| 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 |
|
|
Erin Stewart, Greensborough CollegeFreedom of speech has gone too far
“Freedom of speech” is fundamental to democratic society - it ensures that opinions and ideas are available to all members of the public and promises the questioning and commenting of the government. In plain terms, “freedom of speech” refers to the right to express both subjective and objective communication where the bounds of civil or criminal law do not act to polar this (i.e. expression should not impose on the right to privacy, or induce defamation, etc.). In Australia this mode of the exchange is denied in theory, despite the fact that the practicality of freedom of speech exists. Freedom of speech can be seen as problematic within the media where it has provoked incidents of violence and social disturbance through destructive attitudes. However, it is with freedom of speech that we, as a society, can question the negative elements of the community, understand discrimination and reject what is harmful and false through debate and analysis. Also, the inhibition of speech is pointless and damaging as freedom of speech protects democracy and development within society. Thus, freedom of speech needs to be an inalienable right for the benefit of the Australian people - it is not possible for it to go “too far”. Contrary to populist belief, “freedom of speech” is not supported by The Australian Constitution.(1) However, this “glaring omission”(2) does not necessarily mean that the population cannot talk freely. In Victoria for example, “freedom of expression” is protected under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. In this, “people have the right to freedom of expression which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas except when lawful restrictions are reasonably necessary to respect the rights and reputation of others or for the protection of national security, public order, public health and public morality.”(3) Also, in 1948, the UN affirmed the right for free speech: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.”(4) It is also significant to note that Australia has what is known as an “implied freedom of speech”. While freedom of speech is not overtly articulated in the Constitution, the High court ruled that “some speech, at least, must logically be protected because the free flow of information and ideas is essential for effective democracy.”(5) Still, the fact remains that the extent to which freedom of speech is protected in Australia is restricted because “implied freedom of speech” does not apply to things such as artistic expression and activism.(6) However, whilst freedom of speech in Australia is constitutionally limited, people generally have the opportunity to share their ideas and opinions without fear of being persecuted by a governing agency. Therefore, while freedom of speech may not be an inalienable right for all Australian citizens, the ill-effects of corrupt governments and arbitrary censorship are not suffered, meaning that the Australian democracy realistically makes allowance for freedom of speech. Where freedom of speech offers its negative side, is in a few instances in the media. For example, in the weeks leading to the Cronulla riots, talk-back radio host, Alan Jones, allowed and encouraged racist views on air and promoted the idea that people take action against - as he phrased it - “Middle-Eastern grubs” in an unlawful manner.(7) This spread and encouragement of racist views may have exacerbated the impact of and involvement in the Cronulla riots. It would have also been insulting to people of Middle-Eastern descent to hear such detrimental prejudice. Also recently, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali likened women to “meat”, suggesting that rape victims were partially responsible for the crime due to their chosen attire(8). This is damaging to public perceptions of Islam, given his authority and in light of recent racial tension; it was damaging to women, particularly those affected by rape; and it perpetuated a harmful idea that the act of rape can be justified, which is not at all appropriate. This shows that freedom of speech occasionally has a shot-term negative impact. However, attributable to freedom of speech, awareness that these damaging views and values exist in society means they can be suitably addressed as issues facing the community. With freedom of speech, we are perfectly able to know and reject intolerant views and articulate why the entire community ought to reject those views also. This means that there is an active examination of society’s prejudices as opposed to such opinions being hidden, causing considerably more social unease. If damaging views remain unknown, they cannot be rectified to create a better, progressively more compassionate community. “Only a free press can guarantee that there is an abundant supply of facts, thus cultivating the habit of correcting opinions…”(9) This demonstrates that while the media may depict harmful opinions that could be seen as going “too far”, it is also an outlet for which such opinions can be made aware of, challenged and where new understandings can be formed. Thus, the freedom of speech does not go “too far”, because when offence is made, it can be scrutinised. Inhibiting freedom of speech is also unnecessary. Not allowing freedom of speech for the mere fact that it may sometimes be damaging or offensive, is an essentially flawed stance as one could say anything beyond the banal that could surely be badly received by someone. It is therefore fortunate that for each human mind able to produce an argument of offence, there is a mind equally adept at rejecting that argument. Because humans do develop the ability to think critically and argue there is no real need to protect them through the denial of freedom of speech. “…Individuals [have] reason and, hence, the capacity to read and to choose, according to the dictates of conscience, between [right and wrong].”(10) Censorship is unnecessary because people in general have the faculty to discern the arguments at hand and articulate their own. As one reaches a certain level of intellectual proficiency, they begin to critically think about the topics of discussion in media outlets and to disagree with or question ‘information’ being presented. It should also be noted that censors, as human beings, have no power against their own bias. That is, while they restrict language they actively impose the same level of subjectivity on audiences as the original author. Further, people will transgress censorship. For example, it is evident that censored books through history have tended to be the most popular. Also, ideas – particularly in contemporary context – are highly accessible. People can use technology to communicate without censorship, as can personal conversations go uninhibited. This shows that the restriction of freedom of speech is a pointless affair: people do not need ‘protection’; the mode of restriction is defective; and restrictions will be overcome. Aside from being pointless, the inhibition of communication is socially dangerous and undesirable. Differing opinions and perspectives on matters leads to a better understanding of the world and stops a society from being intellectually vapid. Arguments in essence, underpin what is important for society: they are a catalyst for social progression; they are ideas; they denote the search for ‘truth’ where ‘truth’ may not be wholly evident; and when issues are freely discussed, solutions are born. Furthermore, the media’s constant questioning of the government is naturally ideal. A free press allows us to ensure that politicians are acting to represent the people. It is common awareness that the government will manipulate to their own ends unless the public is scrupulous in political judgement via free speech. If the views of society cannot be expressed, by definition that society is totalitarian. There cannot logically be a democracy - as illustrated by the High Court’s aforementioned verdict - without freedom of speech. Therefore, so long as the people want to live in a democracy where positive social change is expected to happen, it is impossible for freedom of speech to go “too far”. It is not possible for an intelligent, democratic nation to go without freedom of speech. Therefore, instead of questioning whether or not it has gone “too far”, perhaps Australia should form a Bill of Rights or initiate Constitutional change which protects the essence of democracy: freedom of speech. It may not be a practical necessity as Australians can speak and write freely without grave ramifications. Rather, such an action would be emblematic, to denote an appreciation of what freedom of speech brings to a nation. In instances where free speech may be seen as going “too far” and being offensive, it really acts to bring important issues into the light of discussion, debate and the correction of the incorrect. Ultimately, freedom of speech brings social progression, increased compassion and the continuation of democracy.
Jordan, Roy. Free Speech and the Constitution: <http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/RN/2001-02/02rn42.htm>, 2002. Keane, John. The Media and Democracy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 1991. Kerbaj, Richard. “Muslim leader blames women for sex attacks”. The Australian. Melbourne, 2006. Schauer, Fredrick. Free speech: a philosophical enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Simpson, Amelia. The limited protection given to free speech. The Australian National University, 2005. Spry, ICF. “The Totalitarian effect of Anti-free speech legislation.” National Observer. Issue 64, 2005. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. United Nations, 1966. Jones and Cronulla. Media Watch: <http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1574155.htm>, 2006. The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. Victoria, 2005. Footnotes: |
