Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697634537378.pdf (Australia)
Submission from Michael Sobb.

Michael Sobb 7 Dec 2016 Section 18C Inquiry Submission Such an examination should also include the need for such a restriction in terms of other legislation which is already available to address the issue.

If there is to be a law, it can only be and should only be aimed at all instances of threats of violence no matter what the circumstances.

To do otherwise is to find progressively new situations and selective groups which then require specific legislation for them.
The threat of violence is the critical aspect, not the circumstances or the people To select specifically one instance of threat is to diminish all other such threats as being less harmful to an individual..

This is discriminatory, illogical and contrary to the International Declaration of Human Rights, the human right of personal safety.

Notice it is personal safety, ie.

the individual, any person, not their race, disability, beliefs, culture.
The feeling of being hurt, offended or insulted is a subjective experience unique to the individual and it presumptuous of us to decide that the effect of a particular hurt is so uniform in every way for everyone that it must be singled out.

There is no way we can validate objectively such subjective feelings.

Comparing them with other people is an admission that it cannot be assessed on an objective basis.
We hear the justification from psychologists “we must protect the vulnerable from psychological stress”.

Their assumption must be that everyone is vulnerable because the current legislation is applicable to everyone in every circumstance.

Just consider our recent experience of memories of Anzac Day and other war events.

Vulnerability to the situations varied amongst the combatants in both the magnitude and effect.
Does a person give offence or do you decide to take offence even though you are not obliged to do so.

If you do not take it then, then the person has not been able to give you anything, you have thwarted whatever their intentions were, you win, they have nothing, they have no control over you.

By responding and taking what you perceived that person wanted, you have surrended control to them.
Child abuse, domestic violence, sex slavery, ostracising, vicious name calling, insults, demeaning a person and many other forms of hurt can readily lead to actual serious results for the individual victim.

Merely calling a person a religious fanatic, a slob, a loser, a no hoper, brainless twit, a chicken, a cot case, a coward, can offend, or insult the person.

, a thug, The concept of freedom of speech must include freedom for the communication to reach someone in some way.
Failing this, it is pointless to speak and refer to freedom to speak.

Freedom of speech in AustraliaSubmission 398 We are aware of those instances in recent history where the right to speak is more akin to a privilege to speak which the government of particular countries grants to its citizens.
The government determines if the privilege is applicable, what you can say and when you can say it, to whom you may say it, who may hear it, the circumstances when you may speak and then it reserves the right to punish you if it chooses.

How are we to assess, judge, evaluate, challenge, modify, and assess the merit etc of ideas, proposals, philosophies, prejudices unless we can hear, read or see them.

We are being told how we should think.


We believe that irrespective of a person’s race, disabilities, handicap, age, sex, intelligence, physique, beliefs, religion, it is not morally right to incite violence against them since violence is wrong.

We are not free to encourage violence or physical harm which is objectively verifiable.
Freedom of speech may cause a subjective response but if it is not a comment inciting violence or directly threatening violence then we have no valid way of validating the alleged effect put forward by the person to whom the comment is addressed.

This is how and why we have our laws of protection and they are already universal.

It is in the International Declaration of Human Rights that the right to personal safety and the right to free speech are to be found.
These complement each other and it is only personal safety which is specified as a right, it does not nominate insulting, humiliating, offending as being contrary to human rights yet this is what our current legislation provides as rights.

On this basis alone, the proposed amendment to specify violence or harm is in keeping with the Declaration while at the same time complying with the requirement for free speech.

The current legislation fails to comply with our treaty obligation.
Can we pick and choose which treaties we will comply with after we have signed the agreement; yes, only if we are not offended by being called self-serving lying hypocrites.

Mr J Spigelman who was until recently the Chief Justice of NSW said that none of Australia’s international treaty obligations require us to protect any person or group from being offended.

We are, however, obliged by a treaty to protect freedom of speech.
He also warned against appearing to breach our international treaty obligation to protect free speech.

Can we pick and choose which treaty agreements we will honour to suit ourselves even though we have agreed to them.

The Supreme Court in America has even said that burning the American Flag is protected speech because it expresses an opinion and therefore people are free to do it.
Showing a particular photo could incite hatred; an example is a photo of the emaciated and brutalised Australian soldiers on the Burma railway construction gangs could incite hatred and demeaning, offensive and insulting responses if shown to certain people.

The thrust of limiting freedom is that some freedoms are not acceptable or are undesirable.

Again, this hinges on the subjective element, i.e., what each individual believes is best when compared with what another person believes.
In fact, it is also characteristic of attacks on political persuasions, religious persuasions, sporting persuasions, education persuasions, etc.

Degree of tolerance, degree of seriousness, degree of hurt, etc will vary significantly amongst individuals.

It also depends on the manner in which the comment or action is made.
If I said Jews always make money, I may in fact be making a laudatory comment, implying they are intelligent, economically competent, help each other, are good at business and work hard consistently and plan well.

Then again, this may be interpreted as a slight on Australians when compared with the Jews.

Therefore, merely considering a statement without any context or knowledge of what is the intended meaning of the speaker could be disastrous.
Freedom of speech in AustraliaSubmission 398 Generally, the law and law makers are wary of introducing individual subjectivity into a law.

To do so no longer ensures the validity and impartiality of its application.

Not only is there the subjectivity of the particular individual, but the judge/magistrate/jury are then forced to consider it in the context of their own subjectivity.

Individual subjectivity embraces all of humanity and covers all aspects of our lives.
Every person is unique and this uniqueness gives us the right to our own subjective thinking and feeling or is this not permissible in some particular contexts as determined by the subjectivity of others which then extinguishes our right.

, .

All these can have a serious result for the victim and their particular subjective There are many instances where the result of a comment is more damaging to one person than it would be to another.
Telling a person they are God botherer, a offensive by many people, similarly, get male or female anatomy, calling a person a liar, coward, waste of space, you’re just head, experience will influence that result.

These represent an attack on the nature of the person themselves, and there are those instances which are prompted by the person’s religion, race or culture.

It demeans them and attributes undesirable and undeserved attributes to them personally.
Such expressions are used frequently to express hate, scorn and to wound the person because it is using words which have been accepted to be crude, dirty, uncouth, disgusting to degrade the person as a human being.

They often reference a part of the human anatomy, a waste product of the body would be considered grossly , a derogatory reference to off, you are a The subjectivity aspect is very crucial for this issue.
The relevance of words used as well as their effect is determined solely by a specific individual who then assesses them on his subjective scale.

In doing so, this person is demanding a right to have his subjective assessment of a comment made towards him accepted but at the same time is denying the person making the comment the right to express their subjective assessment of the same situation.
Fundamentally, two opinions are being expressed but only one is to be permitted at the whim of the other person.

A person should have a democratic right to express how they feel since we all are unique individuals and much of our life is based on the subjective aspects of us as individuals.

It is the action which may follow which is critical.

What we express may be right, wrong, irrelevant, stupid, confusing, hurtful, aggressive and also subject to misinterpretation by others.
Denying a person the right to express how they feel but providing the other person with the right to express their aggrieved feeling and then to act punitively simply because of how they feel, and to do so to the detriment of the first person, is discriminatory, undemocratic and illogical.

You are condoning the subjective feelings of one person and damming the subjective feelings of the other.
You are believing one person’s alleged subjective feeling merely on their say so and then punishing the other person.

In reality, the person making the initial comment is frequently aggrieved by whatever it is that he is attributing to the second person and he then expresses this by his comment.

By responding with a formal complaint, this second person is not only expecting his right to express his grievance but wants the first person to be punished for doing exactly the same thing.
Any curtailment of freedom of expression is ultimately based on the subjective nature and effect of the particular issue as seen by those who have the power and opportunity to determine that their subjective assessment takes precedence over that of everyone else.

Freedom of speech in AustraliaSubmission 398 If subjectivity is to be accepted, it should be on a universal basis.
The only agreed subjectivity is that violence or harm is objected to by everyone and threats of such actions is unacceptable to everyone in all circumstances.

Vilification, threats, intimidation leading to threats of violence in any context should all be covered by criminal law for everyone.

Everyone in every situation will be treated in the same way, that is, violence or threatening violence is not to be tolerated.
There is no need to single out any particular issue or aspect especially since to do so introduces then a whole range aspect of people and their individual different subjectivity in the various instances.

How will limiting freedom of speech legislation change the situation since it is a subjective issue; and the offenders may be unaware of the effect of their particular comments so will continue to use them until they happen to attack a person who responds by lodging a complaint?
Punishing each individual will not alter their views, bias, prejudice and may strengthen it on the basis that they were not refuted in the justice system but were merely the cause of punitive action.

Punishing each occurrence will not change the other people who will only be brought to account if the person being attacked sees themselves as a hopeless victim, cannot ignore it, cannot answer it, cannot defuse the situation, cannot move away and is confident enough to make a complaint.
Attempting to silence people does not stop the activity, they can moderate their attack but still achieve a satisfactory result for themselves or they can be held up as martyrs.

Additionally, their comments will be given publicity so others have their beliefs strengthened and promulgated.

If we argue that we do in fact have freedom of speech, then this can only be valid if all speech is free, the good, the bad, the ugly, the mad, the hurtful, the erroneous.
What is not a freedom is to use freedom of speech to threaten physical harm to the person.

This is an objective issue which can be validly verified when spoken.

In a court case, the prosecutor can say to a defendant in an assault case, I put it to you that you are a liar and have no regard for the truth.

He is free to say this but the defendant is not free to say, I am coming right down there now to punch your lights out.

Michael Sobb Freedom of speech in AustraliaSubmission 398