Commentary
Free speech is a precious thing. It deserves protection. It needs to be cherished.
Free speech allows for new, even radical ideas to be considered. Without free speech, which is an expression of free thought, much of what is enjoyed and understood today would be denied us.
In debates, the truth will ultimately win out, and the wrong and false will be exposed while abuse of all sorts will be condemned. In the middle of all this, carefully drafted defamation laws protect us all and are rightly seen as a necessary limit on free speech.
But when governments and authorities start telling their people how they intend to legislate, regulate, and punish certain types of communication we should all be concerned.
The question in Australia’s body politic today is whether the power to stop “hate” speech and penalise “misinformation” should exist.
Australia’s e-Safety commissioner is threatening Twitter with $700,000 daily fines if it doesn’t deal with “hate” speech. At the same time, Australia’s government is contemplating new laws to empower another authority to issue millions more in fines to deal with “misinformation.”
The same overreach by authorities plays out again and again.
Historically the Christians faced persecution under the Romans as they do today in the communist dictatorship of China along with Muslims and Falun Gong practitioners. The Chinese authorities would have no hesitation in asserting that the messages of religion are “misinformation.”
Star rugby player Israel Folau had his contract cancelled for repeating a Bible verse on social media.
It appears people who don’t believe in Hell or Heaven, let alone the Bible, took umbrage at what he said. Why should they care? The accusation was deemed “hate” speech and saw him sacked.
The fact those attacking Folau for his beliefs may have been engaged in similar activity about his beliefs and religion was completely ignored. Are these matters not best resolved in the court of public opinion with individuals making up their own minds, rather than through arbitrary decisions?
One Person’s Free Speech is Another’s ‘Hate’
When we have authorities like Julie Inman Grant, the e-Safety commissioner, giving Twitter 28 days to respond to a request to show what they are doing to keep Australia safe from online “hate” it is time to ask who is controlling the controller.
It is understood a similar notice was issued in August last year.
No one likes ugliness or hateful expression in any forum. But is one person’s hate another’s honest and deep-felt conviction? When does robust discussion turn into “hate”? Is being called a “denier” hateful?
Referring to a particular characteristic of a person might be so taken by one person and laughed off by another.
In the end, Twitter may have to err on the side of caution and dance to the commissioner’s tune—restricting freedom of expression to avoid financially ruinous fines.
Yet the owner of Twitter, Elon Musk, is self-described as a free speech absolutist.
Further, if people want to engage in the social media sewer can we simply say they do so at their own peril?
If hurtful words can be uttered on the street, should they be denied expression on social media?
Do we need a regulatory framework about which lawyers will dine for years to come while social media companies continue restricting communication?
What’s More Concerning: Misinformation or Government Overreach?
If this latest “warning” from Australia’s e-Safety commissioner isn’t concerning enough, we have the federal government wanting to tackle online “misinformation,” defined as unintentionally false, misleading, or deceptive content.
Today’s falsehood may become tomorrow’s truth as some people found out with the shape of the Earth. Today’s dogma may well turn out to be tomorrow’s error.
It is only free speech that can expose the error of a particular dogma.
Had the powers suggested been around during COVID-19, one wonders how many fines would’ve been issued in circumstances where more sophisticated considerations have now been verified through the effluxion of time.
Would people questioning the climate alarmists be adjudicated as peddling misinformation?
These are the powers that governments with an authoritarian streak weaponise to the detriment of their people.
The preemptive assertion of Communications Minister Michelle Rowlands that the legislation is not intended to stifle free speech but to keep Australians safe is surely an acknowledgment that it does stifle free speech.
What Australians need to be protected from is not a few nutbags on social media peddling what most would consider dubious and highly ugly material, but from a government that in the name of protecting the people, is stripping away the fundamental human right to free speech.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
