| 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 |
|
|
Rebecca Kerley, Mill Park Secondary CollegeFreedom of speech has gone too far
The concept of human rights demands people be protected from forces that attempt to infringe on universal personal and civil liberties, to ensure not only the benefit of society in general but the preservation of equality. However, the concept of ‘freedom of speech’ in particular often becomes elusive in relation to intellectual diversity. For a socially and politically developed country such as Australia, freedom of speech revolves not only around the political implications it carries, but of tolerance and acceptance of differing opinions. The conflict that erupts from utilising open expression often begs the question to just how far should we be allowed to perpetuate our views, and to what end they should be pursued. Freedom of speech is characterised by both political right, and social morality. A pragmatic approach to freedom perpetuates the notion that open expression would only be repressed under an ‘unnatural’ or restrictive society, thus the difficulty in determining where any formal conditions should be drawn. The morals of society have shown themselves to change as the world continues to evolve, at the very least being a representation of the views of the majority. Thus, although freedom of speech allows minority views to be expressed, it is subject to the judgment of the moral codes of the contemporary world. Whilst universal views such as justice, equality, etc. have shown themselves to be ever-apparent, changing attitudes to previously taboo subjects such as homosexuality will often be the source of much contrasting deliberation, yet reflect how freedom of speech is dictated by morals. Groups opposed to gay rights will often be branded as operating under bigotry, as despite their equal right to free speech are in a state of non-compliance with the moral majority. Thus, although there will always be those who are seen as prejudiced, the evolution of society has instilled within it a moral code that distinguishes these views from the ‘norm’ Development of technology and communication over the past century has seen an increase in the flow and exchange of information. The last decade has been revolutionised by the internet, connecting millions to a threshold of popular opinion that reflects growing cultural trends. As with most variables of the media, the internet allows individuals to exercise their right to freedom of speech, yet inevitably faces the same problems. Opinion seen as outwardly derogatory or distasteful is allowed relative free exposure in this public forum, as it is virtually impossible for all viewpoints to be ‘policed’ in relation to what is seen as morally acceptable. White supremacy, anti-government/militia groups, anti-abortion groups, etc. are all provided with the capacity to both perpetuate and legitimise their views on one of the widest mediums available, recent studies suggesting internet hate sites had grown about 300% since 2001 (1). Inevitably, the constitutional rights to freedom of speech are not only being embraced, but exploited by those who know that, under normal circumstance, they would face much greater condemnation if their views were not characterised by utilising open expression or operating as a lawfully recognised group. Yet although the right to apply censorship is reserved by authorities, should such a time arise that an issue is judged to be of extreme disrepute (2), to restrict certain strains of freedom of speech inevitably blurs the line to when it is acceptable. For by what individual’s standards do we take as a basis if certain opinions were banned entirely? To preserve universal rights to free speech, it must come at the cost of one’s protection from alternative, perhaps even unwelcome views. Discriminatory views are, particularly in the current political climate, damaging weapons in regards to international and local communities. They perpetuate an ignorant narrow-mindedness reminiscent of a bygone era, and from what society has learnt in the past, should have no place in either social or political action. Yet opinions that are laced with aspects of these are protected as free speech, as long as they do not make the point of being outwardly discriminatory or intentionally degrading. Political individuals such as Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party have been labeled ‘xenophobic’ for their views in regard to immigration, both the media and public highlighting the inequity evident in their policies. Yet not only was Ms. Hanson able to run for representation, her views generated enough support for One Nation to take seat in the House of Representatives. Although the general moral codes of society dictate her views to be wrong, they did not prevent them from being popularised and used under the guise of appealing to ‘ordinary Australians’ (3). However, although her views initially won her support, Ms. Hanson appears to have become something of a cultural laughing stock as her political career loses the aura of novelty that once surrounded it. Whilst the point can be made that the propriety that surrounds freedom of speech allows views that may be deemed ‘wrong’ to be harnessed into lawfully acceptable forms, the moral conscience of society effectively phases out these views after they have been aired. In this respect, judging freedom of speech is not just based on the force of the majority, but of the impact our moral values have on society. Although the seemingly unrestrained opportunities of freedom of speech threaten to allow many to exploit the right in order to incite hatred or unrest, it is necessary to look past the technicalities of constitutional law and observe society in its entirety. The motivation to speak out is often characterised by moral obligation, and although the varying degrees of human temperament mean different views will appeal to different people, democratic society dictates that it is the overwhelming majority that are taken into direct account. If moral conscience truly is at the decision end of freedom of speech, then it will be the inherently good, as seen by an ethically evolved society, that will prevail. Although the system of freedom of speech isn’t perfect, it is a necessary tool to ensure equality of opportunity is maintained for all. Footnotes:
|
