The refusal of some social media to allow Donald Trump a platform to spread lies and incite violence is too little too late. Expressions of unease by senior Coalition figures about some dubious threat to free speech are no more than attempts to distract from the Government’s chaotic policies.
It is always difficult to appreciate the context of politicians’ comments to mainstream media. Media report statements as though they arose in isolation. Such is the case with the comments about free speech by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Deputy Liberal Leader. It is highly likely that they were asked to react to posturing by a Coalition backbencher about the treatment of his hero, the outgoing US president. Rather than condemn the right wing MP’s ravings, they both raised the issue of free speech.
There is no absolute right to freedom of speech. The right is always constrained in some way. As for the Australian context, it is only a couple of decades ago that a limited aspect of free speech was tested in the judicial system. The High Court ruled that the Constitution does provide an implied freedom of political speech during elections. There was no discovery of any general right.
Australian Human Rights legislation and the Human Rights Commission oversee basic rights. They acknowledge that speech is constrained. Hate speech for example, is unacceptable whether aimed at individuals or groups. Members of the Government should be careful about encouraging a misleading view of ‘free speech’ redolent of slogans pedalled overseas.
It is perhaps surprising that Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has lent his voice to this nonsense. He has in the past been sensitive to the misrepresentation of Jewish Australians. It is interesting to contrast his superficial comment with the more considered opinion of former California Governor Arnie Schwarzenegger who noted the similarity between the riots in Washington and ‘crystal night’ during the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1930s. Schwarzenegger expressed concern about the way that misinformation has been spread by potential dictators in both cases.
Perhaps it is less surprising that Michael McCormack thought Trump has been treated poorly. He also, it seems, likened the Black Lives Matter protests to the riots in Washington. Earlier he had been called out by Labor’s Kristina Keneally on national television for creating ‘alternative facts’ about the local protests. He stated that the demonstrations had spread the Covid virus and caused Melbourne’s serious mid-year lockdown. He had no evidence for this claim. Indeed, this was a clear example of Australian paranoia appealing to the most ignorant in society.
Probably the best explanation for the comments of both the Treasurer and the Acting Prime Minister is that they wanted to divert attention from the Government’s chaos by sending critics after a red herring. There are many issues the Government would prefer we did not discuss. The list is lengthy but includes: Robo-debt, crises in aged care and disability policy, sports rorts, use of false documents against Sydney’s Lord Mayor, wasting of taxpayers’ money on land purchases and assignment of contracts without tender, failure of leadership on climate change, species extinction and environmental audits.
Public calls for establishment of a federal corruption watchdog have never been louder. Government delays in responding to reports have never been longer. The work of investigative journalists has never been more difficult as information is refused and threats are made. It is almost as though the Coalition finds governing too difficult and has no idea what is involved in democratic responsibility and accountability.
In this political context it is understandable should leading Coalition figures look for a convoluted issue to distract government critics. Perhaps it is dangerous to ignore their ravings given that they will encourage the racists and bigots to enjoy some victim status. We do not need however, to start a meaningless and tiring shouting match about myths with people who will not even engage sincerely in the process. McCormack and Frydenberg have been irresponsible and less than honest, but that is never surprising these days among Coalition politicians.
Dr Tony Smith is a former political science academic with interests in elections, parliament and political ethics.
Comments
6 responses to “The Government championing free speech is a red herring”
Tony, please tell me how the Coalition could have been prevented from winning the Central Queensland and the North-East Tasmanian seats. Thanks to those wins, Friedenberg and McCormack can now say anything they like – and ignore the likes of you and me.
We are governed by a Trump rump. The last true believers in power in the world. These rats cant even swim from a sinking ship.
What I find is that usually people want free speech for themselves, and try and shut down free speech for others… see for example the government on the ABC, or people who say things they don’t like on their facebook pages.
For years they have argued that its perfectly ok for private companies to censor protest and left wing speech, because they were private, and now suddenly they think this is unfair…
Thank you, Dr Smith (from a fellow nee Smith).
I find – as a constituent of Josh Frydenberg’s electorate – his arguments less than compelling.
Sir,
Thank you for contributing a timely essay on freedom of speech. No one who believes in a democratic system is in doubt that free speech is an inalienable part of our democracy. For this I cite Robert Hargreaves in his excellent book called “The First Freedom: A History of Free Speech” published in 2002.
“For a sovereign electorate to choose between rival political parties, it must have an unimpeded supply of information on which to base that choice. Because people cannot intelligently cast their votes without access to the relevant arguments, to deny them access to those arguments is as serious as an infringement of their democratic rights as denying them the vote. Furthermore, because a democracy’s leaders are answerable to the people, free speech is needed to keep them under constant critical scrutiny” (p. 304).
However, what has often been overlooked in eulogising freedom of expression is that this freedom can be easily abused because of differences in the relationships of power. The freedom to express does not always end in the ability to be heard. The equity equation is always skewed in favour of the powerful, the leaders and political elites, especially when they have the backing of the mainstream media. This worsens when the powerful resorts to the peddling of misinformation, spin, or downright lies for political advantage. The political leaders often refuse to censure their minions for spreading misinformation on the excuse that they have the right to free speech. The same excuse is used when the MSM publish articles that unfairly condemns foreign governments with which our country has differences on the excuse that the government has no control over the freedom of expression of the media. This aggravates the geopolitical conflict because the government no longer has adequate control over the nation to nation communication. The distorted truth peddled affects the citizenry of both the local and foreign country. The least that a leader could do is to point out publicly that the claims or views of the political minions or biased media are not verified or verifiable, untrue, or subjective. Allowing unfettered freedom to use the power given them by the system e.g. saying that Donald Trump won the US election and that he was indeed cheated of his victory is really harming the credibility of the government. When truth or evidence in a democratic system is replaced by conspiracy theories, we end up losing our democracy.
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
HEAR! HEAR!