Arbeit macht frei: - Fredrick Töben

35. Enforced silence about the doings of the powerful is quite foreign to
Australia.
There Is a New Chill in the Air
36. Since 2001, and usually with reference to the terrorist incident of
September 11 th
, the governments of various countries have legislated to
restrict free speech.
37. In the United States, Bob Barr, a Libertarian, notes the difference
between going to a protest rally in the period of the 1968 to 1988 - when you
could wear a Nixon mask and actually have fun, and the period under Pres.
George W. Bush when you are made to feel like a criminal. He writes in
‘The FBI’s Pre-emptive Interrogations of ‘Possible Demonstrators: Chilling
Political Speech’ (www.Findlaw.com, August 25, 2004):
38. Now, things are very different. ….For example, people with T-shirts
that hint at disagreement are not allowed anywhere near the events, nor
even on the route traveled by the presidential motorcade. …E]vidence has
been mounting that special agents are showing up at the homes and offices
of potential protesters - casting suspicion upon them in front of bosses,
colleagues, family, friends and neighbors. ….[T]he final question the FBI
agents ask is this: Does the interviewee know that withholding information
on whether they know anyone else who might be planning a
demonstration or ‘disruption’ is itself a crime?...This is of course pure
intimidation.
39. Worldwide, citizens appear to be losing their civil liberties more and
more every year.
40. In Australia, the Anti-Terrorism Act came into effect in December
2005. It provides up to 7 years jail for anyone who urges ‘disaffection
against the Government or Constitution of the Commonwealth….’ This
opens the door to the controlling of free speech.
Conclusion to Part Two of This Amicus Brief: The Relevance of the
Toben Case to the Chilling of Free Speech
41. Toben v Jones is a unique case. The defendant was initially not
charged with a crime. Certainly there is no law in Australia against denying
the holocaust. Rather, the plaintiff brought a civil action against Toben, as
is provided for in the Racial Discrimination Act, claiming that Toben
published things on his website that offended an ethnic group. In failing to
clean up his website, Toben then committed the quasi-crime of contempt.
He will be jailed for undermining the court’s authority, not for offending
an ethnic group.
42. The problem is that very few people understand that distinction, and
so the jailing of Toben will have a more chilling effect on free speech than
is actually warranted.
138