Cat got your tongue? Free speech, democracy and Australia’s ‘ag-gag’ laws

Dados Bibliográficos

ID6234971
AutoresKatharine Gelber (0000-0002-0239-3552, The University of Queensland), Simon O’sullivan (0000-0003-4705-1182, Social Policy and Research, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, autor correspondente)
Ano2021
Volume56
Fascículo1
Páginas19-34
Data de publicação2021-01-02
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessNão
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoAustralian Journal of Political Science (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 1036-1146 • E-ISSN: 1363-030X
EditoraInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/10361146.2020.1799938
OpenAlexW3047614963
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas6
Referências citadas19

In recent years Australian governments have proposed, and enacted, 'ag-gag' laws which extend the criminalisation of peaceful, non-violent activities such as trespass to deter animal protection advocates from obtaining information about animal welfare, information that is not obtainable in other ways and that contributes to public deliberation around an important policy issue. This article asks two questions. First, if a speaker engages in non-violent, peaceful, but illegal activities, such as trespass in order to obtain information that is important to democratic deliberation, can this be justified from the perspective of free speech theory? Answering this question in the affirmative, we then analyse the contours of proposed, and new provisions in Australian law designed to extend the criminalisation of such activities. We conclude that since the impact on freedom of speech of such provisions is excessive, governments should be mindful of their free speech obligations when considering, and enacting, such laws

Deliberation · Democracy · Free speech · Law and economics · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Trespass · Freedom of Expression and Defamation · Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection · Law · Law in Society and Culture