{"title":"哑口无言言论自由、民主和澳大利亚的“插科打诨”法律","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":"{\"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}","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}
Cat got your tongue? Free speech, democracy and Australia’s ‘ag-gag’ laws
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.
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.