This is totally incorrect.
"Exceptions to free speech in the United States are limitations on the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and expression as recognized by the United States Supreme Court. These exceptions have been created over time, based on certain types of speech and expression, and under different contexts. While freedom of speech in the United States is a constitutional right, these exceptions make that right a limited one. Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections."
<quote from American supreme court case>
Why are you quoting American cases...? They have no impact on Australian law or international human rights law?
That aside, I would ask you to re-read what you have quoted, particularly these points:
personally abusive [word]
such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'
The film fails on both of these points:
1) It does not personally abuse anybody
2) I assume "directed to the person of the hearer" means that the abusive comment must be directed at a person. The film was uploaded onto Youtube. One had to intentionally seek it out to view it.
It is arguably not a "direct personal insult" due to this (and due to point 1)
As for the second point, please re-read these points in particular:
(which has never been explicitly decided)
would be limited to private figures
The Court held in Hustler v. Falwell (1988) that satire which could be seen as offensive to a "public figure" is fully protected.
1) This rule, as well as being American and therefore having nothing to do with us, was never actually decided as a rule and thus cannot be relied upon.
2) and 3) Mohammed is not a private figure and therefore does not fall under the protection of this rule.
Home
Help
Search
Login
