In Australia, we have no constitutionally entrenched right to freedom of speech.
Currently, the government is proposing changes to the existing Racial Discrimination Act.
Here's the proposed law:
This is a significant watering-down of the existing law.
As it stands, the law prohibits actions that are:
So, the government wants to change things so that it is ok to offend, insult or humiliate others on the basis of race etc. And intimidation is also acceptable as long as it does not put somebody in fear of physical harm.
The "vilify" provision of the proposed law is new.
The existing law in relation to subsection (3), above, judges acts from the point of view of the group of which the targeted person is a part. The government wants to change this so that the "ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community" is the standard against which conduct is to be judged.
Also, the government wants to introduce the wide-ranging exemption in section (4), which does not exist at present. This section could conceivably negate much of the effect of the law.
---
The Australian Attorney General, Senator George Brandis, has stated that the existing law is "unreasonably constrictive on freedom of speech". He says:
He has also stated that people ought to have the right to be a bigot:
----
I am interested to here your thoughts on this.
Do you think that in a free country people ought to have the right to be bigots (in their public statements)?
Should we permit racial insults, offence and humiliation on the basis of race, on the grounds of "freedom of speech"?
Should we allow intimidation of others (as long as it doesn't put them in fear of physical harm)?
Feel free to compare and contrast the law in your own country.
[Edit to add: And what about on sciforums? What do you think about the same three questions?]
Currently, the government is proposing changes to the existing Racial Discrimination Act.
Here's the proposed law:
The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is amended as follows:
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely:
(i) to vilify another person or a group of persons; or
(ii) to intimidate another person or a group of persons,
and (b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of that person or that group of persons.
(2) For the purposes of this section:
(a) vilify means to incite hatred against a person or a group of persons;
(b) intimidate means to cause fear of physical harm:
(i) to a person; or
(ii) to the property of a person; or
(iii) to the members of a group of persons.
(3) Whether an act is reasonably likely to have the effect specified in sub-section (1)(a) is to be determined by the standards of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community, not by the standards of any particular group within the Australian community.
(4) This section does not apply to words, sounds, images or writing spoken, broadcast, published or otherwise communicated in the course of participating in the public discussion of any political, social, cultural, religious, artistic, academic or scientific matter.
This is a significant watering-down of the existing law.
As it stands, the law prohibits actions that are:
reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate others because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin
So, the government wants to change things so that it is ok to offend, insult or humiliate others on the basis of race etc. And intimidation is also acceptable as long as it does not put somebody in fear of physical harm.
The "vilify" provision of the proposed law is new.
The existing law in relation to subsection (3), above, judges acts from the point of view of the group of which the targeted person is a part. The government wants to change this so that the "ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community" is the standard against which conduct is to be judged.
Also, the government wants to introduce the wide-ranging exemption in section (4), which does not exist at present. This section could conceivably negate much of the effect of the law.
An opposition MP said:It is a provision of such breadth that just about anything ... said in the course of a public discussion ... would come within this exception to the prohibition, meaning that what we're left with is something of very little meaning.
---
The Australian Attorney General, Senator George Brandis, has stated that the existing law is "unreasonably constrictive on freedom of speech". He says:
Brandis said:It is not in the government’s view the role of the state to ban conduct merely because it might hurt the feelings of others. We want the level of public discussion, we want the tone of our society to be elevated and made better. But our government, as a Liberal government, does not believe you do that best by censorship. We believe that censorship is the worst possible way to go about that.
He has also stated that people ought to have the right to be a bigot:
Brandis said:People do have a right to be bigots, you know. In a free country people do have rights to say things that other people find offensive or insulting or bigoted.
----
I am interested to here your thoughts on this.
Do you think that in a free country people ought to have the right to be bigots (in their public statements)?
Should we permit racial insults, offence and humiliation on the basis of race, on the grounds of "freedom of speech"?
Should we allow intimidation of others (as long as it doesn't put them in fear of physical harm)?
Feel free to compare and contrast the law in your own country.
[Edit to add: And what about on sciforums? What do you think about the same three questions?]