Welcome to Eureka Street
Looking for thought provoking articles?Subscribe to Eureka Street and join the conversation.
Passwords must be at least 8 characters, contain upper and lower case letters, and a numeric value.
Eureka Street uses the Stripe payment gateway to process payments. The terms and conditions upon which Stripe processes payments and their privacy policy are available here.
Please note: The 40-day free-trial subscription is a limited time offer and expires 31/3/24. Subscribers will have 40 days of free access to Eureka Street content from the date they subscribe. You can cancel your subscription within that 40-day period without charge. After the 40-day free trial subscription period is over, you will be debited the $90 annual subscription amount. Our terms and conditions of membership still apply.
The misreporting of the Australia Day 'riot' is but one example of a growing nexus of hysteria, racism and ignorance in Australian media. It is time to rein in the increasing distortion of our social and political conversations, and require responsibility as well as freedom of speech.
The Federal Court found that fair-skinned Aboriginal people were likely to have been 'offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated' by Bolt's articles. Bolt lamented the passing of free speech in Australia. But free speech cuts both ways, and no freedom is absolute. Published 29 September 2011
If Julian Assange is soon extradited from UK to Sweden, as now seems likely, he faces rendition to the US, and the prospect of a long prison sentence or even assassination. The Australian Government continues to do almost nothing to protect its besieged citizen.
In Australia free speech is understood as freedom from legal constraint. In the Bolt case, it was defended for commercial reasons. A better understanding of the cost of free speech can be seen in Russian journalist Alexander Minkin's description of an attempt to kill him.
Paradoxically, the Andrew Bolt case has advanced each of the three rationales that typically support free speech. A democracy cannot flourish when some members of the community are free to say what they want while others are forced to speak from the margins of society.
Andrew Bolt’s article was simply an egregious example of morally bad communication. It was indefensible on ethical grounds. Indeed, those who defended his right to free speech generally implied that public discussion is an ethics free zone.
I am deeply proud of my Aboriginal friend, who is now a doctor. I have not had the heart to tell her that once she was judged for not being dark enough to be awarded an Indigenous scholarship. While Andrew Bolt argues about freedom of speech, I argue about freedom of identity.
The Federal Court found that fair-skinned Aboriginal people were likely to have been 'offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated' by Bolt's articles. Bolt lamented the passing of free speech in Australia. But free speech cuts both ways, and no freedom is absolute.
Just because we can debate something, doesn't mean we should. As with any right there is the responsibility to exercise free speech judiciously. A quick survey of the Muslim population in Australia highlights the absurdity of debating whether there is a place for the burqa in our society.
Some perceive the racial vilification case against Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt as a challenge to free speech. But this case is about more than silencing critiques of the construction of race, and indeed Bolt himself.
Julian Assange claims to be fighting for freedom of speech and government transparency — ideals that feminists also hold dear. But Assange has been arrested on rape charges and many feminists will find it hard to reconcile their defence of him with their support of rape victims.
The death of a WA Aboriginal elder in a prison van last year was one of the worst human rights tragedies in Australian living memory. A recent speech by Governor-General Quentin Bryce evoked a more optimistic outlook for Indigenous justice.
49-60 out of 71 results.