We encourage you to read this article on Australia's ridiculous and increasingly oppressive laws regarding free speech. The article is by former ABC chief Jim Spigelman and makes the point that in a free society that values liberty, offending people shouldn't be illegal.
That is so sensible and downright adult we can't believe it even needs to be said. But if you've had even a casual glace at the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975, you'll see that it's all topsy turvey in Australia. The Act intends to 'balance' the right to free speech with the right not to be offended, humiliated, insulted, or intimidated by someone else's words, directed at you on the basis of your race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin.
The Gillard government is proposing to consolidate Australia's various anti-discrimination laws into one big one. Mind you, we have no problem with any law that protects individual liberty. But this is a law that does the opposite. If left unchanged, you'll have a law that leaves it up the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to decide what's permissible to say in public.
The trouble is with the 'balance' the law tries to strike between free speech and the supposed right not to be offended by that speech. The current language permits free speech (how generous) as long as it's 'done reasonably and in good faith'. In other words, you can say what you like in public, even if it offends someone, as long as someone else determines that you've done it reasonably and in good faith.
But what does that even mean? It means that the AHRC gets to decides whether your publicly expressed views and opinions are permissible and when they are not. If it decides they're reasonable, you're probably okay. But if it decides they're not, or you've not expressed them in good faith - you mean to be hurtful or your words are hurtful despite your best intentions - you're probably not okay.
The entire thing is absurd beyond belief. For starters, it's bad law. Rather than establishing a simple and clear principle that is equally applied to everyone, it's the very definition of subjectivity. Offensiveness lies in the eye of the beholder, or the AHRC. The test under the law is really whether someone is offended, regardless of whatever you intended that with your words.
This is all a very elaborate way of saying that people have the right not to be made uncomfortable or offended by other people's speech. Their feelings and sensibilities, however subjective they are, deserve legal protection, including the suppression of the right to free speech if need be. What an absolute joke.
By suppressing speech, you eventually suppress thought, too. Free speech is the most important of all the civil liberties precisely because it guarantees that uncomfortable, provocative, and unsettling ideas will be spoken out loud and vigorously contested in an open society. The best disinfectant against hateful speech is sunlight: let the racists, xenophobes, homophobes and crazies open their mouth and prove to the world how ridiculous they are.
The best way to promote a tolerant and open-minded liberal society is to religiously defend the right to free speech. Giving the government the power to silence and punish people because what they say offends an individual is a one way ticket to the end of individual liberty. Enough is enough.
Of course there is always some sensible sounding idiot in a suit who will point out that free speech always has limits. You can't for example, shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre. That's true and fair enough.
But this 'reasonable' limit on free speech is nothing like limiting speech based on whether a reasonable person decides its offensive. You do not, at least not yet, have the right NOT to be offended in a free society. If Australians permit this restriction on their right to free speech, it will be a complete victory for narrow-minded bullies and a real loss for anyone who values individual liberty.
for The Daily Reckoning Australia
From the Archives...
Will Lower Interest Rates Impact Australia in 2013?
7-12-2012 - Greg Canavan
Is the Australian Economy in Recession?
6-12-2012 - Greg Canavan
US Debt: Why America May Need a Bail Out by the IMF
5-12-2012 - Bill Bonner
If Profits are Falling Why are Stocks Rising?
4-12-2012 - Dan Denning
The Frontier Way
3-12-2012 - Dan Denning
If you already subscribe to The Daily Reckoning, or if you simply found what you read here interesting, then feel free to share our views and insights by posting them to your favourite network, blog or news feed:
- Why They Hate Free Speech
- The Free Market… Freedom, Naturally
- Freedom, Naturally: A Review of Morris and Linda Tannehill’s, The Market for Liberty
- The US Constitution Gone Wrong
- There’s No Such Thing As Too Much Liberty
About the Author
Dan Denning is the author of 2005's best-selling The Bull Hunter (John Wiley & Sons). He began his financial publishing career in 1997 and has covered financial markets form Baltimore, Paris, London and, beginning in 2005 Melbourne. He’s the editor of The Daily Reckoning Australia and the Publisher of Port Phillip Publishing.