🚀 go-pugleaf

Mark Newton <newton@internode.com.au> wrote in
message news:3779AD38.11C23E8B@internode.com.au...
> Dale Clapperton wrote

>> It would have to be taken to court, and proven that the "guessing engines"
>> are in fact blocking constitutionally protected free speech, and by their
>> very nature they will continue to block protected free speech, and the court
>> would have to rule that use of "guessing engines" is unconstitutional, and
>> THEN the ABA would have to stop mandating the use of "guessing engines".

Wrong.

> ... and I'll forecast the ABA's defence right here:

Dont give up the day job.

> "The High Court established that Australians have a
> limited right to freedom of speech. It has not, however,
> established that Australians have a right to read freely.

That cant fly. The High Court has in fact found that the constitution
goes on about free and fair elections etc and claimed that you cant
have those without real free speech on political issues. They did
NOT restrict that to speech on the most literal sense, and in fact
there have been a number of decisions involving newspapers
which clearly are relevant to your 'a right to read freely'

> If the Government wishes to restrict what Australians can read in a way
> which doesn't impact on the ability of Australians to speak, then it can do so."

Wrong, they have already decided the opposite with respect to newspapers.

> That's an argument which would nicely avoid
> the precedent the High Court has already set

Wrong.

> and force them to consider the whole question of our liberties all over again.

Wrong.

> And I'm not entirely confident that we'd like
> the uutcome from that little guessing game.

You have always been, and always will be, completely and
utterly irrelevant when you cant even get the simplest stuff right,
like just what the High Court has actually ruled on in this case.