# data[].attributes.body
The Corneloup Case Timeline

# data[].attributes.body
There should be restrictions on people being able to express their views in public spaces such as a busy city centers, shopping centers etc. This protects the public from being exposed to what can sometimes amount to hate speech, or hurtful speech, or incitement. It is often said that 'words can't hurt', however, this is untrue, particularly when the words focus on individual identities, painful and sensitive subjects, or topics that 'rile' people up against a particular group of people.

# data[].attributes.body
2009- The Corneloup brothers, both members of a organisation called "Street Church", were prosecuted in a South Australian magistrates court with preaching in the mall without permission.

Note -breached clauses of an Adelaide by-law stipulating that no one may "preach, canvass (or) harangue" on any road without a permit.

2010- The preachers were banned from holding their self-described "prayer meetings" in the mall. Both would challenge the district court.

2011- The preachers appeal was denied- the council had spent $170,000 on legal fees - $115,000 of that on hiring QCs.

2013- High Court of Australia overturned a South Australian court's ruling that the bylaw was unconstitutional. The court ruled Adelaide City Council had the right to make bylaws over the proper use of roadways - including a requirement persons seek permits to preach.

# data[].attributes.body
1.whether a law is actually serving the end it purports to serve;

2. Was the availability of alternative, less drastic means by which that same end could be achieved;

3. whether the end pursued by that law is worth the restriction or costs imposed

4.Street preacher case confirms limits on freedom of political communication

# data[].attributes.body
Right to freedom of political communication should be protected, but not at the expense of the welbeing and peaceful assembly of the public. The pair crossed the line when they harassed individuals in a public shopping district and used megaphones to disrupt the peace.

Their right to political communication was protected, as there was nothing stopping the group from communicating their message in ways which did not specifically target individuals or impeed people enjoying public spaces.

# data[].attributes.headline
I believe that no one has the right to cause another person harm and therefor everyone should be protected against those who's speech could potential cause great harm. Freedom of speech should not be at the expense of another human being.

# data[].attributes.subject
I believe that no one has the right to cause another person harm and therefor everyone should be protected against those who's speech could potential cause great harm. Freedom of speech should not be at the expense of another human being.

# data[].attributes.body
Curriculum Area:
Year 9 English
Literature and Context:
Interpret and compare how representations of people and culture in literary texts are drawn from different historical, social and cultural contexts.

Idea:
Popular representation of Indigenous Peoples in Australia

ASSUMED KNOWLEDGE: general timeline of Australian indigenous policies

=Colonisation & Early Government=
=1788-1937=
-Terra nullius
-Slavery
-Segregation
-Superior/Inferior race theory

=Assimilation=
=1938-1975=
-Stolen Generation
-Dead/dying culture

=Reconciliation=
=1991-now=
-Apology
-Restoring Culture

Present students with a variety of depictions of Indigenous Peoples and have them guess which area the piece of media belongs to. Also look at some controversial modern takes which show antiquated thinking. Can also have students dissect/critique depictions.

After the dates of the depictions are revealed, students can construct a timeline which shows the three general eras and where each sample fits.