At least since the Holocaust the international community has also accepted that the right to freedom of expression carries with it ”special duties and responsibilities” and that speech that incites racial or religious hatred, discrimination or hostility should be prohibited.
So now for some examples:
Where, for example, was his indignation at parole conditions imposed on Aboriginal activist Lex Wotton, for whom it is a criminal offence to attend public gatherings and who is ”prohibited from speaking to and having any interaction whatsoever with the media”? Where was his outrage at section 132(1) of the Queensland Corrective Services Act, which makes it a criminal offence for a journalist to interview or obtain a written or recorded statement from a prisoner, including a person on parole in the community, without the written approval of correctional authorities?
Where was his critique of Melbourne’s lord mayor, Robert Doyle, who urged police to forcibly evict peaceful Occupy Melbourne protesters from City Square because they were ”disrupting business and community events”?
And where was Mr Abbott’s criticism of Premier Ted Baillieu, who reacted to a magistrate’s decision to dismiss charges against peaceful protesters targeting Max Brenner’s Chocolate Bar, by asking his attorney-general to consider whether there is a need for legislation to ban protests that ”interrupt the fair conduct of a business”?
Really? The right to speech allows one to say what they like but not do what they like. Inciting riots, being a criminal, trespass, and operating anti-Semitic picket lines do not constitute speech. They constitute physical acts and usually violent physical acts.