
Australia’s surprising disregard for free speech - mastazi
https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/06/15/australias-surprising-disregard-for-free-speech
======
threeseed
Free speech is a very different subject than the rights of journalists.

Australians by and large don't want American style, unfettered free speech.
And are quite happy with "say whatever you want so long as you don't libel or
slander someone or some group of people" approach. It's what keeps our very
multicultural society together.

What happened with the recent investigation of journalists is about the
Australian government's right to see the drafts and sources for articles that
involve investigating national security matters. And in general harass and
intimidate journalists to discourage such articles in the future.

You can fix the second problem by enshrining the rights of journalists in
legislation without having to make it a freedom of speech issue.

~~~
stevenjohns
You're casting a very wide net there.

> Australians by and large don't want American style, unfettered free speech

I'd argue that Australians, by and large, don't know that they don't have a
legislated right to free speech similar to what they have in the US. This is
evident by the shock surprise and outrage from Australians every time there is
an action that stifles free speech.

> And are quite happy with "say whatever you want so long as you don't libel
> or slander someone or some group of people" approach

Neither libel nor slander is protected under the American first amendment.

> It's what keeps our very multicultural society together.

Australia has a very mono-cultural society. The "multi-cultural society" meme
attempts to liken having a kebab shop on the corner to having conflicting
cultures in the same area, which to me (as a non-Anglo Australian) doesn't
make sense. Australian values and culture is quite evidently very specific
(freedom of religion, freedom of dress, freedom of expression, etc) and we -
both legally and as a society - reject any culture that conflict with this.

Perhaps the only other culture that is allowed in Australia is traditional
Aboriginal culture, where we quite literally have a second set of laws to
accommodate it.

That said, freedom of speech doesn't have any impact on this at all. I'm not
sure where the link you're supposing comes from.

\---

In general, what happened[0] was intentionally misreported by the ABC.

1\. The AFP obtained a search warrant for the ABC offices.

2\. The AFP notified the ABC that they were coming to investigate in advance,
however the ABC reported it to be a "raid."

3\. The ABC dedicated a five camera film crew to follow the AFP around
throughout the process.

4\. The AFP had the explicit goal of finding out who the source was for
revealing classified security information.

That's it.

It wasn't a free speech issue -- and it wasn't a journalistic rights issue.

[0] [https://www.afp.gov.au/news-media/media-releases/afp-
stateme...](https://www.afp.gov.au/news-media/media-releases/afp-statement-
activity-canberra-and-sydney)

~~~
TomMckenny
>Neither libel nor slander is protected under the American first amendment.

No but...

Valid defenses include: the statement is true. The statement is the speaker's
opinion. And even if those fail, it must proven that it was spoken with
malice. So defamation in the US is close to unenforceable.

~~~
Lazare
> Valid defenses include: the statement is true

Also a defence under Australian law.

> The statement is the speaker's opinion.

Also a defence under Australian law, as long as the speech falls under the
concept of "fair comment and criticism", which is the same rule the US follows
(albeit interpreted quite differently).

> it must proven that it was spoken with malice

 _NOT_ a defence under US law, unless the plaintiff is a public figure, which
is a category defined quite narrowly in the US.

> So defamation in the US is close to unenforceable.

There are a _lot_ of libel suits in the US, many of them are won by the
plaintiffs.

The difference in law is less than you seem to think, and what differences
exist are mainly on the extent that opinions ("I think Joe is an asshole")
should be protected; both countries agree that factual claims ("Joe murdered
his wife") are not. And offhand, it's hardly clear that Australia had drawn
the line in the right place.

See, eg:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/opinion/australia-
defamat...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/opinion/australia-defamation-
laws.html)

[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/30/your-right-
to-...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/nov/30/your-right-to-know-how-
australias-defamation-law-stifles-public-interest-journalism)

[https://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-s-defamation-
laws-...](https://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-s-defamation-laws-are-
ripe-for-overhaul-20181207-p50kwk.html)

------
kchoudhu
Australia is usually a canary in the coal mine for the effectiveness of
resistance to repressive speech laws in the Five-Eyes countries.

The Spycatcher affair in the late 80s is the first one I can remember,
although I am sure there are other, earlier instances that the commentariat
can point to.

~~~
Creationer
Teens watch Youtube more than TV. Youtube has been far more censorious and
disregarding of Free Speech than anything the Australian Government has done.

~~~
x3ro
Are you suggesting that having your video taken down from YouTube and going to
jail are equally problematic?

~~~
Creationer
If journalists are going to jail in Australia its because they have broken the
law. At least you can vote for politicians with a different approach.

Channels (conservative ones) are banned and disappeared on Youtube for holding
the wrong opinions, in violation of no laws, and there is no recourse.

~~~
brokenmachine
People are free to use any video sharing website they want, or even set up
their own, but it is significantly more difficult to change your country.

------
fmajid
The Australian TV series "Secret City" (available on Netflix) and featuring a
plot on gross abuse of power by the security establishment, is looking
increasingly like a documentary.

------
Bizarro
Australia used to have a very good record on individual rights, but in the
past 20 years has headed towards authoritarianism. I guess
PC/Statist/Collectivist culture has infested Australia too.

------
suspectdoubloon
I have once concern with this article. The ABC isn't a state broadcaster its a
public broadcaster.

~~~
kube-system
Edit: nevermind, it seems that “state broadcaster” implies more than I
thought.

~~~
DanBC
State broadcaster implies the state controls the content, in particular has
editorial control, over the content, and that's not the case with ABC.

The wikipedia page says this, which highlights that ABC isn't a state
broadcaster.

> but is expressly independent of government

------
cletus
Speaking as an Australian I'd put the key difference between Australians and
Americans this way: Americans feel like every surface is a slippery slope.
Australians don't.

It's why Americans (many anyway) resist even toothless firearm regulations,
for example. "If they take away our bump stocks then before you know it
they'll take all our guns and we'll have no defense against the tyranny of
government!"

While I certainly don't support raiding the ABC, for example (as opposed to
News Corp, which needs to burn to the ground followed by exiling every Murdoch
on Earth to Tristan da Cunha), an important question to ask--which I haven't
seen the answer to--is did the AFP obtain the source of the leak from the
raids or not?

If no then things are pretty complicated, for David McBride at least. He
himself wasn't (and isn't) a journalist. He did obtain classified material in
his capacity as a lawyer for the Defense Department, which is a bit of a
double-whammy. Even if you can get passed the classified part, having your
lawyer make unauthorized disclosures of professional work product
(essentially) is a problem.

Even in America this would be a problem. It was certainly a problem for
Chelsea Manning.

~~~
brokenmachine
>important question to ask--which I haven't seen the answer to--is did the AFP
obtain the source of the leak from the raids or not?

The AFP already knew who the source was!! As I understand it, he confessed
before the raids even happened.

~~~
plugger
And his court date is already set. That's what confused me regarding the
raids; the AFP already knew who the leaker was before conducting the raid on
the ABC. Given that I'm a bit confused as to why the AFP needed to raid the
ABC given they already had all the info required to move for a trial and
conviction. Finally, the leak happened in 2017 and yet they're only now
getting around to raiding the ABC?

~~~
brokenmachine
The message is clear - report on our secret child murdering and we will send
our goons to get you.

Are we still the good guys?

------
andrewstuart
I don't think there's any legal basis for the idea of free speech in
Australia.

~~~
cylinder
There's an implied freedom of political speech. The rest can be regulated by
law. By the way the way Americans view the constitution as some sort of
divinely bestowed natural law document is highly unusual. For example the
Australian constitution is literally an act of Parliament.

~~~
SuperNinKenDo
This comment looks like it got voted down, probably because the tone sounds a
little patronising to what it characterises as the American view. But nothing
it says is to my knowledge inaccurate or even a twisting of facts.

The constitution of America is explicitly stated to be a statement of natural
law.

This view is highly unusual.

The Australian constitution IS literally an act of parliament to my
understanding.

Freedom of speech IS only intimated by the courts and is not explicitly stated
in any part of the Australian constitution.

~~~
sonnyblarney
"The constitution of America is explicitly stated to be a statement of natural
law.

This view is highly unusual."

It's not highly unusual, see my comment below: it's normative.

As for 'natural law' \- well, the Canadian constitution essentially indicates
that our rights are bestowed by the 'Supremacy of God' [1] which is kind of
like 'natural law'.

[1] [https://laws-
lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-39](https://laws-
lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-39)

~~~
SuperNinKenDo
Your comment below doesn't demonstrate that constitutions being considered
statements of natural law is normative at all. Constitutions far outdate the
very concept of natural law, and your comment doesn't contain any evidence
that this has become the norm in modern times.

I dunno if I accept that the Canadian constitution does or not, it doesn't
matter, one other country would not tip the balance.

~~~
sjy
> Constitutions far outdated the very concept of natural law

Really? I would trace the concept of natural law at least back to Aquinas
(13th century) if not antiquity. Constitutional law as part of a secular
democracy, on the other hand, I wouldn't trace back much further than the U.S.
Constitution, or at most its 17th century predecessors. Magna Carta wasn't
really a constitution.

~~~
SuperNinKenDo
Considering the ancient Greeks basically made a hobby of discussing what the
ideal constitution is, I would say the concept is far older than even the
first twinkling of the concept of natural law.

------
smartbit
[https://outline.com/H7dDuF](https://outline.com/H7dDuF)

------
rstuart4133
As others have said it's not really about free speech. What a citizen is
allowed to say in public isn't effected by this.

It's not anything particularly new either. Governments have always been pissed
off by civil servants leaking things, and there have always been vindictive
who rather than find the disgruntled employee and fire them, will lash out in
the worst possible way and create more disgruntled employees.

What's changed is technology. Before someone had to tap explicit telephone's,
someone had to listen to them. The journo's are just waking up to the fact
that when the Australian government gave themselves the power to force the
telco's to record the "meta data" about every phone call and web access and
store it for two years, and granted themselves unlimited warrantless access to
said data keeping your sources from the government became a little more
difficult. Not a whole pile more difficult mind you - but you suddenly had to
be computer savy. You had to know to use a mail provider out of Australia's
jurisdiction. You had to use encrypted communications whose end points didn't
reveal who you were talking to. It not complicated, and nothing that Wikileaks
hasn't been doing for years, but it's definitely new.

Then we moved onto stage 2 - the Access and Assistance bill, in which the
government gave themselves the power to force Microsoft / Google / Apple's /
Facebooks of this world to silently install bugs on your phone / computer /
tv. The raids being discussed by the article were covered by a warrant that
specifically allowed them to delete and change data on the targets computers,
which is decidedly weird when you think about it. [0] Surely they aren't
planning to present data in court when there is a possibility they planted or
modified it? Obviously that wasn't the intention. However replacing keyboard
drivers and the like with something that does log data does require you to
modify & delete data - so my guess is they were covering their arses. These
seems to be little doubt they were planting bugs.

Avoiding the seeing eyes implanted by Assistance and Access bill is a damned
sight harder than avoiding meta data collection. Again, not impossible - but
now you have to avoid software that knows who you are. Software that is
dispensed from centralised app stores that insist on identifying you and your
device first is a definite no-go. Android is out, Apple is out, Microsoft is
out. In fact most of the computing infrastructure they are comfortable with is
out. Linux distributions are OK and open source communication apps like Signal
are OK - but only those that have thought about and implemented evil maid
protections.

It's all doable, and it's all cheap and once you do it you are even safer then
you were pre Assistance and Access bill. But geeze you have to be really tech
savy to get it right, and right now they are just waking up to the fact their
lives and sources are an have been open book because they didn't do it.

As an aside, if this is the first time we've seen the Assistance and Access
bill in action, it's poignant to note despite all the rhetoric of it being
needed to keep Australian's safe from terrorists and paedophiles, it was in
fact first use by the government against it's own citizens - public servants
and journo's in this case.

[0]
[https://twitter.com/TheLyonsDen/status/1136126140882440193](https://twitter.com/TheLyonsDen/status/1136126140882440193)

------
ThrowXAwaux
The United States drone-killed Anwar al Awlaki, an American citizen, because
of his speech. I don't disagree with that action, but it does illustrate that
there are limits, even in the United States, despite claims to the contrary.

~~~
sambal
There are no claims to the contrary in this thread, or this article.

~~~
ThrowXAwaux
Unfortunately, people, particularly those who subscribe to a certain ideology
that is (was?) popular in tech circles do tend to lecture others about free
speech, using the United States as a gold standard.

------
mehdix
Not directly related but here is my story.

Some years ago I was still a student in Iran. I was watching a satellite tv
show as an Australian military officer appeared on screen and looked into our
eyes and in an intimidating way told in Persian "Australia will not be your
homeland" apparently to discourage seeking asylum there.

Fast forward years ahead. Every year I keep hearing more bad news from them.
Australia's treatment of asylum seekers in Manus Island (as if this huge land
isn't made of migrants in the first place), attack on cryptography, war on
whistleblowers, wierd announcements as part of five eyes alliance, and etc.
Somehow those moves all point toward a dystopian mindset.

~~~
fian
Was the message specifically about seeking asylum after traveling to Australia
by boat?

Australia does accept Iranian refugees (and refugees from other countries) if
they travel to Australia legally (ie by plane, with a visa etc).

There is a strong public dislike of refugees coming illegally by boat, largely
due to political fear mongering over safety (many drownings) and potential for
terrorists to enter Australia.

Have a look at the statistics section of:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_Australia#Statistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_Australia#Statistics)

The steep climb in asylum seekers arriving by boat after about 2008 was the
main starting point for the current political stance against "boat people".

The rest of your points re over reach of government control is alarming to
many Australians. However, as these laws don't have a direct impact on most
Australians (yet), there is general apathy by the public.

~~~
codedokode
I think the problem is with the wording and attitude. It would be totally OK
to quote an immigration law instead.

------
xfitm3
Australia and New Zealand are ground zero for chinese influence:

[https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/627249909/australia-and-
new-z...](https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/627249909/australia-and-new-zealand-
are-ground-zero-for-chinese-influence)

~~~
cdmckay
So why exactly would the Chinese care if it was revealed that Australian
soldiers were committing atrocities?

It’s unclear what your connection is here.

~~~
xfitm3
We're discussing free speech and journalism, not the specifics of the soldiers
actions.

