Should National Security Ever Override Free Speech?

Throughout World War II the Australian Government implemented a number of wartime controls and restrictions on individual freedoms and consumption. Broadly, these included censorship, propaganda and rationing and they first came into play when the National Security Act of 1939 was passed. This act overpowered the guidelines of the constitution, hence giving the Commonwealth Government powers to make laws that it would otherwise not be authorised to (Anzacday organisation, 2015). Censorship was one of these new laws, and is the governmental control of information made public by the media, and so strictly banned the release of sensitive military information that The Department of

After looking at other example of Bills of Rights around the world, with America having theirs for 224 years, Canada having implemented theirs for 30 years and the UK for 17 years, Australia needs to consider each nation’s Bill of Rights’ respective strengths and weaknesses when considering our own Bill of Rights in order for it to best suit the current and future society. Canada adopts something of the middle ground between the strongly entrenched rights in the United State’s constitution and the United Kingdom where the British parliament remains supreme with a weak level of right entrenchment, making it perfect for the situation in Australia.

The detention of asylum seekers on offshore islands has becomes central to Australia’s border security program (Dickson, 2015). The offshore detention, processing and resettlement regime branded the ‘Pacific Solution’ was terminated in 2008; it was reconfigured and resurrected in 2013 (Larkin, 2017). Manus Island and Nauru were closed in 2008 by the Australian Labour government, bringing an end to the ‘Pacific Solution,’ the centres were once again used in 2012 to house asylum seekers by the same government that ended the practice years before (Dickson, 2015). The next year, in 2013, the Australian Coalition government made Australia’s asylum policy even sterner, with ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’, which placed all the control of asylum operations in the hands

This year’s election alone has brought about many emotions and deep rooted feelings that have not come out in years. Hate speech and actions carried out because of hate speech has cause a deep division in American culture. Groups like “Black Lives Matter”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Alt-Right” are all under fire for things that have been said or done in the names of these groups. There has been terrorist attacks in the names of religious groups whom believe that a newspaper or group has insulted their religion, beliefs, and gods. Not to mention our own President Elect of the United States, Donald Trump, has been accused of fueling much of the hate speech we see today. This begs the question, should freedom of speech have any restrictions or be limited in any way, or is that unconstitutional? To look at this we must first identify what “Freedom of Speech” is as defined in the constitution and how it relates to current issues in the world and in America, then I will talk about some situations where regulation is already put in place in America, lastly we will look at some situations where I believe freedom of speech could use some clarification or restriction.

Australia’s first anti-terror laws were enacted in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 (Prof Andrew Lynch 2010). In recent years, increasing Australian involvement in international conflict has seen these laws shift to accommodate alarming trends in home grown terrorism (Australian Security Intelligence Organisation 2014). Sydney’s 2014 terror raids prompted the most significant changes to Australia’s counter terrorism legislation in the last decade (Commonwealth of Australia Department of Defence 2015). Amendments granted law enforcement and intelligence agencies new and somewhat controversial powers, in the name of national security.

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible. However, in recent years, the right to free speech is one of legal and moral ambiguity-What separates offensive free speech from dangerous or threatening (and presumably illegal) hate speech? Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, every American citizen should be entitled to the right of free expression, thought, and speech. While free speech, including racial, sexist, or otherwise prejudiced remarks, must protected no matter

The case of Ruddock v Vadarlis is fundamental when it comes to understanding the rights of an individual or human rights more broadly and how they are protected by public law in Australia, however this is an extremely complex issue, and this case outlined many of the protections that ensure human rights but also was one of the defining moments for human rights and public policy in the contemporary era, this cases influence stretches far, but this essay will explain how this case enshrined how Australian public law protects people’s rights. This essay will focus on the individual rights of Australians, this in itself generates a great deal of discussion and viewpoints, different ideas on exactly what rights were protected, and which rights

Evaluate the effectiveness of Australian law in balancing the rights of the individual and the state in the face of growing international terrorism

The Abbott Government is erecting an iron curtain of secrecy over what is happening and what has happened in Australia's immigration detention system. The Act not only criminalises whistleblowers but those such as medical professionals and teachers who believe they have an ethical duty to report physical and mental harm that occurs in a systemic fashion. It may be that these new requirements put vulnerable people's lives at risk but given the secrecy requirements of the Act, we will never know.

When the National Security Act was introduced, John Curtin, leader of the Labor Party, summed up the governments new powers by stating bluntly that ‘anybody in Australia can be called upon to do whatever the government

The freedom of speech is a part of the bill of rights-obviously important enough to be one of the first things mentioned. Just as it was important in 1771, our freedoms are well established today in 2015. Here in the age of technology, the internet is where the crime takes place and all could be victims. The founding fathers didn’t write the bill of rights concerned with our Facebook rants and who they can be directed to. So finding a solution to fit a 1771 document in today’s problems can be difficult.

Australia has arguably the most restrictive immigration control in the world and has very tough policies in place for asylum seekers who arrive by boat. Under Australia 's system of mandatory detention, all non-citizens who are in Australia without a valid visa must be detained, including children. In 2012, offshore processing of asylum seekers commenced and detention centres in Nauru and Manus Island (Papua New Guinea) were established. This new system enforced policies that transferred asylum seekers who arrive by boat without a valid visa to a third country. Once the processing of asylum seekers was completed, those found to be genuine refugees will be resettled in Papua New Guinea or Cambodia, not Australia. The Abbott Government stated that no immigrant who arrives in Australia by boat will be grated a visa, no matter the legitimacy of their claim. In April 2016, the Manus Island detention centre was closed after the Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea found it to be illegal. Current immigration Peter Dutton has made it clear that asylum seekers on Manus Island are the responsibility of Papua New Guinea and would not come to Australia. As well as the hundreds of immigrants in offshore detention centres, there are hundreds more in community detention in Australia. There are currently over 26,800 visa applications from those who are awaiting the outcome of their refugee application whilst living on a bridging visa in Australia.

In the reality, asylum seekers who come across the seas by boat are not welcomed by Australian government. However, in the Advance Australia Fair, it says: “For those who've come across the seas we've boundless plains to share.” Locking up the asylum seekers who come across the seas to escape from persecution in the detain centres is absolutely not the way people share their “boundless plains”. Also the detain centres have a poor hygiene conditions (Greene & Sveen, 2014) and may have frequent raping and beating (Whyte & Gordon, 2014). Moreover, the new Border Force Act that has already assented recently in May (Parliament of Australia, 2015) will probably imprison the staffs in detain centres who tell the public the real situation inside the detain centres up to 2 years. This act will “effectively turns the Department of Immigration into a secret security organization with police powers” (Barns & Newhouse, 2015). Asylum seekers who come over the seas from India, Indonesia or some other countries to find a new home in Australia will not only not being welcomed as what Advance Australia Fair’s says, but also suffer from life threatening conditions in the detain

This article details the scope of the Border Force Act 2015 and explores its ramifications on those working under the government in detention centres. Hoang argues that the Act forces compliance within commonwealth staff, as the risks of speaking out against any government wrongdoing could cost them their jobs, due to a lack of protection under the Fair Work Act. Furthermore, he criticises the Border Force Act and its interaction with the Public Interest Disclosure Act, saying the latter’s vague language pertaining to the release of ‘intelligence information’ could be interpreted to include the operation of detention centres. The recent publication of this article limits its impact, as the effects of the Border Force Act have not yet been realised,

It is clear that the mains point of the picture is that the USA. government is taking away the freedom of speech to the people. The person who is taking it away is the president Donald Trump, he wants to take away freedom of speech because he doesn’t like many people from other countries that means that he is racist. I disagree with what he wants because the president should not take away the freedom of speech. I think even if Trump has the power to take away the freedom of speech he should not take it away because the people have to have the right to opine. The people that want the freedom of speech shouldn’t let Trum to take it away before he does it. It is significant to try to protest agains trump unless you are agree with