Australians don't have many rights, as such. Generally speaking, the way we developed government meant we had the right to do whatever wasn't prohibited. (This is just backwash from my public law exam; I'd skip right past this if I were you). We have no protected right to vote, to free speech or free assembly.
However, some cretin called Guy (hey, does that make him some guy called Cretin, now? Or should I just stop making the kind of jokes that cause people to smack their own foreheads?) thinks that it is "the fundamental right of all Australians to access the internet free of pornography and offensive material". There are some problems there. A) We don't really have any fundamental rights. B) If you take off the pornography and offensive material, there won't be any internet left. At all. C) People elected this knucklehead. D) The opposition were all for blocking it off at the source. Excellent: no choice whatsoever.
That's it: democracy is cancelled for that electorate until you can find someone better qualified to represent you. Unless you're all like that. In which case, I believe you are disqualified from voting under s14(i) of The Commonwealth Electoral Act: multiply incestuous genetic mistakes unable to mash the keyboard in a pattern enabling them to avoid the porn. Or read. Or sleep with people from "outside the valley, grunt, grunt."
That's a direct quote, but I took out all the "fucks" to make it less offensive.

It's my first exam today, and on the off chance everything goes the shape of the pear, I want it on record that coming back to uni was the best choice ever. I really enjoy this lawyering thing. It really appeals to my lack of moral fibre, spurious reasoning capacity and my dishonest approach to interpersonal conflict. Also, being back at university means I spend, oh, half a day studying and then go play football. I can also wear a scarf and carry a leather satchel. Ooh, modish.
Incidentally, I've been thinking of starting a betting pool for results. We have five subjects: public law, contracts, criminal law, ethics and foundations of law. I figure we can get a poker hand out of that; a Pass being a Jack, High Distinction an Ace. Notice I assume nobody fails. Anyway, five dollar buy-in, dollar ante and then we bluff each other out. That way, if I get all passes, I still have five of a kind and an unbeatable hand, then use the pot to buy better notes for next session.
Fingers crossed.

It's exam time and I can't study. I never was much for the studying, anyway, but I'm too old to fail stuff and try again. Guess I'll have to just force myself somehow. I'm thinking of actual physical restraints, but would probably just end up as one of those "oddly enough" news stories that are hilarious so long as it isn't your possum-gnawed carcass they find decomposing gently all over your Contracts notes.
Maybe if employed someone to jab me with a pencil every time I start daydreaming? I could probably find some PhD graduates who could use the money.

In Australia, we have laws against consorting. That is, if you spend time on a regular basis with someone you know to have been convicted of an indictable (read: serious) crime, you yourself can go to prison.
Some people are concerned that this means prison effectively equals isolation for life; state mandated ostracism of someone who might have been rehabilitated. Other people are worried that this means you might well be arrested for doing nothing wrong other than being social.
As for me, I'm a little concerned that the consorting charge is an indictable offence. So I consort, get put away and get out. Then people hang out with me (this is, of course, hypothetical) and then they go to prison. Then they get out. Then their friends and family go away. Infinite regression as criminal law.
That's hilarious.

Last night, in my own time, I went to listen to a speech from a High Court justice. I'm clearly losing my way. In any case, it was an interesting night. Michael Kirby J is, while not the gayest judge ever, is certainly the most openly gay judge ever. Yes, there's a difference. As a result, he also tends to the activist end of the judicial spectrum when judging on matters of discrimination and the like. He likes international law, for example, and seems to feel that signing the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (and the ICCPR) means that Australia might try living up to the things it said it agreed with. Crazy, no?
Anyway, this kind of attitude and devil-may-care dissenting win points with campaigners for social justice. This to the point where people had him signing glossy headshots of him. Also, sustained applause and sycophantic laughter. A little bit weird; the High Court judge as rockstar. Law school is an odd place.
What I enjoyed most, I think, was the fact that he openly requests adulation. He's proud of the idea that he has outlasted so many other judges that he is now sitting almost in the middle of the bench, where people might see him better. The best part is that when he demands adulation, people are willing to give it to him. A judge with actual, honest to god charisma.
Also, I kicked ass in my Crim paper. Circular logic is the best!