🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
Everything but the Digital Duty of Care Bill

What’s the courts definition of a modern day “reasonable person”?
Personally, I’m offended by boy bands, spam & whatever politicians spruik. Highly offended!

OMG imagine if Lord Haw Haw had enjoyed the benefit of such 'free speech' legal rights when he was charged before a UK court post -WW2 with what amounted to treason, disloyalty & treachery! He might have even escaped having his neck stretched beyond its elasticity coefficient sufficient to sustain bodily integrity and life! Timing in life is everything! But then, it has been since antiquity, the first rule & guiding principle of the medical profession, that of 'to do no harm'. Back in WW2, miscreant German doctors & nurses who aided in the expedited death of those (otherwise healthy) individuals declared 'enemies of the Reich', were eventually punished severely by the Allied Forces, after the conflict ended - long sentences and death! Justice may have been delayed somewhat, but wasn't eventually denied, albeit rough & ready in execution!

Oooh! 'Legislative contortions'?? Sounds most unpleasant. 🤣

Thank you Anne. I always feel a little bit smarter (or at least better informed) after one of your videos. 👍

Time for a bill of rights. McGoo is the worst PM we have ever had.

I wonder who is funding all this. High court challenges don't come cheap.

Great information

I think there's reasonable grounds to dismiss the nurses based on the fact that their words constituted a credible threat to the safety of their patients. The freedom of political speech is designed to prevent you from political oppression from acts of the government and organisations employed by the government. It does not disqualify professional speech standards, particularly in fields where lives are at stake.

There is no valid definition of a reasonable person; therefore, all of it is invalid.

A split court. How odd.

How about before a person with a strongly held political position wants to claim offence, the words and actions of their own leadership are used as a benchmark for what is acceptable?

I hope the HCA creates either an expressed free speech precedent or just stop this concept of the American free speech right... it's about time.

I did my honours thesis on the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communications in 1993, thinking it would mean i could one day (as in, ‘the next few years’) get lots of work in that field of law. Unfortunately it seems to have ‘only’ taken about 30 years to become a viable area of practice!

As much as I abhor the actions of those ex-nurses, the part of the law referring to "or offensive" is incredibly vague (even if well defined in the law, it's vague to the common person) and should not be part of any criminal law.  

Also as an aside, the facts of the Monis case puts to rest any argument that the Lindt Cafe attack was anything other than terrorism (eg. contentions from certain quarters that it was just a result of mental illness).

Since we depend on it so much, maybe a dedicated video on "reasonable person".

Im confused why we cant talk about the case, we are not a party to it and its in the public interest, can i say i support them?

A reasonable person would never be offended full stop!
Only when demonstrably damages can be claimed, compensation can be sought.
We already have laws for such circumstances.

Speech is never ever free, it comes with responsibility and consequences.
As for hate that is just a total waste of emotionally resources.
Any hate laws therefore should not exist.

Does the constitution or these laws apply to privately owned carriage services that may or may not be on Australian soil, including foreign owned satellites like Starlink?