Does s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act breach the implied freedom of political communication?

[@timsinclair6576]

Professor Twomey doing characteristically interesting and accessible analysis. We love your work!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks! That's very cheering to know, and does spur me onwards.

[@swscott1962]

So every person who did not want " The Voice " were labelled as "Racist" or visa versa is in breach of 18c as the comments would not be considered "Freedom of political speech "

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning.

[@alexanderwinn2896]

My deferred constitutional law exam was on just this question. I ended up concluding in an hour of analysis 18C was Constitutional even under the McCloy-Brown framework. Funnily enough a lot of your analysis tracks. I definitely agree balancing is the most difficult part, but ultimately, I don't see a Court striking it down particularly given the political valence and subject matter. I've voiced my displeasure with McCloy before, so won't go into that, but I think a proper balancing exercise is one which is pretty deferential to the legislature, and so any question of a closely balanced case such as 18C should fall to the benefit of the legislature. That and I think 18D really tips balance because it provides a number of defences that safeguard a fair bit of political debate.

[@ianshears5341]

We never discuss our political ideas (just reasonable stuff) with anyone for fear of betrayal to the police due to the fear of the racial discrimination Act.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Perhaps you should read section 26 of that Act.

[@sheilaghbolt3601]

Thank you for another great video. Appreciate how you break it down and make it clear.

[@TafadzwaChinhoyi]

God you’re a blessing.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Much appreciated.

[@peteranderson7497]

I found that BOTH informative and useful! Sorry about that! I really enjoy your videos. There is so much dross out there in social media land. It's really nice to have content that both makes you think and helps you think. Regards, Peter PS: I notice a comment about Sam Kerr. I know it's not law/legal but did you see what Craig (Fuzzy) Foster said about racial vilification when he changed his mind. To quote: “Like many, I mistakenly thought that comments that references any colour and were discriminatory, demeaning or hostile were a form of racism…" It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on what he had to say vis a vis the Constitution and the Racial Discrimination Act.

[@davidandrews3577]

Very helpful, Thankyou. I hope Sam Kerr gets to see this ...

[@abekane7038]

I know this isn't in reference to 'race', but if protecting dignity is legally important, will everyone involved in robodebt see the inside of a cell? Makes you wonder about the extent of selective application. Thanks for the vid

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Good point. I guess from a legal point of view, protecting human dignity is a legitimate interest that can be relied upon when limiting speech, but that doesn't mean that governments give effect to it all the time! Anne

[@abekane7038]

@@constitutionalclarion1901Thanks Anne,that makes sense