To what extent do American constitutional rights have jurisdiction in other common law countries? For example, as an Australian I often hear the average person say “I’ve got the right to free speech.” There is no such right supplied to Australians in our constitution, and the legislature only goes some way to protecting freedom of speech, yet most Australians assume they have the right to freedom of speech and I can’t say it’s unreasonable to think so. Could an Australian ever use the American Bill of Rights as a defence in an Australian court of law? Would the Bill of Rights ever take precedence over any Australian laws?
>>542662327>For example, as an Australian I often hear the average person say “I’ve got the right to free speech.”You probably have it somewhere it your laws. Or it exists as an implied fundamental right.American Constitution only governs what the US government and through the 14th amendment what state and local governments are allowed to do.
>>542662327No because the US constitution only applies to US citizens or residentsMost likely they got the free speech thing from imported US media while ignoring their own constitution
>>542662329>Most likely they got the free speech thing from imported US media while ignoring their own constitution.This is exactly the case, but it’s earned its place in the public conscience more so because it’s a good thing to have. Yet it doesn’t seem to hold much sway, even though I thought common law countries looked around at other common law countries for precedent. I’m willing to get schooled on this because I just want to know why American rights haven’t made much of a difference to our legal system.
>>542662327I would say if they call upon and ask for it , the Australian government would have to then appeal the American government and ask if they are a citizen. Just like apostle Paul had to be a citizen of Rome first before he could say way a second you can’t torture me to death because your laws says you can’t torture Roman citizens to death. I wouldn’t want people outside the us government citizenship being tortured to death , but really let’s be honest. All I have been hearing since before Make America Great Again is how much they want to not be a US citizen anymore and saying how it doesn’t even matter to have it and they’d rather not ever be one again. Now suddenly people want it but they don’t want to live here.I smell globalism. The reason why is you don’t need American citizenship. You can get your own Australian government that acknowledges the rights God gave you. If not, we warned you and told you so. The only thing you can do is turn to the Word of God through Jesus Christ. With that said, why do ppl pretend they are free and happy in other countries? Should say so when you are not. It’s like being handicapped, ugly, and fat, and saying you love your life this way.
>>542662331>I would say if they call upon and ask for it, the Australian government would have to then appeal the American government and ask if they are a citizen.I wouldn’t say that. If the right is founded upon human dignity, then no country needs to appeal to the US to claim the right. We could point to what the US does that dignifies human beings, but we wouldn’t need to ask if we are US citizens. Of course the right is founded upon human dignity. To say otherwise would mean everyone in the world would need to be a US citizen to enjoy the same rights, which is absurd prima facie.
It's almost certainly just dumb people thinking the things they hear on the tee vee apply to them. That being said, if it gets adjudicated in aussie courts enough, then boom, you do have free speech. I know vanishingly little about australian common law though.>I thought common law countries looked around at other common law countries for precedentmoreso just that english/british law from colonial times and earlier was imported into their former colonies because that's what the colonists were used to following and they didn't want to draw up entirely new codes. American laws don't make their way into canada or vice versa
>>542662327The US Constitution has absolutely no authority in Australia. That’s like asking if the speed limit in Los Angeles has any authority over the speed limit in Melbourne. Freedom of speech as a concept though isn’t restricted to the US. Australian common law probably has some concept of free speech. You’d have to go look at statutes and case law.
>>542662334>Australian common law probably has some concept of free speech.It does, but it’s very restricted. For example, there’s a case being adjudicated right now between Senator Pauline Hanson and Senator Mehreen Faruqi where Pauline told Faruqi to “piss off back to Pakistan.” Hanson’s been arguing she exercised an implied right to freedom of political communication, while Faruqi has been saying Hanson broke some of our racial discrimination laws. It’s been appealed to the highest court and hasn’t been settled yet. It does seem like the “right to free speech” is encouraging this debate from the background.
>>542662334>The US Constitution has absolutely no authority in Australia.That’s true. I’m still not certain though if a right has any legal power even if it isn’t ratified by a country’s legal system? Because it’s just a reasonable thing to expect, and reason is the basis of common law legal systems.
>Australians don't have free speechPathetic if true. Guess it's still a prison continent.
>>542662336Common law systems are based primarily on precedent. What matters is what was decided before. Past decisions can be overruled for good reasons, but exceptions tend to be narrow and based on specific facts distinguish a new case from a past one. Precedent controls absent that. Or a statute can override past case law, which is usually for a good reason but not necessarily. If there isn’t a constitution or statute providing freedom of speech, then a judge somewhere at some point in the past must have determined speech is protected in some case. I only know American law, so I’m not sure where other common law countries derive a right to free speech, but I thought the UK deals with rights like free speech in its case law. It must have been somewhere because, iirc, the American founders debated over the inclusion of a bill of rights because some had an issue with explicitly putting those rights into a single written form when it already existed in case law as a concept.
>>542662338So I would conclude from what you’re saying that, while the right to freedom of speech is a nice idea, it doesn’t have any legal effect in Australian jurisdictions and what really matters is Australian case law since federation, or earlier if there’s no precedent or statute to supersede an earlier case in some particular matter.
The US is the only country in the world where the right to free speech is constitutionally protected. All other countries have restrictions.
>>542662327>Could an Australian ever use the American Bill of Rights as a defence in an Australian court of law?Only as an example in a philosophical argument, saying "people in foreign countries can have these rights, they seem to work well for them". Anything else you're liable to be laughed out of the room for insinuating USA law applies in any real way. However, there is always the concept of realpolitik. If the Australian government were to become too controlling that could impact foreign investment.
>>542662340false on both countsUS chased Assange and Snowden around the world for their critical reporting on what the government was doing, and many other countries also have a freedom of speech clause in their constitution (which, like in the US, courts water down to ineffectiveness). In Japan it's Article 21, for instance.
>>542662339Freedom of speech is protected in Australia to the extent Australia protects it, probably in case law. I really don’t know though.
>>542662337To my knowledge there is no country with more extensive legal protections on speech than the US. Having legal protections for intentionally offensive and hateful speech is quite rare, even in liberal democracies. In the US even speech that means to incite violence is protected, so long as its not an imminent and specific call to violence. Personally I think there is too much protection for hate speech.
>>542662344>To my knowledge there is no country with more extensive legal protections on speech than the USyour knowledge is incorrect. The 25 year rule doesn't mean you have to post from 2001. The US deports people or sentences them to long prison terms for speech critical of the government, and uses government pressure or the threat of contracts to force major American 'private' platforms to "self" censor. It's not UK tier, but it's bad.>In the US even speech that means to incite violence is protected, so long as its not an imminent and specific call to violence. Personally I think there is too much protection for hate speech.Saying this at a time when 'hate speech' laws are already being used to shut down criticism of Israel's ethnic cleansing is insane. If you're real, you have a goldfish's memory.
>>542662327I wouldn’t worry about it because the gov doesn’t even recognize the rights of us citizens living on us soil either. Us citizenship and way of life isn’t enviable - it’s terrible here.>t. Suing the us government
>>542662346The cool part about the US is that literally no one is keeping you here. Please leave at your soonest opportunity.
>>542662347Is it okay if I think you're stupid, Anon? Lmao
>>542662344>Personally I think there is too much protection for hate speech.There's not enough
>>542662328>>542662329The Bill of Rights codifies a number of concepts from the common law and the 9th amendment serves to enshrine those not explicitly protected, such as the right of the condemned to allocute
>>542662347Oh man that’s wrong as fuck, gl trying to do anything while you’re facing extrajudicial punishment from the surveillance state that gets 2 moves for every 1 move you make
>>542662347The US funds and lobbies for anti-immigrant politicians in other countries to make it more difficult for people to leave. Still worth getting out if you have an opportunity somewhere better, but if you don't, your own government is not without blame.>but they just mean brown shitskinsthat's not what the new immigration laws say
>>542662352People need a refresher course on why the government deserves to be hated and federal workers spat on. I’ve got a bunch of weird freaks using prism to post mtf trans shit and that’s just the tip of the iceberg
>>542662346>>t. Suing the us governmentOh yeah, what happened there? Did your city fine you for not mowing your grass?
>>542662328>exists as an implied fundamental rightAbsoluty not. The USA is the only country that has free speech as it's illegal for the government to do anything to restrict it. Australia and every other 'free' country says that free speech is a privilege granted to them by the government that can be taken away at any time.
>>542662327The Bill of Rights is universal, but every individual is responsible for protecting their rights.
>>542662327You make a good point anon. The US Government should claim that the US Constitution applies to all people in all English-speaking countries, and then the US Military should liberate the oppressed masses.
