Racial Vilification and Freedom of Speech in Australia and Elsewhere
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers the difficult balance to be struck between values of freedom of speech and attempts by legislators in a range of jurisdictions to ban racially offensive speech. It compares the position in Australia, where the High Court has established an implied freedom of political communication, with the position in the United States, which has enshrined freedom of speech in its Bill of Rights, and in Canada, which has enshrined such a freedom in its Charter. After reflecting how such provisions have been applied in the context of legislative attempts to curb racially-motivated speech, the paper argues that there are real questions over the constitutional validity of Australia's racial vilification laws, since they interfere with an individual's right to express an opinion, albeit an offensive one. This discussion takes place in the broader context of question marks over the utility of banning speech in an effort to improve race relations, and the marketplace of ideas type philosophy, where it is thought that in free democracies such as those under consideration, individuals need to be exposed to a full range of views and opinions, in order to develop more considered views on important topics, rather than have access to views and opinions controlled by the government.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it