[tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 7/8/14, I <beatthebastards at inbox.com> wrote:
> It appears that it is specifically unwise to rubbish the court while subject
> to it.

I think this is a valid point in any jurisdiction, and also speaks to
the difficulty in having a lower court sanction itself - thus superior
courts.

> As for freedom of speech Australia has none legislated and does have severe
> laws against sedition.
> What other developed country can match that for discouraging speech?

Yes, pretty sad.

Although our High Court (equiv. to US Supreme Court) has ruled that we
have a "freedom of communication on political and related matters"
'implied within our constitution' (although it is not explicit).

So some communication (political matters) has been ruled as an implied
freedom. This is the freedom that a lot of our political protest (if
not all) falls under. See for example the case of Levy:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1997/31.html?query=title(Levy)

Levy is long sorry - the gist is a duck-hunting protester who
trespassed as part of his protest - it was upheld by our High Court
that he was exercising his implied right to freedom of communciation
on political matters.

See also:
http://www.piac.asn.au/legal-help/public-interest-cases/public-interest-cases-2008/free-speech-cases/free-speech-cases

The reasoning of our superior court that we have this implied freedom,
is that our constitution embodies/ proscribes a system of democratic
government, and that this necessarily implies a right of the people to
discuss political and related matters. Sounds pretty straightforward.

So we are also assuming that our superior court would be likely to
similarly rule on the existence of an "implied freedom of
communication on legal and related matters" - the courts are
established by our constitution, the process of legal service, we have
the right to present for ourselves in court, etc, etc, so this "legal
system proscribed by our constitution necessarily implies an implied
freedom to communicate on legal and related matters". This is a
question we are bringing to our High Court.

Interestingly, earlier this year, we brought (for the first time)
before the Magistrate's Court, our lowest court, the following
question: "Is there within our (federal) constitution an implied right
to freedom of communication on legal and related matters?"

We said this was a question which must be brought before our superior
court for determination, and incredibly, the Magistrate not only ruled
that she was "not persuaded that" there was any constitutional
question raised, but she also ruled on the constitutional question
itself, ruling "there is no freedom of communication on legal matters
within our constitution, either implied or explicit".

Some of us were gobsmacked.

Anyway, we have the right to lift the matter to our superior courts,
and lift it we shall.

Stay tuned :)
Zenaan