Cat got your tongue? Free speech, democracy and Australia’s ‘ag-gag’ laws

IF 1.2 3区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Australian Journal of Political Science Pub Date : 2020-08-03 DOI:10.1080/10361146.2020.1799938
K. Gelber, S. O’Sullivan
{"title":"Cat got your tongue? Free speech, democracy and Australia’s ‘ag-gag’ laws","authors":"K. Gelber, S. O’Sullivan","doi":"10.1080/10361146.2020.1799938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In recent years Australian governments have proposed, and enacted, ‘ag-gag’ laws which extend the criminalisation of peaceful, non-violent activities such as trespass to deter animal protection advocates from obtaining information about animal welfare, information that is not obtainable in other ways and that contributes to public deliberation around an important policy issue. This article asks two questions. First, if a speaker engages in non-violent, peaceful, but illegal activities, such as trespass in order to obtain information that is important to democratic deliberation, can this be justified from the perspective of free speech theory? Answering this question in the affirmative, we then analyse the contours of proposed, and new provisions in Australian law designed to extend the criminalisation of such activities. We conclude that since the impact on freedom of speech of such provisions is excessive, governments should be mindful of their free speech obligations when considering, and enacting, such laws.","PeriodicalId":46913,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Political Science","volume":"56 1","pages":"19 - 34"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10361146.2020.1799938","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2020.1799938","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

ABSTRACT In recent years Australian governments have proposed, and enacted, ‘ag-gag’ laws which extend the criminalisation of peaceful, non-violent activities such as trespass to deter animal protection advocates from obtaining information about animal welfare, information that is not obtainable in other ways and that contributes to public deliberation around an important policy issue. This article asks two questions. First, if a speaker engages in non-violent, peaceful, but illegal activities, such as trespass in order to obtain information that is important to democratic deliberation, can this be justified from the perspective of free speech theory? Answering this question in the affirmative, we then analyse the contours of proposed, and new provisions in Australian law designed to extend the criminalisation of such activities. We conclude that since the impact on freedom of speech of such provisions is excessive, governments should be mindful of their free speech obligations when considering, and enacting, such laws.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
哑口无言言论自由、民主和澳大利亚的“插科打诨”法律
摘要近年来,澳大利亚政府提出并颁布了“非法侵入”法,扩大了对非法侵入等和平非暴力活动的刑事定罪范围,以阻止动物保护倡导者获取有关动物福利的信息,这些信息是通过其他方式无法获得的,有助于公众围绕一个重要政策问题进行审议。这篇文章提出了两个问题。首先,如果发言人从事非暴力、和平但非法的活动,例如非法侵入,以获取对民主审议重要的信息,从言论自由理论的角度来看,这是否合理?为了肯定地回答这个问题,我们分析了澳大利亚法律中旨在扩大此类活动刑事化的拟议条款和新条款的轮廓。我们的结论是,由于这些条款对言论自由的影响过大,政府在考虑和颁布这些法律时应注意其言论自由义务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Australian Journal of Political Science is the official journal of the Australian Political Studies Association. The editorial team of the Journal includes a range of Australian and overseas specialists covering the major subdisciplines of political science. We publish articles of high quality at the cutting edge of the discipline, characterised by conceptual clarity, methodological rigour, substantive interest, theoretical coherence, broad appeal, originality and insight.
期刊最新文献
Path contingency: advancing a spatial-institutionalist perspective on decision pathways for disaster risk governance ‘The Australian way’: the gendered and racial logics of Scott Morrison’s climate change narratives Religious freedom for whom? How conservative Christianity erodes the religious freedom of those it seeks to discriminate against Free speech, religious freedom and vilification in Australia Bridging the expectation gap: a survey of Australian PhD candidates and supervisors in politics and international relations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1