IN the wake of the New Zealand tragedy, this week we have witnessed the controversy over David Koch and Derryn Hinch's interview with Pauline Hanson. We are hearing a lot of rhetoric about "free speech".
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Part of living in a liberal democracy and adhering to our much-cherished concept of the rule of law is our closely held value of our right to freedom of speech - or our privilege to express ourselves without fear of imprisonment or recrimination.
Unlike the Constitution of the USA, the Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression.
In the US, First Amendment protections are there, but it is important to understand that by no means is it a free for all.
Among many other examples, US courts have found that freedom of speech does not include the right to incite actions that would harm others or to make or distribute obscene materials.
OTHER RECENT OPINION PIECES IN THE WESTERN ADVOCATE:
In Australia, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensable part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution.
In addition, we have laws that curtail "free speech" - for example, section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 which makes it illegal to commit an act that is reasonably likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" someone or a group of people because of their race, colour or ethnicity.
In each of the US and Australia and many other countries, free speech brings with it responsibility as well as freedom to express ourselves. Without fetter on the right of free speech, the fabric and smooth running of society would be eroded and communities would not be safe.
In May 2017, Professor Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, New York (one of the most culturally diverse universities among its peer institutions), gave an address which made headlines because it emphasised the importance of global free speech to continued social progress.
Professor Bollinger quoted the famous words of Justice Brandeis in the 1927 case of Whitney v. California, one of the many cases involving "aggravated fears of subversive threats from abroad" and then people behaving badly, a state of mind that is much exercised by One Nation and its followers.
"It is the function of (free) speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears," Justice Brandeis said. Because of those irrational fears, "men feared witches," Brandeis continued, "and burned women."
In order to "free men from the bondage of irrational fears", it is critical to engage with the seemingly intolerant and to hear their point of view.
To not engage with the proponents of intolerance results in them coming back, rearing their ugly heads again and again until they are listened to (which is reasonable, let's admit it), as we have witnessed in the case of the indomitable Senator Hanson.
Although it is well documented that One Nation and Pauline Hanson spread fear and ignorance, including anti-Muslim rhetoric, and in so doing increase the ratings of television channels (why else would she have a weekly fixture on Sunrise), the remedy starts with engagement - not with attempting to shut her down or dismiss her party's views, abhorrent as they may be to the many.
What's necessary, we learn from Professor Bollinger, is to make our own contribution to engaging in genuine public discourse in a way that reflects the deeper values of a tolerant and educated mind.
Just as we now say that every nation has a Responsibility to Protect its citizens, so beautifully actioned by Jacinda Ardern last weekend, the principle of free speech says you have a Responsibility to Participate, to protect this core value of our society by exhibiting the qualities of mind and attitude that make the whole enterprise sustainable, to keep our democracy healthy, and safe.
