An Attack on Democracy: The Burning of Australia's Old Parliament House

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

54% : The argument that the setting of the fire was an example of legitimate civil disobedience could be supported by the decision in Musser v Utah where the Supreme Court of the United States expressed the view that the "position, that the state may prevent any conduct which induces people to violate the law, or any advocacy of unlawful activity, cannot be squared with the First Amendment."
51% : The fact that authorities allowed the Tent Embassy for half a century evidences the existence of a form of affirmative action based on the ground of race, which makes a mockery of Australia's determination, expressed in the adoption of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975
41% : The First Amendment is the free speech provision of the American Constitution.
38% : The protestors and their sympathisers might argue that the setting on fire of the Old Parliament House is an example of legitimate civil disobedience, even if it is regarded by law enforcement and commentating politicians, as a criminal act.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.