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."
Free speech and beard
Both must be feared
The will of the few
Owns what you do
Burma Shave
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
A Dingo ate my freedom!
Well, in the US, if an officer in the military criticizes the administration, they can be fired or even charged under the UCMJ. So we're not that far off from the Aussies...
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
In some kangaroo court?
Well, good luck finding any new employees to work for the government ever then. After hearing this, nobody will bother to apply.
One can only hope this is the case. Unfortunately, I think that also in Australia, there are thousands of people who will either argue that "they have to somehow pay their bills", or that "they have nothing to hide", or any other stupid argument. And otherwise, the govt. can always promise to pay 5000 $ more per year than in similar jobs elsewhere, which is no doubt enough to shut up a whole lot of people.
Also, gag orders. Just last week someone shut down their encrypted email service and was not able to talk about what happened for legal reasons. That's a blatant violation of his first amendment rights.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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
Well, good luck finding any new employees to work for the government ever then. After hearing this, nobody will bother to apply.
You might be surprised at how many people would be willing to have their mouths sewn shut, in exchange for money and power.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I'd rather live in a country where you actually hear about the abuses instead of those countries where the abuses are hidden. The fact that we actually know about the abuses in Anglo countries gives me hope.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
We'll see if this actually stands up in the High Court.
In practice, this is unworkable - how can someone be sacked for holding a political view that does not impact the exercise of their duties? that screams discrimination, it screams an unworkable scenario for the exercise of government. It stinks - and the governments policy on refugees stinks as well, it's cruel and inhumane and repugnant to right minded people, it's unaustralian, it brings shame to this country, and it's architects ought to be ashamed..
Now fire me if you dare.
Are you seriously comparing a civil employee to a military officer?
If you're an officer, you're not criticizing "the administration", you're criticizing your commanders. Most people in the military understand why they shouldn't even consider getting involved in politics...if you need to understand why military shouldn't be involved in politics, I cannot help you. A history book can, however.
Please help metamoderate.
Of course there can be conflicts in rights, eg the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that in some cases an individuals right to fundamental justice can, for a while such as the length of a court case, override the groups right to speech as having an impartial jury is important to having a fair trial.
Courts mistake an informed jury for a partial jury. By allowing courts to manage the information a jury hears, they in fact create partial juries. The correct solution to a jury that is swayed by speech is more speech that counters the first speech. Whoever runs out of valid arguments first is the loser.
Can you imagine if we held scientists, who are also supposed to be impartial judges of evidence, to the standards of a jury? Instead of submitting papers for peer review by experts, we'd be submitting them to people who are prohibited from knowing anything about the field.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!