OK, to begin with, Australia still bans things. This is something the USA grew out of decades ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Australia
It's insane.
Also, there are the defamation laws:
https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html
> In theory, the objective of defamation laws is to balance protection of individual reputation with freedom of expression. In practice, defamation laws are frequently used as a means of chilling speech. A threat of (costly) defamation proceedings and damages, whether or not a plaintiff's claim is likely to be upheld by a court, is often used to silence criticism not only by a particular person or group but also as a threat to others.
Basically, defamation laws in the USA are much more defendant-friendly compared to their equivalents in Commonwealth countries. Australia deserves much praise for apparently being much better in this regard compared to the UK, for example: Australian law recognizes truth to be an absolute defense, which is not generally the case in Commonwealth libel laws.
Canada deserves special approbation for its insane hate speech laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commissio...
Which are similar to the insane laws against denying the Holocaust or even using certain images in parts of Europe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_%C2%A7_86a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_legal...
There have been just as many substantial fascist parties in places with those laws as there are in places without them: Zero. They're an attack on free expression, a universal human right, and they're an absurd over-reaction, an example of terrified cowering at a few worthless fools. What's worse, they do nothing to solve any of the real problems modern Europe has with anti-Roma and anti-Muslim racism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Australia
It's insane.
Also, there are the defamation laws:
https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html
> In theory, the objective of defamation laws is to balance protection of individual reputation with freedom of expression. In practice, defamation laws are frequently used as a means of chilling speech. A threat of (costly) defamation proceedings and damages, whether or not a plaintiff's claim is likely to be upheld by a court, is often used to silence criticism not only by a particular person or group but also as a threat to others.
Basically, defamation laws in the USA are much more defendant-friendly compared to their equivalents in Commonwealth countries. Australia deserves much praise for apparently being much better in this regard compared to the UK, for example: Australian law recognizes truth to be an absolute defense, which is not generally the case in Commonwealth libel laws.
Canada deserves special approbation for its insane hate speech laws:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commissio...
Which are similar to the insane laws against denying the Holocaust or even using certain images in parts of Europe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_%C2%A7_86a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_legal...
There have been just as many substantial fascist parties in places with those laws as there are in places without them: Zero. They're an attack on free expression, a universal human right, and they're an absurd over-reaction, an example of terrified cowering at a few worthless fools. What's worse, they do nothing to solve any of the real problems modern Europe has with anti-Roma and anti-Muslim racism.