Comments on: The US Supreme Court Judges who back Henson http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/06/04/the-us-supreme-court-judges-who-back-henson/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 03:29:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Dave Liberts http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/06/04/the-us-supreme-court-judges-who-back-henson/#comment-1583 Dave Liberts Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-1583 Great comment Andrew. Whatever Joh would have done, it's hard to believe that Henson would have retained all his own teeth after the cops visited his premises, isn't it? Great comment Andrew. Whatever Joh would have done, it’s hard to believe that Henson would have retained all his own teeth after the cops visited his premises, isn’t it?

]]> By: Andrew http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/06/04/the-us-supreme-court-judges-who-back-henson/#comment-1584 Andrew Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-1584 Wonder what Joh would have done? Wonder what Joh would have done?

]]> By: Alex Murphy http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/06/04/the-us-supreme-court-judges-who-back-henson/#comment-1585 Alex Murphy Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-1585 Re Greg Barns:<br /><br />As anyone who has read the actual cases will know, Australians do not have a constitutional implied right to freedom of speech, as Greg claims. In fact, what is protected is the speech necessary to give effect to sections 7 and 24 of the constitution and the principles of responsible government embodied therein - that is, political speech. If Henson's art had made specific political statement or in some way related to the conduct of elections, then perhaps it would be protected. This does not appear to be the case. The common misconception that Greg peddles is particularly dangerous- it undermines the case for legitimate, and necessary, constitutional reform to properly protect rights to free speech in this country..<br /><br /><br /><br /> Re Greg Barns:

As anyone who has read the actual cases will know, Australians do not have a constitutional implied right to freedom of speech, as Greg claims. In fact, what is protected is the speech necessary to give effect to sections 7 and 24 of the constitution and the principles of responsible government embodied therein - that is, political speech. If Henson’s art had made specific political statement or in some way related to the conduct of elections, then perhaps it would be protected. This does not appear to be the case. The common misconception that Greg peddles is particularly dangerous- it undermines the case for legitimate, and necessary, constitutional reform to properly protect rights to free speech in this country..

]]>