| Monash home | Staff Intranet | Community Legal Services | Law Library | Contact us |
| Staff directory | A-Z index |
| Monash home | Staff Intranet | Community Legal Services | Law Library | Contact us |
| Staff directory | A-Z index |
|
|
Xavier Hildebrand, Xavier CollegeFreedom of speech has gone too far
Freedom of speech can never go far enough when placed within the broad framework of a democratic society where the rights of an individual are paramount. No society has ever failed from freedom of speech going too far. This said, freedom of speech is only one of a number of rights to which a human is entitled, and within certain contexts other freedoms must take precedence over the right to say what one believes. Regardless of whether the stated opinion is seen as too extreme, Australian society should personify the ideal of Voltaire: that though one may disapprove of what is actually said, one ought to defend the right to say it. Freedom of speech cannot go too far because it is a self regulating concept. Where better is this demonstrated than by the Mufti of Australia, Taj Din al-Hilali, who has tested the limits of freedom of speech by comparing exposed women to uncovered meat and calling for Australian Muslims to ‘serve in Iran’s “trenches” and not “kneel” to its enemies.’(1) Whilst one could censor such statements, the success of freedom of speech is that others can register their opposition to the messages of the Mufti through the media. In our society, it is acceptable for the Mufti to say what he likes, because other Australians equally have the right to call him ‘a drongo’ and ‘an embarrassment to Australian Muslims.’(2) If the Mufti’s comments do not impinge upon the rights of other Australians, he ought to be able to say what he likes. This concept should apply equally for people such as Alan Jones, whose opinions on race demographics in Australia could be seen as highly provocative, as in a society with free speech these extremes of opinion are balanced. Freedom of speech can be colourful, but not dangerous when the other side of a debate is equally represented. On the other hand, the advantage of using freedom of speech to state publicly what may be completely politically incorrect is that these opinions can resonate with people scared of damnation for holding opinions. Pauline Hanson serves as an example of a politician whose opinions were originally met with cries of horror from the establishment, only to become government policy when politicians realised that ‘Hansonism’ was something with which many Australians felt an affinity. Hanson’s once extreme views, such her denouncement of ‘privileges Aboriginals enjoy over other Australians’(3) have now become realities because these views reflected typical Australian thinking. Hansonism raised issues that were taboo and confronted the political correctness of the period. In a free society, it is this sort of freedom of speech that is vital in order to enfranchise ordinary citizens; to make them feel that their issues are important to government. It is vital that our society recognises that every opinion ought to be expressed, because instead of harbouring personal prejudices, opinions can be debated and judged at face value. Freedom of speech cannot go too far if it respects the other rights of man. Put simply, freedom of speech is neither more nor less important than any other rights of an individual. If a gentleman in the cinema was to stand up at a pivotal point in the film and started yelling profanities, he could well do so using his freedom of speech. But on the other hand, this behaviour is unacceptable because it impinges upon the other patrons’ rights: the right to expect decency in public speech and most importantly the right not to listen to him. Therefore this behaviour can be deemed unacceptable. Our society largely reflects this humanist idea of the individual being paramount, and as such the right of man to speak freely reflects individual human will, however, no right takes precedent over another. The dangers of freedom of speech going too far are addressed by recognising the basic rights of man. Finally, how could one judge that freedom of speech has gone too far? If one is to measure the success of a society by its ability to feed its people, allow all people to aspire to a better life and by entitling every person to a life with basic human dignity secured by human rights, Australian society is thriving. By encouraging different points of view and allowing all Australians to say what they believe, freedom of speech has being one of the cornerstones of Australia’s growth into a prosperous nation. Throughout history, societies which ignore the natural right of man to express what he believes have eventually failed. On one hand, communism, which was one of the great theoretical models of how life should be lived, failed because it forgot that human nature requires individualism. On the other hand, the ideas of ancient Athens are still reflected in our world today, some two and a half thousand years later, because of the strength of freedom of speech, where no idea was too extreme. How could we judge that freedom of speech has gone too far? Indeed, should freedom have its limits? Freedom cannot be quantified, and as a subjective and philosophical product of reason, cannot have limits to which everyone would agree. Freedom of speech, even in the extreme, is a cornerstone of the successful society in which we live. Freedom of speech is one of a number of equally important rights which secures the dignity and integrity of a human being. Like all human rights, it is a freedom which can never go far enough. Indeed, no society has ever failed from freedom of speech being too extreme. Australians value our democratic nation built upon the basis of liberty of expression. Freedom of speech can never go too far if it is appreciated within the context of a society where basic human rights are recognised. Bibliography: United Nations, (1948), Les Droits de l’Homme, available at http://www.un.org/french/aboutun/dudh.htm, (Available 12/4/2007) (In French) |
