Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-29T00:34:56.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Freedom of Expression and Public Affairs in Australia and the United States: Does a Written Bill of Rights Really Matter?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Robert M O'Neil
Robert M O'Neil*
Affiliation:
University of Virginia, and The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Delivered as the 1993 Menzies Lecture at the Australian National University. Canberra. 5 October. 1993.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Among various possible options, a theme for the 1993 Menzies Lecture quite naturally emerged for an American whose special field is freedoms of expression' protected by the Constitution. A clear and easy choice was that of an American perspective on issues of free speech and press in light of the High Court judgments in Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (hereinafter ACTV) and Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (hereinafter Nationwide News). The challenge of this assignment was daunting, since I realised that most who would hear and would later read these remarks would be far more conversant than I with these cases and their portent. Yet I took on the task with much enthusiasm, recognising an exceptional opportunity for international comparison and understanding.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 1 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 (1992) 177 CLR 106.

2 (1992) 177 CLR 11.

3 Ewing, K D “The Legal Regulation of Electoral Campaign Financing in Australia: A Preliminary Study” (1992)Google Scholar 22 UWAL Rev 239 at 240.

4 Doyle, J J “Constitutional Law: At the Eye of the Storm” (1993)Google Scholar 23 UWAL Rev 15.

5 Nationwide News (1992) 177 CLR1 at 34 per Mason CJ.

6 ACTV (1992) 177 CLR 106 at 138-140 per Mason CJ and at 149-151 per Brennan J.

7 For example,Coper, M “The High Court and Free Speech: Visions of Democracy or Delusions of Grandeur?” (1994)Google Scholar 16 Syd LR 186 for an early and thoughtfully different perspective on the issues and implications deserving of close study.

8 Let me explain the basis for that assumption. My reason for treating the omission of a free speech and press guarantee as conscious is nearly unique to Australia, even without evidence of later consideration and rejection by Australians of such a provision. I have often been struck by the close parallel between section 116 of the Australian Constitution and the injunction of our First Amendment that “Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of Religion or abridging the Free Exercise thereof …”

9 “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Amendment I, United States Constitution.

10 Meikeljohn, A Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government (1960)Google Scholar at 26-27.

11 For example,Wood, v Georgia, 370 US 375 (1962); Bridges v California, 314 US 252 (1941)Google Scholar.

12 For example, First National Bank v Bellotti, 435 US 765 (1978).

13 424 US 1(1976).

14 47 USC §315 (1990).

15 Farmers Educ & Coop Union v WDAY, Inc, 360 US (1959).

16 47 Code of Federal Regulations § 73.123.

17 Red Lion Broadcasting Co v FCC, 395 US 367 (1969).

18 CBS, Inc v FCC, 453 US 367 (1981).

19 CBS, Inc v Democratic Nat'l Comm, 412 US 94 (1973).

20 Mnir v Alabama Educ Television Comm, 688 F2d 1033 (5th Cir 1982), cert denied, 460 US 1023 (1983).

21 Vanasco v Schwartz, 401 F Supp 87 (EDNY 1975), aff'd mem, 423 US 1041 (1976); Pestrak v Ohio Elections Comm'n, 926 F2d 573 (6th Cir 1991).

22 Geary v Renne, 914 F2d 1249 (9th Cir 1990).

23 See Valentine v Chrestensen, 316 US 52 (1942).

24 Central Hudson Gas & Elec Co v Pub Serv Comm'n, 447 US 557 (1980).

25 Virginia State Board ofPharmacy v Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 US 748 (1976).

26 Burson v Freeman, 119 L Ed 2d 5 (1992).

27 P H Lane, An Introduction to the Australian Constitution (5th ed 1990) at 211.

28 NAACP v Alabama, 357 US 449 (1958).

29 For example, Sherbert v Verner, 374 US 398 (1963).

30 ACTV (1992) 177 CLR 106 at 141. See, for a broad reading of the potential import and implications of the High Court judgments, P Creighton, “The Implied Guarantee of Political Communication” (1993) 23 UWAL Rev 163 at 169-72.

31 Roth v United States, 354 US 476 (1957).

32 New York Times v Sullivan, 376 US 255 (1964).

33 New York v Ferber, 458 US 747 (1982).

34 Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 US 568 (1942).

35 Stromberg v California, 283 US 359 (1931).

36 United States v O 'Brien, 391 US 367 (1968).

37 Texas v Johnson, 491 US 397 (1989).

38 RAV v St Paul Minn, 120 L Ed 2d 305 (1992).

39 Wisconsin v Mitchell 124 L Ed 2d 436 (1993).

40 For example,Bork, R “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems” (1971)Google Scholar 47 IndLJ 1.

41 Ibid.

46 For example, Cruz v Ferre, 755 F 2d 1415 (11th Cir 1985).

47 A Bill for an Act to Amend the Crimes Act 1914 to create an offence of racial incitement and to amend the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 to make racial vilification unlawful – (presented and read a first time 16 December 1992).

48 T Katsigiannis, “How the NSW Anti-Discrimination Laws Threaten Free Speech” Policy, Summer 1989, at 29. See generally W Sadurski, “Racial Vilification, Psychic Harm, and Affirmative Action” Freedom of Communication in Australia – Workshop, 6-8 August 1993, Australian National University, Canberra.

49 Lawrence, C R, “If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech on Campus” (1990)Google Scholar DukeLJ 431.

50 Strossen, N “Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?” (1990)Google Scholar Duke L J 484.

51 RAVvSt Paul, Minn, 120 L Ed 2d 305 (1992).

52 Wisconsin v Mitchell 124 L Ed 2d 436 (1993).