If Australia is to enshrine free speech, it should do so openly and deliberately, not through judicial implication. A statutory or constitutional amendment explicitly guaranteeing free speech would provide clarity and legitimacy that judicially implied rights cannot. Such an amendment must carefully define the scope of free speech, ensuring it protects against government censorship while respecting property rights and the boundaries of individual responsibility. This approach would align with the principles of a free society, where rights are protected by law but grounded in the moral autonomy of the individual.

The decision in Australian Capital Television reflects a critical misunderstanding: that the judiciary can safeguard democratic principles by creating implied rights. In truth, the strength of free speech lies not in judicial creativity but in the explicit recognition of its moral and legal necessity. The proper path forward is to introduce free speech protections through democratic processes, ensuring they are grounded in the will of the people and consistent with the principles of individual liberty and parliamentary sovereignty. Only then can Australia achieve the balance of freedom and accountability that free speech demands.

2/2
S. Tominaga AKA CSW
Nov 24, 2024
https://x.com/CsTominaga/status/1860592473762070931?t=aMZD8GZ68sGAsajkpFxGaQ&s=19

https://t.me/S_Tominaga/2138