There is a lesson for Australia in the sad demise of the Trump Presidency, and that is the speed with which falsehoods can quickly escalate to undermine faith in the political process. The capture by Trump of much of the Republican Party is a warning for all liberal democratic societies about the fragility of our political systems.
When he was asked about Liberal MP Craig Kelly’s repetition of QAnon conspiracy theories Scott Morrison defended Kelly’s right to freedom of speech. In this, he was echoing much of the current right, who like to assert that our traditional rights are being eroded by woke cancel culture from the left.
But no freedom can exist without responsibility, and that is the responsibility to base opinion upon accessible facts. Imagine the outcry were a leftwing MP to argue that the Morrison government was illegally elected through the massive interference of Clive Palmer and the Murdoch press.
To his credit Victorian state Liberal David Davis has called into question similar comments from a fellow state politician. As far as I know, none of his federal counterparts has spoken out on the subject.
The events of the last week in Washington are a reminder of how wild and unsubstantiated claims can corrode faith in the political system to the point where there is no common ground for dialogue. If a Liberal Party stands for anything it need stand for preserving the foundations of liberal democratic government.
Some on the right refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of what occurred. “Why?” writes Spectator editor Brendan O’Neill in last weekend’s Australian: “If it weren’t for the terrible tragedy that subsequently unfolded—five people have now died in the melee—one could be forgiven for thinking this was a badly timed visit to the Capitol…”
O’Neill is right in claiming the invasion of the buildings was not itself an attempted coup, but this ignores the fact that the event was in support of a number of Republican representatives who were attempting just that in their bid to overturn the results of the November elections.
If O’Neill doubts this, maybe he should reflect on the comments of Vice President Mike Pence and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who were very clear that the attempt was a direct attempt to subvert the basic governmental structures of the United States. Moreover, this was an attempt fostered and encouraged by the sitting President, reminiscent of those dictators who seek life tenure for themselves.
Oddly, many of the Republicans who sought to challenge the elections were themselves elected by the same system they now claimed was rigged. That they ignored the unanimous views of state officials and federal judges, many Trump appointees, suggests a degree of cynicism or opportunism that makes any claims to equivalence with Democratic unease at Trump’s victory in 2016 absurd.
O’Neill actually compares the current situation to “conspiracy theories about Russia stealing the 2016 election”, ignoring the fact that Hillary Clinton conceded and attended Trump’s Inauguration. There is no suggestion that she, or any other Democrat, exerted Mafia-style pressure on state officials to alter the results, as we know Trump did in the case of Georgia.
Meanwhile, in the same issue of The Australian, Greg Sheridan, who never saw a leader he didn’t grovel to, condemns Trump’s attempts to overturn the results, while arguing that: “It was perfectly reasonable on balance to vote for Trump”. Given that Trump was on record as unwilling to accept any result where he lost this shows a remarkable ability to ignore what was unfortunately clear to many others during the election campaign.
[That Sheridan can also pass over the extraordinary American death toll from COVID, at least some of which is due to Trump’s constant refusal to support health advice, is yet another indication of the priorities of the right.]
Trump’s entire term in office has rested upon appeals to racial antagonisms at home and cosiness with dictators abroad. Those politicians who spout rhetoric about “the free world” might reflect on the hollowness of this claim when viewed against the dismal image of Trump’s America, its abject failures to control COVID and its intentional cruelty to asylum seekers [although in the latter case Australia can hardly claim to have behaved any better].
Perhaps most significant is Trump’s clear disregard for the basic assumptions of democratic governance and the rule of law, which led directly—and predictably—to his behaviour since November. Like autocrats such as Erdogan, Maduro and Orban, the President, supported by most of his party, consistently sought to undermine the very system that had allowed him to win power in the first place.
If MPs wish to argue that election results should be overturned at the whim of autocrats this is their right, but it is difficult to see how they can retain membership of a political party which claims to uphold liberal democratic values. This is not an issue of free speech.
Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that freedom of speech does not give one the right to call fire in a crowded room. Equally freedom of speech does not mean the right to deliberately urge mob violence aimed at undermining the basic institutions of government through deliberate falsehoods. Prime Minister Morrison needs to make clear that his government has no room for people who cannot accept this basic premise.
Dennis Altman, a Professorial Fellow in Human Security at LaTrobe University, is the author of 14 books, since Homosexual: Oppression & Liberation was first published in 1972.
In 2006, The Bulletin listed Dennis Altman as one of the 100 most influential Australians ever, and he was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in 2008. He has been president of the AIDS Society of Asia and the Pacific, a member of the Governing Council of the International AIDS Society and the Board of Oxfam Australia. His most recent books are Queer Wars [with Jon Symons], Unrequited Love: Diary of an Accidental Activist, and God Save the Queen.
Comments
11 responses to “Supporting a coup is not ‘free speech’”
Dennis, two points.
1.” If a Liberal Party stands for anything it need stand for preserving the foundations of liberal democratic government.”
Er – no. The Liberal and National Parties “stand for” one thing only – the retention of Governmental power. And the presently deeply schizophrenic Labor Party cannot yet do any better.
2. “Free speech” is indeed circumscribed. I have written to ‘Parliamentary Friends of Making Social Media Safe’ urging them to adopt, as their core policy provision, the criterion (based on s.18c. of the Racial Discrimination Act) that if “the act [of post or posted comment] is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to deceive, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people”, it should not be posted on social media.
This is a radical and novel – and enforceable – proposition. (Laurie, in light of your first sentence – please note!)
One small correction to an article that I think generally hits the nail on the head: Brendan O’Neill, though he often writes for the Spectator, is editor of Spiked.
There are longstanding and well-tested laws governing what we can and cannot say in public and these should also apply in the online world. Better to proscribe certain language than have private organisations start arbitrarily banning people from social media. Allowing private organisations to ban people from public communications platforms is potentially an insidious form of bullying. Just because you disagree with what someone says that’s not a justification for attacking their right to free speech – unless they are breaking those laws.
So the “law” forbids a certain type of speech. A person disobeys that law and uses the leverage of social media for the purpose. By its nature, that technology results in further harm than would be the case if the technology did not exist. Do the gatekeepers of the technology just stand down and wait for the processes of the law to grind on?
The situation is further complicated because laws about speech are dealt with both criminally and civilly.
But they’re not actually ‘public communications platforms’ are they, Laurie?
Just because something like Facebook or Twitter is very widely used does not make it public. Nor even does the argument that maybe they SHOULD be public make it so. They remain privately owned and managed platforms – owned and managed by individuals and corporations who are very clearly enthusiastic subscribers to the neo-liberal axiom that they are first and foremost (in fact, pretty much solely) answerable to their shareholders and their entire purpose is to earn a profit.
Of course, in pursuit of that singular goal, they appreciate that they need to pay some attention to their social license to operate – particularly as their very popularity has led to increasing attention from many of the world’s parliaments – so they have begun to respond to frequently and widely voiced concerns that their simplistic attachment to non censorship has led to them becoming conduits for extremism and genuinely dangerous conspiracy theories by dipping their toes in the water of issuing content warnings and even suspending or cancelling the accounts of serial offenders.
So nobody is ‘allowing’ anything that normal corporate law does not already allow and calling this ‘potentially an insidious form of bullying’ is simply silly.
But it is worth noting that it is precisely those well-established social and legal norms about limits to freedom of speech to which the privately-owned platforms are responding and, broadly, using as templates to guide their decisions.
“Social” media platforms are by their very nature public. Anyone who signs up can access them. Earlier incarnations like Foxtel that charge for access are still required to observe the laws of defamation, etc.
And, the exclusion of a person from a group is one of the fundamental elements of bullying. Hence my comment.
Nonsense. They are no more public than a shopping mall, which anyone can enter, provided they follow some rules. Equally, of course, normal national laws apply within these private spaces as well as the private rules.
It is not the charging of an entry fee that makes a place (whether physical or virtual) public or private – it is the ownership of that place.
Just as private security guards have rights (within the wider national and state/territory laws) to remove an unwanted customer from a shopping mall, social media corporations have similar rights to refuse access for breaches of their own self-proclaimed rules. Is it ‘bullying’ if security removes an offensive drunk from the mall?
As I noted, the ubiquity of social media platforms argues that they may well require some greater level of government-mandated control, ranging from some kind of obligation to enforce certain rules (beyond existing, minimal legal obligations) through even to actual nationalisation. But, until this happens, philosophical niceties like your first sentence are simply wishful thinking.
I generally find it pointless responding to anyone who begins their discourse with the word “nonsense”.
I generally find it pointless responding to anyone who begins their discourse with the word “nonsense”.
Then why did you repond?
Well put, Laurie. The Twitter story has been surpassed by what was done to Parler. Glenn Greenwald is covering this story. Dennis, sadly is illustrating Glenn’s point: “The dominant strain of American liberalism is not economic socialism but political authoritarianism.” It is time for trust-busting legislation but who will introduce it?