Slashdot Mirror
Aussie Public Servant Criticises Gov't On Twitter, Gets Sacked
An anonymous reader writes "An Australian public servant who criticised the government on Twitter has been sacked even though she did not reveal her name or her job to her readers. Federal Judge Warwick Neville told her Australians had no 'unfettered implied right (or freedom) of political expression.' Unlike Americans, Australians have only limited rights to Free Speech. The new ruling makes means public servants cannot criticize the government on social media, even privately and in their own time."
That particular example is specific to the military, though; soldiers have never been considered to have the same freedoms as civilians, even in the early years of the US.
Civilian government employees do have some degree of free-speech protection. The main caveat is that any employer (including a private-sector employer) can fire employees for speech criticizing the employer, in some cases, and that is also true when the government is acting in its role as an employer. However the government is somewhat more limited than a private-sector employer in how it uses this power.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I would just like to point out that an Aussie public servant critical of this ruling would not be able to post on slashdot without risk of being fired.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
Free speech and beard
Both must be feared
The will of the few
Owns what you do
Burma Shave
That.... that is actually damn insightful.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
OT: There is an advertisement up in the subway station under the Pentagon by some group called the Oath Keepers that says: "Snowden honored his oath. Honor yours; expose unconstitutional actions."
Under the Inquisitorial system of justice used in Europe and Asia the judge (including lay judges) hear all the evidence.
Under the Anglo system lawyers get the judge to hide evidence from the jury because they are too stupid to understand it. Like prior convictions.
The Anglo system is the problem.
http://www.amazon.com/Corrupt-Legal-System-Evan-Whitton/dp/1921681071
"The lawyer-run adversary system used in Britain and its former colonies, including the US, India, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia does not try to find the truth. It is the only system which conceals evidence. 'Our Corrupt Legal System' explains why trial lawyers, famously economical with the truth, control evidence; civil hearings take weeks, months or years; in serious criminal cases, 24 anti-truth devices allow more than 50% of guilty accused to escape justice. By contrast, in the investigative system used in Europe and other countries, including Japan, trained judges control evidence and seek the truth; civil hearings take a few hours; 95% of guilty accused are convicted. It is the most widespread, accurate and cost-effective system. Russell Fox, an Australian judge who researched the law for 11 years, concluded: 'The public estimation must be correct, that justice marches with the truth.' The vast majority of voters will support change to a truthseeking system: trial lawyers are fewer than 0.2% of the population; the public are 99.8%. 'A masterpiece.' - Phillip Knightley, twice British Journalist of the Year."
http://netk.net.au/Whitton/OCLS.pdf free download