Catholic Online Forum

Again, on the subject of hate-speech, an important decision this morning in the High Court of Australia.

By way of background,

i) There exists in the Australian Constitution an implicit right to freedom of speech on political matters;

ii) Using a postal or similar service to menace, harass or cause offence, is contrary to section 471.12 of the Criminal Code Act 1995.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-27/h ... on/4542482



More background here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_Haron_Monis



Your right to freedom of speech ends at the point at which you tell the mother of a hero slain in battle that her son deserved to die because he was fighting Moslems.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

This guy should have his citizenship revoked and be shipped out of the West.

_________________
Grace

As to the past, let us entrust it to God's mercy, the future to Divine Providence. Our task is to live holy the present moment. - Saint Gianna Molla

I spent 15 days in an afghan guesthouse(owner anti american) in Kabul and there were many afghan labourers in NATO Camps.
Moslems did not attack me-one even offered to escort me to Mass in Kabul and another offered to be my guide in Kandahar city.They knew full well that I was serving as a civilian in NATO camps.
My difference was that I could communicate in Hindi , sympathized with their plight(decades of war have impoverished the nation).I had also decades of work in India so it was easy to identify with people from a neighboring region.
Moslems in Afghanistan did not think I deserved to die -I trusted my life to them when they drove me for for than two hours in the night.Some are still my Facebook friends.
Quite honestly it takes two hands to clap

_________________
Simon

_________________
Simon

I would agree with Grace because "when in rome do as romans do".
No point in living in a country if one cannot obey its laws.
He would not return to Iran because that would be"from a frying pan into a fire".The benefit of returning to Iran would be that he would have more comedians to support his views.

_________________
Simon

This is NOT the issue. The issue is that this guy sent letters to the relatives of deceased persons condemning the dead, saying they deserved to die, etc, and causing distress and offense to grieving relatives. The guy is a psychopath and people have a right to be protected from unwanted communication from him.

It would be like a Christian who had been granted Pakistani nationality sending letters to the families of dead Pakistani soldiers telling them that they deserved to die. How long do you think that Christian would stay ALIVE let alone be allowed to continue living in Pakistan?

_________________
Grace

As to the past, let us entrust it to God's mercy, the future to Divine Providence. Our task is to live holy the present moment. - Saint Gianna Molla

I am not quite sure but I think that Muslims believe in revenge. We had one Akbar Owaisi who made a hate speech saying that Muslims in India needed 15 minutes to finish Hindus.Recently Pakistan decapitated Indian soldiers- and took one fellows head away-basically barbarians.Akbaruddin is now in hospital and Hindus say that it is good that he is suffering(paying for his bad karma)

_________________
Simon

They would be executed after morning prayers

_________________
Simon

I have thought about this since it was posted and think I am am going to take a different spin. First of all I think the actions of the letter writer were despicable, and I would turn a blind eye to the actions if any one would care to horse whip him.

However, at least for those of us in the US, we are bound by the Constitution to accept his words as his right to speak (or write) them. For example this nutty church from Kansas(?) that goes around protesting at Soldier's funerals they haven't been arrested as it is their right to do so. It is legal in the United States to burn the US Flag as a protest, (I suggest it not be done in my presence), but I defend the right of the person to burn it.

It is really imperative if we are to maintain our Constitutional rights to accept the fact that we will not always like another persons exercise of their rights, but those rights are also our rights.

_________________
Bob C

That would be: Westboro Baptist (so-called and pretty much people by the Phelps family) Church of (I’m pained to confess), my home state of Kansas. It was founded and is headed by the infamous, 83-year-old Fred Phelps of Topeka.

There is a satirical website called “Dufflebag”, evidently similar to “The Onion”, which has posted a tongue-in-cheek article pertaining to Mr. Phelps (imagined) death. I won’t publish the link here because it is not suitable for a family website. If anyone wants to read the essay, just Google “Fred Phelps dies”

… or e-mail me and I will send the link to you.

Let me emphasize: FRED PHELPS IS NOT DEAD! The story is satirical! I pray that Mr. Phelps lives long enough to regret and repudiate his unchristian-like words and actions!

But that, of course, will be up to God.

And I agree with you, Bob C. There are a lot of hateful words I would rather not see published but then I remember those words "… and then they came for me!"

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.

Bob,

But is there a right to harass someone? To enter their inner sanctuary by sending them mail or phoning them? Freedom of speech protects the content of the speech. It doesn't protect the where or the when.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

People are free to not read the letter or not answer the phone.

Harrassment has to be unavoidable by reasonable means.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Jeff,

It might be easy to not open a letter or not answer the phone if there is a truthful sender address on the envelope or if the number is recognized on caller id (if the homeowner has caller id; my mom still uses a rotary phone with obviously no caller id). But there are ways around those methods of avoidance, and a person could not be reasonably expected to only open letters they can identify from the envelope or only answer phone calls they can identify. They would likely be throwing out the good with the bad.

Someone's right to free speech ends at my property line, I would think, and my home should be inviolable from searches, seizures, or any other kind of violation without just cause by a private individual or the government.

By the way, and this is addressed to Bob...if the person is exercising his right to free speech, then to tolerate or participate in an assault on that person because of the content of his speech would be highly inconsistent with championing the exercise of that right.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

I do agree with this, Dean. I believe as Christians, we should to strive mightily to avoid giving hate in exchange for hate received.

But it sure is hard to do sometimes!

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.

Hatred among religous fanatics is often without reason.One has to be very firm .If this man has broken Australian law than he must be punished-tough love.He has to learn where his boundaries lie.

_________________
Simon

Dean,

No one has a right to harass you, you have every right to be safe in your "castle" Having said that though, one letter, nor one phone call is not harassment regardless of how despicable it may be. You have every right always to seek redress through the court system and seek restraining orders.

I have no idea of the threshold, when exercise free speech becomes harassment, I guess that is a legal question. Look at the media, we see it every day where the press is harassing some person going into (or coming out of) a courthouse, that is both the right of free speech and a free press. Or the paparazzi chasing down some alleged celebrity to catch them doing something naughty. And the courts have upheld the rights of the press to do just that.

They have no right to come on your property but they will, till you tell them to leave. Then it becomes trespass.

_________________
Bob C

Yes and the right to privacy in your home is guaranteed by the Constitution, that is why appropriate warrants are necessary for search of your property.



I see your point. but the person that spit upon me and my uniform when I came home from Vietnam was indeed exercising his right of free speech, and the punch I threw violated that right. The cop who witnessed the whole thing said I should hurry and not miss my flight, that he would see that the person who slipped and fell would get the treatment he needed.

I don't know but I suspect he may have "slipped and fallen" a few more times You see I think that there is the law, and our rights and then sometimes there is justice. Most of the time that is the same but not always.

_________________
Bob C

Jim,



Yes we should, but if were always successful we wouldn't need confession.

_________________
Bob C

Very true, as I indicated when I said:

I didn't say that just to be polite. I am probably more guilty than anyone on this forum of failing to hold my temper far too many times!

I continue to seek forgiveness for this shortcoming!

_________________
In Christ,

Jim B

I will consider your position if stated with firm, well-thought-out, quiet reasoning. Hateful diatribe, ad hominem attacks and shouted rhetoric don't impress.

Bob,

Actually, the idiot who spit on you assaulted you. That's not speech. I would have had to be restrained from welcoming him to a fray myself if he had spit on me. An argument could be made for retributive justice there.

But it is never just to commit a violent act against someone exercising a right. So, either we say that a right is unlimited, and then there is no recourse against someone for exercising his right, or we set limits to the exercise of that right. As you know, we protect the content of speech pretty much without exception. But we do not recognize unlimited permission to say anything we want, anytime, anywhere.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Dean,



Technically it is not speech, but he was making a political statement, I wasn't going to wait for a judge to make a determination. I had a wedding to attend (mine).



There was zero opportunity to restrain me, it was pure reflex. The police officer seemed to want me gone, so I got gone.



Of course the classic example is yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater but that was a court decision. We recognize the rights of the Nazi party, the KKK, the Black Panthers, all sorts of various hate groups to speak their venom. It was a Jewish ACLU attorney who went to court because some municipality wished to deny the Nazi Party them the right to rally. I recall that because I thought WOW, that guy (the attorney) gets it.

That is how I see it, we have rights and those rights need to be defended each and every time they are threatened. The church is about to embark on a battle to defend its right to teach and practice the teachings on Birth Control and Abortion. As Catholics IMO, we cannot pick and choose which rights we want to defend, we defend them all. And if we really don't like what the Constitution says then there are legal ways to change the constitution.

_________________
Bob C

We do not recognize the rights of certain groups to speak their venom at shopping malls, at companies, in stores, in schools, in churches.



The interpretation of the constitution is left to the courts. Therefore, the fact that courts limit the circumstances under which certain speech is made is not necessarily some extra-constitutional process that is illegitimate, nor do we need to change the constitution to recognize reasonable limits on the exercise of free speech.

I make the distinction between speech content and when/where the content can be spoken. It's why I objected to shutting down slanderous speech against muslims (provided it was made somewhere that was not privately owned or with the owner's permission) but do not object to preventing a person from being harrassed in his home in the name of free speech.

The circumstances in which certain rights may be exercised is not unlimited.

Not even the right to life, a right more fundamental than that of speech, is unlimited.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Bob,

Yes, I thought of that family (church?! Pshaw!) in Kansas as I read the story.

Neither you nor I would regard the right to freedom of speech as absolute. We would both agree that there exists no right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. I think the difference might be where we each draw the line.

The US Constitution lays down a very open-ended right to free speech. The Australian Constitution provides that right only in political matters (and even then the right is implicit, not explicit). I do think there is a world of difference between hate-speech on the one hand and on the other two gentlemen differing on a matter of politics.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Grace,



I'd have to disagree with that. That would mean that the conferring of Australian citizenship would always be conditional. In effect, a two-tiered society would thereby be created - migrants would be permanent second-class citizens in their own country.

His crime was a violation of the Crimes Act. He should be sentenced according to that law.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Do any countries have conditional citizenship that can be revoked?

_________________
Simon

Equal justice under the law is in my opinion always the principle sought to be promoted and upheld. In my opinion there are no sacred cows -in other words, no topics or people are off limits. Though the headline would imply 'hate' mail to families of those slain in battle is perhaps not equal to other flavors of the same variety. I as well do not see where for instance an implied death threat against a politician is somehow more of a crime than a death threat against a common citizen.

I find that these exceptions often driven by emotion -things that often pull at heart strings are often the premise in the beginning for limiting individual rights just a little bit at first with more limitations most assuredly always to follow. We see this emotional premise now being posited in the US gun control debate -limit guns for the children.

It is sad that there are 'bad' people that do harm; however, such is the human condition. I see nothing wrong with emotional and exceptional premises as long as what they are used in argumentative favor for are legitimate measures supporting legitimate ends. In my opinion, limiting 'hate' speech at best seeks to prevent some from being offended at the expense of all having the freedom to speak. I see nothing legitimate in pursuing such a supposed system of preferential justice EVEN if emotionally premised.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

While I often disagree with politicians I fully respect the fact they are representatives of us and threats against them are threats against us just as a physical attack against the president is an attack against the nation. Regardless of how wrong-headed politicians may often be, they are putting themselves in an obvious position of really riling up some extremists, that is one of the few admirable traits of politicians, therefore I do believe they should be afforded a bit more protection under the law than the average citizen.

_________________
BobA

Dean,



Those are all privately owned or controlled. (except schools) and most public universities have some sort of organization that allow gathering for that sort of drivel. Public schools below university level the students are for the most part minor children and the state can rightfully protect their collective ears. Even God isn't allowed to openly speak or be spoken to at our public schools.

_________________
Bob C

James,



The laws are different, and you live within your laws. I did note when I started posting I was referring to the US Constitution. Had I grown up in Australia, I no doubt would better understand your laws and way of thought.

_________________
Bob C

_________________
Simon

Yes, some do. Lying or fraud in the process of getting citizenship, or becoming an officer in another country's armed forces are two reasons. The US used to revoke citizenship if a naturalized citizen joined a terrorist or Communist group within 5 years (not sure if this is still true) -- so that is sort of like being on probation for 5 years.

That's not a bad idea... to have a probationary period. It is ridiculous that people who actually hate the West but immigrate there with bad intentions are allowed to stay (remember the trouble the UK had with Abu Hamza). It is a form of fraud.

The UK has some sort of law whereby citizenship can be revoked if it is against the best interests of the country.

This is from an Australian web site http://www.citizenship.gov.au/current/l ... tizenship/

_________________
Grace

As to the past, let us entrust it to God's mercy, the future to Divine Providence. Our task is to live holy the present moment. - Saint Gianna Molla

Only because those places are owned by private organizations. On public land, and using publicly-owned methods of communication, such as the Postal Service, and services of public accomodation, such as phone service, no such discrimination can be made.

I'm not even sure it can be restricted in shopping malls, honestly.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Jeff,

I believe some discrimination can be made when it comes to the reach into the home. Otherwise, the "do not call" list preventing telemarketers from invading the homes of people would be unconstitutional from the start.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Jeff,




I think it would depend on the ownership of the Mall. If the mall was owned by a municipality then the restrictions would IMO, not apply to the public areas, but could within the leased areas....but honestly I don't have a clue. If the mall was privately owned then it would depend on the ownership.

_________________
Bob C

Dean,




But it does not restrict Politicians and Charitable/Religious groups...frankly I find the political calls more offensive then the telemarketers.

I used to get angry with my brother who never answers the phone and lets the answering machine screen the calls. I would always speak very quickly "ThisisBobcallmebackwhenyoucan" sort of in one breath, he would then call me back and put the call on his dime.

These days I just use Caller ID to screen my calls, and is really nice that it now appears on my TV.

_________________
Bob C

I am not familiar with the details of what constitutes ‘Hate speech’ or what would constitute ‘Harassment’ in Australia. To me this is no way near ‘Hate Speech’. Harassment, to me, needs to be more than one letter.

The reality is the pain of war lingers for long, long periods of time and hits all of us.

_________________
BobB

Fiat voluntas tua

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations



Useful link:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq ... s-assembly

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Grace,

Thanks. I didn't know that.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Well, when my insane boss wore a sandwich board in a privately owned mall to advertise for employment (during the boom period when finding employees was so difficult) he was thrown out. So, don't know where that falls. I stood far away and just watched...I told him he'd be thrown out.

I don't believe that harassment only exists when there is continued letters. it is harassing to send one letter calling your dead son's death pointless and pointing out the innocent civilians he has killed and therefore, since it is not public political speech, it should be banned. This is not a matter of free speech but of harming the interests of an individual citizen.

_________________
Valerie Garcia
vals1990@yahoo.com

"Listen, O my son, to the precepts of thy master, and incline the ear of thy heart, and cheerfully receive and faithfully execute the admonitions of thy loving Father, that by the toil of obedience thou mayest return to Him ....." St. Benedict

I think that among other things that harassment and slander are already considered criminal activities. In my opinion, offending another is not a crime nor is 'hate' speech.

I just finished watching a documentary on the Nuremberg trials that were held following the defeat of Germany in WWII. There were people charged with among other things conspiracy and propaganda -some might say 'hate' speech as well. However, these charges seemed more premised upon being accessories to actual crimes e.g. driving a vehicle is not illegal; however, driving a vehicle used as a getaway car from an armed robbery is.

My point is that 'hate' speech is not really a crime of violence UNLESS it is actually deemed an accessory to violence after the fact that violence has occurred. I would agree that there could be cases where limiting 'hate' speech to prevent violence when violence is considered imminent as a result of and directly attributable to the 'hate' speech in question; however, I would say such cases would be truly exceptional -not the norm. Further, the consideration as to who or what may in the future be subject to 'hate' speech premised imminent violence in my opinion can not be predicted before hand. As such, specific laws that protect one group from what might be considered hateful enough versus another can not be written before the fact.

In my opinion, there is already a legal framework for preventing violence e.g. preventing those that might incite riots. 'Hate' speech laws are not much use unless some think they can criminalize and penalize thought rather than actions.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

I wasn't speaking in terms of hate speech but of harassment and this is harassment, carried out through the mail against an individual. It has nothing to do with protected political speech or hate speech, it is directed at an individual.

_________________
Valerie Garcia
vals1990@yahoo.com

"Listen, O my son, to the precepts of thy master, and incline the ear of thy heart, and cheerfully receive and faithfully execute the admonitions of thy loving Father, that by the toil of obedience thou mayest return to Him ....." St. Benedict

One act does not meet the Legal definition of Harrassment>>>>> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... harassment


It is certainly a despicable act, but it would take continuing mailings to reach the Legal level of Harassment.

_________________
Bob C

All,



http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2004A00946

That is the offence he was charged with and found guilty of. His appeal was that the law is unconstitutional since it breaches his right to freedom of speech. His appeal was dismissed by the highest court in Australia.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)