intention to effect any of the following purposes: (a) to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt; (b) to urge disaffection against the following: (i) the Constitution; (ii) the Government of the Commonwealth; (iii) either House of the Parliament;" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law

Not like these kind of laws are passed but not used. Albert Langer told the public how to vote on election day for a local candidate without having to give their vote to Labour or Liberal candidate in the end. The government jailed him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Australia

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4529/do-we-have-the-right-to-freedom-of-speech-in-austr.aspx

If I decide to take a short holiday I can strap on my backpack and go for a 30-country tour, stopping in each and filing a motion against my victim. Even big companies would find it time-consuming and expensive to respond to each complaint. Medium, small companies and individuals have no chance of handling them all. One gets through, and by not appearing, the Judge rules that I am the winner and demands my victim makes payment.

In theory unenforcable, but if my victim steps foot in said company, opens a local office, enters a partnership, buys a holiday house or mail order, well, their assets are mine! (laughs manically)

It's all very well for this judge make findings like this against Limey corporations, but it can work the other way. Libel laws in Australia are draconian. When Australian Businessman Joe Gutnick was named in an article by Dow Jones that he had an association with a money launderer. Gutnick sued Dow Jones, but instad of suing Dow Jones in America, the place of duplication, Gutnick found amenable Australian Courts that said he could sue in Australia because that's where Gutnick read the article. What a can of worms that opened.

http://www.vho.org/News/GB/News1_03.html "Internet: Can Everybody Sue Everybody everywhere?"
http://www.findlaw.com.au/article/2104.htm

Fact is judges should not make rulings about cases that have no jurisdiction. If the judge made the ruling because he was annoyed, then he's an ass and not fit for the job. If he made it because it's the law, the law's an ass.

I'll make a prediction: When multi-million dollar judgements start getting made in other countries against big American companies, you'll see the law quickly changed by Congress and pushed through to other countries using the "sign this treaty or life will get very hard" approach used with the DMCA. Why this hasn't happened already I'm not sure. Dow Jones is big enough.

1) faster expiration.

They are not asking for submissions on the whole of the copyright act, *only* submissions on the issue of "fair use". I doubt that they will consider anything else. (It would be nice though)

In fact I doubt that Rudd will consider *anything*. He is *proud* of the extensions to the 1968 copyright act. These committiees as far as I can see are *only* set up to appease the public, they don't actually achieve anything and do not consider public submissions worthwhile.

What difference will it make anyway? The general Australia public don't give a flying fuck what the law says (decedents of criminals etc), everyone records and time shifts anyway.

That said, here are some links for anybody interested:

Copyright and Contract - your rights

Australian copyright law (origins of)

Review to Consider When it's Fair to Copy

copyright.org.au

1) faster expiration.

They are not asking for submissions on the whole of the copyright act, *only* submissions on the issue of "fair use". I doubt that they will consider anything else. (It would be nice though)

In fact I doubt that Rudd will consider *anything*. He is *proud* of the extensions to the 1968 copyright act. These committiees as far as I can see are *only* set up to appease the public, they don't actually achieve anything and do not consider public submissions worthwhile.

What difference will it make anyway? The general Australia public don't give a flying fuck what the law says (decedents of criminals etc), everyone records and time shifts anyway.

That said, here are some links for anybody interested:

Copyright and Contract - your rights

Australian copyright law (origins of)

Review to Consider When it's Fair to Copy

copyright.org.au

1) faster expiration.

They are not asking for submissions on the whole of the copyright act, *only* submissions on the issue of "fair use". I doubt that they will consider anything else. (It would be nice though)

In fact I doubt that Rudd will consider *anything*. He is *proud* of the extensions to the 1968 copyright act. These committiees as far as I can see are *only* set up to appease the public, they don't actually achieve anything and do not consider public submissions worthwhile.

What difference will it make anyway? The general Australia public don't give a flying fuck what the law says (decedents of criminals etc), everyone records and time shifts anyway.

That said, here are some links for anybody interested:

Copyright and Contract - your rights

Australian copyright law (origins of)

Review to Consider When it's Fair to Copy

copyright.org.au

Actually you can't shout the word "fuck" on the street in Australia, well at least not if you live in NSW (as does most of the population).

Section 4A of the Summary Offences Act makes it an offence to use offensive language near, or within hearing of, a public place or a school. Section 4 makes general offensive conduct illegal, and is punishable by up to 3 months in prison.

For a copy of the Act:
http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/summarize/inforc e/s/1/?TITLE=%22Summary%20Offences%20Act%201988%20 No%2025%22&nohits=y/

Further information:
http://www.aussielegal.com.au/informationoutline~n ocache~1~SubTopicDetailsID~956.htm/
http://www.findlaw.com.au/article/8872.htm/

Findlaw has an article on a judge overturning a decision by the NAF over freebies.com and the NAF is being sued for "...refusing to disclose information about how it handles cases when consumer rights are at stake." Google for National Arbitration Forum and you'll find what looks like many(read through the thread) sketchy things about this group.