It was drafted for Lord Lester by former parliamentary counsel Stephanie Grundy with the assistance of an advisory group consisting of media law experts and
representatives of free speech and scientific organisations.
Not exact matches
Bork surveys a long and depressing series
of decisions - on
free speech, pornography, contraception, abortion, sexual equality, etc. - in which the Supreme Court, claiming the authority
of the Constitution, has taken public policy out
of the hands
of the people and their elected
representatives.
In addition, informed discussions and semi-structured interviews were conducted in Canada, France, Israel, the United Kingdom and the United States with key policy makers, parliamentarians and public officials, security and police officials, legal scholars and justices, media and Internet experts, and
representatives of human rights and
free speech NGOs.
Students working at Level 3 can, for example: justify reasons for restrictions to
free speech; identify benefits
of volunteering to the individual and the community; identify that sites
of historic significance belong to the whole community; recognise some key functions and features
of the parliament such as defining the role
of the speaker
of the House
of Representatives; and recognise the key feature
of the separation
of powers in Australia.
The group
of representatives was reacting to a story which appeared in The Australian on Tuesday speculating that the Federal government proposes to remove the words «offend, insult, humiliate» from section 18C, as well as removing the requirement that a defendant must have acted «reasonably and in good faith» in order to be covered by the
free speech defences available under section 18D.