Good Onya Mate

[susanjacobs]

I totally agree that our freedom of speech is not in the legal, literal sense of the word.

The US and Aus are the same that we can have our freedom of speech taken away by legislation. The good thing about the US is that the US Supreme Court has the Constitution to help it decide whether or not those laws should be upheld.

I don't like Howard, but one thing he has said that I agree with is that Australia needs a Bill of Rights similar to one in the US. We need our rights protected constitutionally. I need to see how he wants that Bill of Rights to be structured, but it is a good idea.

[sara]

Yeah that is one problem with our Constitution. It's very focussed on the mechanics of the system rather than the ideals behind it. Not to say that a certain form of government doesn't illustrate ideals just that our Constitution isn't nearly as interested in the values of the nation like the American one is. Although a lot of that is just a reflection of the fact that ours was made in peacetime.

[Mythor]

The USA can not have their right to free speech taken away by legislation.

Originally Posted by Their Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Any such legislation would (or should) be tossed out on First Amendment grounds, and has been on various occasions.

For the most part the Supreme Court does uphold the constitution, but there are exceptions. The exceptions are generally ones that the people would consent to having restricted, while the basic right is still protected.
Regardless, the Supreme Court is not a legislative body, it is judicial. Congress is the legislative body and they're constitutionally forbidden from abridging free speech.
Doesn't stop them trying, though.

Howard doesn't want us to have a Bill of Rights because then he'd be legally obligated to adhere to it and he's not real keen on letting us keep the rights we already have. He only says it to make people think better of him. The reality is, him and his party have been in control of parliament for a good long while now, so if he wanted us to have one they certainly have the numbers to get it voted up for a referendum or whatever would be necessary for such a useless piece of paper.
There's no point to having such a thing as it's not going to give us the right to do anything we can't already do now. And it would be structured in such a way that the Government would be able to revoke any right listed if they wanted to do so, because if it wasn't then it would never be approved in the first place. Etc.
Thus Howard can crap on all he likes about how we need a Bill of Rights, because he knows full well that any such Bill would only get through Parliament if it was only going to be as effective as a wet paper bag. And in which case he'd be quite happy, since then he'd actually get to fulfill something he's backed, without really having to do anything but give some study group (carefully selected by the government to return the result they desire) millions of taxpayer dollars...

Who me? Cynical?

[susanjacobs]

A lot of this is thinking aloud... so I hope it makes sense...

I haven't lived in the US for almost a decade now. Things have changed a lot since I lived there. The War on Terror and 9/11 have changed the face of things. Some of the very essence of what makes the US great (such as the Bill of Rights) is being slowly eaten away all in the name of National Security. Even people I know who voted for Bush bitch about how rights are being taken away. Terrorism and fear DO NOT mean that the US or any other country should have their basic rights taken from them.

There are some state laws that try to restrict free speech and free press. I know that schools have the right to close down newspapers and restrict articles that don't fit with the school's policies. Another right -- free press -- protected by the Bill of Rights. I was editor of my Uni's newspaper and I ran across this all the time. Yes, I was censored, and it was legal. Believe me, I checked with some law experts because I was FURIOUS. It sucked and was legal. School papers and regular newspapers are governed by different laws to some degree.

What happens with laws on limits of free speech in the US is someone -- be it Congress or a state level congress -- makes a law. It goes into effect. Someone then challenges it in court. It then goes through various levels of the judicial system. Then it can make it to the US Supreme Court. The Court is all part of the checks and balances. It is supposed to be only accountable to the Constitution, but I know that isn't always how it works. The Court usually errs on the side of Free Speech. If Bushy has his way, I fear this will no longer be the case. Oh, and kiss Roe v. Wade good-bye.

The Supreme Court process isn't the best, but the Court does uphold many basic rights. It can make some really bad decisions too (separate but equal is coming to mind). Luckily, it usually works itself out. I hope this period is just an adjustment, and the US will go back to the ideals set out for them by their Fore-Fathers.

Neither system is perfect. I would rather live here than the US. One thing about the laws of this land is that I don't have to really worry about random rednecks with guns trying to kill me because I said something mean about his trailer. May the gods bless Australia...

[Mythor]

Did Congress legislate to censor your newspaper, or did the school administration say "You can't print that!" I'm going to go ahead and assume the latter.
I'm assuming the paper was being funded by the university? It's not that your right to free speech was being suppressed, it was that no such right applied in that situation. You had the right to say whatever you wanted, they had the right to not have you say it in the paper they're funding or allowing onto school grounds, etc?

[susanjacobs]

There was a court case that said that schools had the right to reject any material that it wanted in their newspapers. I had the right to write whatever I wanted. However, some of my articles were halted before they even began. The Uni told me that I wasn't allowed to print them, and if I did, I could be expelled from the Uni.

No legislative branch told me I couldn't. The courts told some other student that the school had the right to censor. So yeah... what were we talking about?

[Mythor]

There's a fair bit on the protections afforded by the First Amendment on tonight's episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit during the Profanity episode, assuming it airs.

But yes, it's probably time this topic got back to good onya'ing at people.

[susanjacobs]

I caught most of the profanity ep and it was well done. So good onya, P&T!

[Mythor]

Two good onyas related to one incident: Firstly to an unnamed 15 year old boy from WA who got YouTube to remove ABC-owned material citing copyright infringement, highlighting how absurd the complaints process is over there.

Secondly, and the bigger good onya, to Courtney Gibson, "head of arts, entertainment and comedy at ABC TV" for this:

Originally Posted by Courtney Gibson

[ABC wishes] to get our content out there on as many platforms as possible, run by as many different operators as possible.

In other words, if ABC owns it, we can share it around with the ABC's blessing, it seems.
May need a seperate topic to discuss the ramifications of this.

[Laney]

Originally Posted by Mythor

Secondly, and the bigger good onya, to Courtney Gibson, "head of arts, entertainment and comedy at ABC TV" for this:
In other words, if ABC owns it, we can share it around with the ABC's blessing, it seems.
May need a seperate topic to discuss the ramifications of this.

uh-oh, this could potentially open a can of worms.
i try not to share too much american stuff that i own, only because i think i might get my arse kicked, but i'm all too happy to share BBC stuff and now ABC stuff

[Gutter Monkey]

Originally Posted by Laney

uh-oh, this could potentially open a can of worms.

But I get to post my favourite Media Watch moments on youtube!!

Don't forget that many of the things that the ABC shows aren't actually owned by them, they may just have the TV broadcast rights.

[Mythor]

Yes, it only applies to stuff the ABC actually produces, so things like Chaser, Media Watch... Paul's new show.
Chaser and Media Watch are both "vodcast" anyway (and Paul's show may be), but this announcement means we can freely post things like screencaps or sound bites or whatever if we want to do that, so long as it's made clear where they've come from. And if things are broadcast in high-def that could mean higher quality recordings for people who miss shows and such.
I assume. Maybe the biggerwigs at the ABC will veto it but the way it was said leads me to believe that it's official ABC policy to not do anything about this. It's definitely different to the attitude of every other commercial station.

[Edit]
Also, it might mean that since ABC was the original owner of the original series of GNW and that apparently Foxtel let their rights lapse...?
I know various people who've wanted to cap some GNW things and if official ABC policy is to not do anything about such things, we might start seeing more videos of older ABC content springing up. Maybe.
But this is all why I was clapping, if they're going to go down the route of not being asses about harmless sharing of things, we could be in for good times.

[Gutter Monkey]

Originally Posted by Mythor

Yes, it only applies to stuff the ABC actually produces, so things like Chaser, Media Watch... Paul's new show.

Do the ABC actually 'own' the Chaser and Paul's show or are they being made by production companies for/in association with the ABC?

[Mythor]

Both? They're made by production companies at the behest of the ABC, as far as I know?
What set this off was Chaser clips being deleted and (unless it's changed?) Chaser is produced by Zapruder's Other Films (ie; Andrew Denton's production company) so it looks to be any material made specifically for the ABC.