Freedom of Speech v. An Intervention Order

[James95]

I'll briefly describe the facts:
I made a Facebook page about a man who murdered an elderly lady
The murderer was gloating about how his crimes pre-dated the internet era so you wouldn't find his name online.
I made the Facebook page to cure his gloating

Resulting in an AVO, simply for re-publishing what was written in the print media because it caused him "mental distress".

Would anyone have any insight onto this? I found this article online: Toxic "Safety" orders the latest tool to shut down free speech - Michael West and while it recognises the potential for AVOs to be these toxic orders, it also doesn't address a potential difference in the situation: I'm an individual, non-journalist, and my freedom to express views on a media platform are being curtailed.

Anyone have any insight on this matter?

 

[Rod]

The laws around IVO vary State to State.

Many Magistrates hand them out like confetti seemingly oblivious to the fact there can be unforeseen consequences in doing so. While Magistrates are attempting to remove violence and reduce anti-social behaviour in the community, sometimes an IVO is not warranted and has unintended side effects.

Unfortunately for you freedom of speech does not exist as a right in Australia.

All you can do is abide by the order to avoid a breach of the IVO.

 

[James95]

The laws around IVO vary State to State.

Many Magistrates hand them out like confetti seemingly oblivious to the fact there can be unforeseen consequences in doing so. While Magistrates are attempting to remove violence and reduce anti-social behaviour in the community, sometimes an IVO is not warranted and has unintended side effects.

Unfortunately for you freedom of speech does not exist as a right in Australia.

All you can do is abide by the order to avoid a breach of the IVO.

Since my publication relates to a rendered court decision I was thinking of a constitutional argument per the case of Coleman?

 

[Tim W]

Anyone have any insight on this matter?

Well, since you ask...
And bear in mind that this is opinion, rather than technical legal commentary.

(i) Your motives ("...cure his gloating...") appear, to say the least, improper.
Had you published the facts as a rational work of history,
as many true-crime journos and authors do, then this may have unfolded differently.
What you did was not that.
You were out to embarrass, humiliate, and harrass him, from the start.

(ii) By posting it on the internet, you may have left yourself open to
an offence in the realm of "use a carriage service to harrass".

(iii) He's wrong anyway. Many, many murderers from history can be found somewhere in the online records.
I don't see where you stopped to think about that, let alone check.

(iv) What's it to you, anyway?
Are you closely involved in the offence and/or the surrounding circumstances?
For example, are you a relative or close connection of the deceased?
Were you present (as a non-offender) when the offence was comitted?
Perhaps a witness? Or a juror?
In such cases, then there may be some understanding and context to be had.
But if not, then I'm not at all clear on how it is that you have any kind of right to be doing such a thing anyway?

(v) Freedom Of Speech doesn't work in Australia the way you think it does.
It's different in Australia to how it is in America, and to how it seems to work on the internet.
So, no, I don't see where it's being infringed here.

 

[James95]

Well, since you ask...
And bear in mind that this is opinion, rather than technical legal commentary.

(i) Your motives ("...cure his gloating...") appear, to say the least, improper.
Had you published the facts as a rational work of history,
as many true-crime journos and authors do, then this may have unfolded differently.
What you did was not that.
You were out to embarrass, humiliate, and harrass him, from the start.

(ii) By posting it on the internet, you may have left yourself open to
an offence in the realm of "use a carriage service to harrass".

(iii) He's wrong anyway. Many, many murderers from history can be found somewhere in the online records.
I don't see where you stopped to think about that, let alone check.

(iv) What's it to you, anyway?
Are you closely involved in the offence and/or the surrounding circumstances?
For example, are you a relative or close connection of the deceased?
Were you present (as a non-offender) when the offence was comitted?
Perhaps a witness? Or a juror?
In such cases, then there may be some understanding and context to be had.
But if not, then I'm not at all clear on how it is that you have any kind of right to be doing such a thing anyway?

(v) Freedom Of Speech doesn't work in Australia the way you think it does.
It's different in Australia to how it is in America, and to how it seems to work on the internet.
So, no, I don't see where it's being infringed here.

i) Embrassment and humiliation is a natural part of human social responses, it is kind of strange you give this a negative connotation.
ii) Continuing...
iii) He isn't wrong. I had checked, there are no details of his acts online, archives are not available electronically in my town.
iv) I am closely involved in the offence
v) I understand how freedom of speech operates in the USA and it's contrast to Australian law. I just don't see how there are no protections here. I hadn't misrepresented the man who murdered, I am simply bringing attention to him.

 

[sammy01]

When you said - he was a murder... Did he go to jail? was he put on trial and found guilty?

 

[James95]

When you said - he was a murder... Did he go to jail? was he put on trial and found guilty?

Yes, he was found insane however.

 

[Tim W]

Yes, he was found insane however.

Do you mean he was found not guilty by virtue of mental illness or defect?
Or was the charge dismissed because he was unfit to stand trial?
Or was he convicted of, say, manslaughter?

 

[James95]

Do you mean he was found not guilty by virtue of mental illness or defect?
Or was the charge dismissed because he was unfit to stand trial?
Or was he convicted of, say, manslaughter?

Yes not guilty by virtue of insanity. I argued a little bit at the mention whether or not this amounted to him not being a murdered, I thought it does because he was charged with murder but convicted under an alternative category of murder which changes quality of the verdict given. I think it is irrelevant to the case though: as you don't need a conviction to truthfully call someone a murderer at least under defamation law.

Edit: When I mean an alternative category of murder I mean an alternative classification of conviction and not the alternative charge of manslaughter which is open to the jury.

 

[Tim W]

Yes not guilty by virtue of insanity.

That being the case then you can't truthfully call him a murderer, because at law, he isn't one.
For the benefit of people reading this later (since you must surely already know), murder requires either intent, or recklessness not vitiated by mental illness.

...I argued a little bit at the mention whether or not this amounted to him not being a murdered, I thought it does because he was charged with murder but convicted under an alternative category of murder which changes quality of the verdict given.

You are mistaken in that thought.

I think it is irrelevant to the case though: as you don't need a conviction to truthfully call someone a murderer at least under defamation law.

Yes, you exactly do.

Did he go to MHRT?