Delivery-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 21:14:01 -0400
Return-Path: <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on moria.seul.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Original-To: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-To: archiver@seul.org
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (eugeni.torproject.org [38.229.72.13])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by khazad-dum.seul.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 806E51E0A01
	for <archiver@seul.org>; Mon,  7 Jul 2014 21:14:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F43430187;
	Tue,  8 Jul 2014 01:14:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB37300CB
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue,  8 Jul 2014 01:13:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eugeni.torproject.org
Received: from eugeni.torproject.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (eugeni.torproject.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id EO9EXQmpx_AX for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>;
 Tue,  8 Jul 2014 01:13:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ob0-x229.google.com (mail-ob0-x229.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::229])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
 Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (not verified))
 by eugeni.torproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7752F30086
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Tue,  8 Jul 2014 01:13:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id wp18so5596825obc.14
 for <tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>; Mon, 07 Jul 2014 18:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
 :from:to:content-type;
 bh=sKFaRq6WBffRsP19bJ89UoYwnhFjylVk3OAAwDkXj0Q=;
 b=fkCIGyS/GpYk/RIqKHlH474DEUp1YS0OudH3soq29hR9xroRF0cYzCOxJEfpe+AGw+
 XARnbteib28kX9zs1ZI+XAKURRkSHupzDTN03Zg5F2458fwkd1Sybld2NWA+4IgU1Jnh
 uVbLsWuX0IvoS9QyqW0mlHyBGOOXySqYmIqhzrLmgZNc5y5hgSuhJ63Ko6IiDknJDnoC
 wVr+L6UoKKFwhQ/7JR8QmzwyAarCb7xM5DJ1tFru0pQTlauIOukSymmgrkw8ZDVEkjMf
 o/oikY33yHxrA6zFV/WNQjlXZymf7fY8S40nKURi3pbIFzycRqLLxsZ5t5J0tEXxKPBO
 iAjA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.103.173 with SMTP id fx13mr35256168oeb.25.1404781998195; 
 Mon, 07 Jul 2014 18:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.20.114 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Jul 2014 18:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <80BD9D2376E.00000910beatthebastards@inbox.com>
References: <caosgnsqvpqyvmunwfvm6mmvrrndyvnrd1zzgdwkxskbjiweohg@mail.gmail.com>
 <53b6acb7.8040903@torservers.net>
 <cakkunmb4k6tjr6+a8bzwttgrqmlmhn6e_dg5rxcffy0tq_oung@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140701174228.61787hk50z2lhmgw@www.vfemail.net>
 <53b4d3bd.2040106@torservers.net>
 <55404acf-de83-4c37-836a-767c1118cf8c@maclemon.at>
 <53b47174.6040507@torservers.net>
 <53b70859.9010704@cryptopathie.eu> <53b58f84.2060406@gmx.com>
 <cakkunmzujuarhkvlo8pown1exazceaj-uar4ej=xmopqguqhgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <53B770D7.8030906@gmx.com>
 <80BD9D2376E.00000910beatthebastards@inbox.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 11:13:18 +1000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: CtlHgRUn7OSftwMz8ppkwZC-WYs
Message-ID: <CAOsGNSQpRpv_yVhcwt0yWiK+p8g67bYa=Ztc742-qQGAgUVTrA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>
To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] Tor Exit Operator convicted in Austrian lower court
X-BeenThere: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
List-Id: "all discussion about theory, design,
 and development of Onion Routing" <tor-talk.lists.torproject.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/>
List-Post: <mailto:tor-talk@lists.torproject.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk>, 
 <mailto:tor-talk-request@lists.torproject.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org
Sender: "tor-talk" <tor-talk-bounces@lists.torproject.org>

On 7/8/14, I <beatthebastards@inbox.com> wrote:
> It appears that it is specifically unwise to rubbish the court while subject
> to it.

I think this is a valid point in any jurisdiction, and also speaks to
the difficulty in having a lower court sanction itself - thus superior
courts.

> As for freedom of speech Australia has none legislated and does have severe
> laws against sedition.
> What other developed country can match that for discouraging speech?

Yes, pretty sad.

Although our High Court (equiv. to US Supreme Court) has ruled that we
have a "freedom of communication on political and related matters"
'implied within our constitution' (although it is not explicit).

So some communication (political matters) has been ruled as an implied
freedom. This is the freedom that a lot of our political protest (if
not all) falls under. See for example the case of Levy:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1997/31.html?query=title(Levy)

Levy is long sorry - the gist is a duck-hunting protester who
trespassed as part of his protest - it was upheld by our High Court
that he was exercising his implied right to freedom of communciation
on political matters.

See also:
http://www.piac.asn.au/legal-help/public-interest-cases/public-interest-cases-2008/free-speech-cases/free-speech-cases

The reasoning of our superior court that we have this implied freedom,
is that our constitution embodies/ proscribes a system of democratic
government, and that this necessarily implies a right of the people to
discuss political and related matters. Sounds pretty straightforward.

So we are also assuming that our superior court would be likely to
similarly rule on the existence of an "implied freedom of
communication on legal and related matters" - the courts are
established by our constitution, the process of legal service, we have
the right to present for ourselves in court, etc, etc, so this "legal
system proscribed by our constitution necessarily implies an implied
freedom to communicate on legal and related matters". This is a
question we are bringing to our High Court.

Interestingly, earlier this year, we brought (for the first time)
before the Magistrate's Court, our lowest court, the following
question: "Is there within our (federal) constitution an implied right
to freedom of communication on legal and related matters?"

We said this was a question which must be brought before our superior
court for determination, and incredibly, the Magistrate not only ruled
that she was "not persuaded that" there was any constitutional
question raised, but she also ruled on the constitutional question
itself, ruling "there is no freedom of communication on legal matters
within our constitution, either implied or explicit".

Some of us were gobsmacked.

Anyway, we have the right to lift the matter to our superior courts,
and lift it we shall.

Stay tuned :)
Zenaan
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

