Blog

(The virtues and vices of freedom of speech)

We’re proud to live in a country that practices free speech. We agree that free speech is the hallmark of a functioning democracy ….and we readily decry societies and countries that deny their citizens this fundamental right.

We tend to forget – if you’ve ever thought about it at all – this ‘right’ is a relatively new one in human history. For eons and eons the vast majority of ordinary people in multitudes of civilisations and societies never dreamt of having any such right.

They lived short lives at bare subsistence levels under hierarchies that dictated what they could and couldn’t say or do….or even think.

Sometimes these hierarchies were built around tribal and animistic belief systems based on the assumed dictates of ‘nature’. Some were of a ‘magic’ kind involving shamanistic like psychology. More commonly, religions subjected ordinary people to the demands of various (Gods or a God).

They all, in very different ways set the rules of life, punished bad behaviour (both in this world and in the hereafter) and rewarded good behaviour (usually in the next).

Such rituals varied from human sacrifice, cannibalism, the burning of heretics, the sanctification of martyrs, the putting down of witches as well the provision of education, health and poor relief, the selling of indulgences – and the propagation of the idea that our god was the superior god, the only true god.

Remember, even though Nietzsche announced “God is dead” (in 1882) billions of people still believe their God always knows their innermost thoughts even when they’re alone – and, in spite of our devious attempts to hide them. A higher force is always judging us.

Sometimes hierarchies included or were based on more earthly constructs cultural, racial, class, land ownership and/or economic….usually a combination of all of the above; the variations were profuse over the course of time. They encompassed practices as diverse as slavery, occupational constraints (eg. the Untouchables in India), the under- education of women virtually everywhere, restrictions on property rights…. you can easily extend this list yourself given there’s no shortage of examples of how remnants of such systems still operate in today’s world.

Sometimes hierarchies were based on, or shorn up by, ideologies such as The Divine Right of Kings, a neat and convenient rationalisation that a King’s authority came directly from God and, therefore, could not be challenged by the political organisations or mere mortals.

The Pope’s claim to infallibility on matters of faith provided a similar power-tool that was effectively wielded for centuries to keep the laity in place. Before that the Pharos of Egypt were believed to be divine, as were the Sapa Inca of South America.

The need to be led (and protected) by someone, or something, more powerful than oneself is a near universal one. We seek to belong to some collective that gives our life meaning and purpose, to allay the pains and fears of life.

Usually a mixture of control – elements (religious, political, economic) were blended into idiosyncratic approaches that suited various elites’ objective of keeping their masses in their place. If their system failed, force would be resorted to restore order. If force failed, revolution sometimes followed for a short period before a new hierarchy took the old one’s place. 

FROM THE DEVINE TO THE SECULAR

Marx called religion ‘the opiate of the masses’ for good reasons. Religion offers many benefits. It provides meaning to life. It provides rules that enable its followers to be rewarded for their good behaviour. And it takes the edge off anxiety and suffering.

In times when life was ‘poor, nasty, brutish and short’ (Hobbes 1650) the promise of a better life after death held out (and still holds) great appeal. So too does the comforting reassurance that the many setbacks and hardships suffered in life are ‘God’s will’, part of an unknowable divine plan that, somehow, is going to lead to your ‘salvation’ and a good afterlife.

As human populations multiplied, the fruits of new sciences and technologies grew over time – via agricultural, knowledge, industrial and digital revolutions – to raise standards of living way beyond subsistence levels.

As that happened human leadership moved away from the religious toward the secular and economic, to where we stand today.

Because we live in a wealthy, consumer society that focuses on individual rights we easily forget just how new and atypical our democracy is.

It should still come as a shock to recall that as late as 1952 the UK wartime hero (the man who helped break the German’s Enigma code at Bletchley Park, the man who pushed Britain into the lead in computer development) was found guilty of gross indecency (homosexuality) in a British Court and sentenced to imprisonment or probation after chemical castration. He chose castration. Alan Turing committed suicide two years later. He was 42 years old.

It pays to remember that women in the UK didn’t get the vote until 1928. Women in New Zealand (the first in any self-governing country) did so in 1893. That’s only a 132 years ago, a mere ‘blip’ in evolutionary time.

Australia first got old age pensions in 1908.This was the first step in building a welfare safety net.But free national health care didn’t come until 1984; parental leave had to wait until 2010 – and same sex marriage until 2017. In all these cases Australia was up there with the trendsetters. Most of the world still lags behind us in providing such entitlements and rights including the right to free speech. Indeed, the world is going the other way in terms of free speech.

Many of those in power regard free speech as a threat to their power….or an unnecessary luxury.

WHY DO WE DEMAND THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH?

Some of us have never asked this question. They assume that in our democracy everybody is equal because everyone in Australia not only has the right to vote, they have to vote or suffer a penalty. Compulsory voting ensures one adult, one vote. That (we say) is equality.

Most carry over the same logic when expressing their opinion on any subject they choose. They believe all opinions are of equal weight in the same way votes are. While it’s true, everyone has the right to have an opinion, it doesn’t follow all opinions are equal nor that anybody has a right to express their opinion in any way or ways they like.

ARE ALL OPINIONS EQUAL?

Let’s first look at the proposition that all opinions are equal.

You might opine (as many do) that the murderous and heinous Oct 7 2023 surprise attack on Israeli civilians on a Sunday afternoon entitles Israel to protect its citizens until the threat of such attacks is removed; that the barbarity of the attack, the rapes, murders of children and the defenceless, and the taking and abuse of hostages justifies the use of any and all means necessary to achieve the security of Israel.

This need to expunge terrorist organisations, the argument continues, justifies killing tens of thousands of civilians as collateral damage and the destruction of most of their homes, hospitals, schools, churches and food production.

If necessary, the need to defend Israel justifies the dispossession of Gazans and West Bank peoples of their land and right to self-determination.

You’ve heard many versions of this argument, together with reassurances that the IDF, being the most ethical of military forces in the world, will minimise the killing of civilians.

You’ve also heard the horrors of the Holocaust used to justify the carving out of a homeland where all Jews will be welcomed and guaranteed safety, so jews never suffer such horror again. You’ll hear that ambition is further justified by the Old Testament (Genesis) which asserts God gave Abraham this land (between the Nile and Euphrates) to his Chosen People.

It is a pretty strong defence of Israel’s behaviour in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran and Qatar….and many cannot see beyond it.

But there is another side to this story. It goes something like this.

Once upon a time long ago Jews and Arabs of many kinds lived in the Holy Land. By the end of WW1 local Jews were a small minority in Palestine (around 60,000 in a population of 700,000). The vast majority were Arabs-Muslims (and some Christians).

The rise of antisemitism on the Continent in the 1930s encouraged migration from Europe. The consequent need for more and more land set Jews in conflict with both the British (the mandatory authority until 1948) and resident Arabs. Paramilitary tactics were used to advance the Jewish cause. Both Irgun and the Stern Gang were classified as terrorist organisations before the state of Israel came into being.

After the Holocaust of WW2, the UN agreed to the creation of a Jewish homeland. Although still a minority in numbers, the self-proclaimed Jewish state claimed just under 60% of Palestine. The more numerous Arabs were awarded a smaller area that was split into two parts (Gaza and what we now call the West Bank) that were’nt physically connected to each other.

Before matters could progress the first Arab War broke out in 1948. Surrounding Arab nations (Egypt, Lebanon, Iran and Syria) attacked Israel, but lost. Israel asserted its sovereignty. An Arab-Palestinian state, however, never came to fruition. Around 750,000 Palestinians left their homes in the Hakbar (the catastrophe). By then held about 75% of Palestine.

Many wars followed. Israel was always the winner. The net result was that Israel expanded its territory, often against injunctions from the UN.

By 2023 Israel controlled Arabs moving into and out of Israel and the movement of Palestinians between Gaza and the West Bank. Arabs within Israel lived as an underclass. The infrastructure of Gaza (banking, water, fuel and trade) was effectively under Israel’s control; illegal Jewish settlement of the West Bank was encouraged by the Israeli government by providing financial incentives and IDF support to settlers.

Neither Gazans or West Bank Palestinians had the military or political resources to resist a powerful nation like Israel on a gentleman’s battlefield where opposing forces stand toe to toe before charging each other.

Palestinians had no option but to resort to guerrilla warfare (which dominant powers often call terrorism) to try and stop the never ending dispossession from their land and the denigration of their culture and religion.

That’s why Oct 7 happened. A painful, long-standing boil finally burst in a violent eruption.

Surely (this argument, this opinion continues) Palestinians have every right to use any means at their disposal to resist their annihilation, to use the very same rationale Israel uses to justify its own violent aggression? Surely Palestinians have the same right to live their lives, their way in peace – just as Israeli’s insist they do?

Or do Israelis believe their rights trump the rights of others? When is enough enough?

The General Assembly of the UN has answered that question. The Secretary General has answered that question. International Courts have answered that question. Mass demonstrations around the free world likewise. The ICC has branded Netanyahu a war criminal and Israel, the state, condemned for committing genocide. That’s surely when enough is more than enough.

And yet Israel continues to destroy a people it has already crippled, oblivious to the fact that is on the path to becoming an international pariah state. 

YOU DECIDE

Here are two very different opinions that have been widely advanced in Australia because we believe in free speech. Are they of equal weight?

While both are plausible, which seems the more reasoned, the less biased? Which interpretation is the more balanced? Which has the ring of truth about it?.…and most important of all, what are the action implications of accepting one opinion over another with respect to supporting or opposing each sides’ behaviour?

Before reading these two very different opinions what was your opinion on this war?

Has your opinion changed even a little as a result of listening (by way of reading) to both the above interpretations?

If so, you can easily see why it’s rather silly to believe that all opinions should or do carry equal weight.

Freedom of speech guarantees everyone and anyone can publicly express their opinions on any subject they’re interested in. But expressing an opinion is but the first step in the process of finding common ground with others through dialogue and interaction. 

If you throw your opinion into the ring and then walk away thinking ‘that’s it’, they (meaning others) ‘can lump it or leave it’ you misunderstand what freedom of speech is all about. Such inflexibility, such closed mindedness, is a sure path to friction and divisiveness. ‘My way or the highway’, the Trumpian way, is not the way to build a workable democracy.

That’s because free speech, the right to speak out, carries a reciprocal obligation. The obligation to hear what others think, and to evaluate opinions that differ from yours in a mature and thoughtful way. Free speech is unproductive if all it does is push us further apart.

WHAT STYLE OF FREE SPEECH BENEFITS DEMOCRACY?

Here are a few pointers.

Guideline 1. Before expressing an opinion it’s a good idea to explore why you hold the views you do – to trace your views back to their roots.

Are you reflexively or unconsciously reacting to stereotypes you long ago learnt when younger or in the distant past of childhood?

In what ways has the society/culture you live in shaped your beliefs? To what extent have your personal life experiences conditioned the way you think and feel? In short, what biases and idee fix do you bring to the table? They could be racial or religious or ideological…. virtually anything. They could be many and varied; the gamut is wide.

Unless you force yourself to ask such questions you’ll probably underestimate their importance in influencing your views on issues of contemporary importance. As Socrates (following the Delphic Maxims) advised, first ‘know thyself’ before making comments on the motivations and behaviours of others. Self-reflection pays big dividends.

Guideline 2. Resist the temptation to slide into using emotionally loaded arguments. Emotions will always play a role in the way we form opinions and express ourselves. Accept that, but be aware of their inflammatory power. It’s advisable to keep such urges under control as far as possible because, once unleashed, they can act as catalysts that too readily speed us toward exaggeration, distortion, anger – or the near blindness of tunnel vision.

If emotion becomes the lead-horse it’s likely to bolt. When that happens things can, and often quickly do go awry. The other horses at our command (Reason, Knowledge and Empathy) are needed to tether the ‘bolter’ to keep the whole shebang focused and on track.

Guideline 3. Be prepared for others (besides those who already agree with you) to question the veracity or wisdom of what you say.

Your view of what’s true and right is often very different to the opinions of those who come to hear what you have to say. Sometimes those who disagree with you will disengage and simply walk away. Others will quibble over details. Sometimes someone who cares about an issue, will challenge your viewpoint

Sometimes they’ll reject what you have to say in a vehement and belittling way. When the latter happens you are at your most vulnerable.

Be prepared.

Unless you are your ‘flight or fight’ defence mechanism is likely to be triggered when you feel your opinions are under attack. You can easily find yourself hurtling into an argument which both sides are destined to lose because the discussion will quickly devolve into a blind fight to win. In such circumstances logic, empathy and reasonableness are out the window. When raw emotions take over any prospect of coming closer together (via mutual agreement on a sensible course of action) collapses. You’ll move apart to become opponents or enemies….perhaps forever.

Watch any session of Question Time in the House or Senate and you’ll see this destructive process in action. Truth, they say, is the first casualty of war. And party politics is warfare.

Guideline 4. Learn to listen. We believe in free speech because we believe we have a right to have our say, a right to have our voice heard. In a democracy we expect others to listen to what we have to say.

Somewhat paradoxically however, we seem less interested in listening to what others have to say, especially so when we hear them say things we don’t like or think are wrong, opinions that challenge ours.

When we hear someone say something we disagree with it’s common to soon start thinking about how to rebut their assertions, to point out their mistakes and highlight the weaknesses in their argument. The stronger you disagree with what’s being said the sooner that reaction will kick in. If and when it does, we tend to stop hearing what a speaker is saying. You’re certainly not listening by then. You’ve shifted into fightback mode. You’re no longer taking on board anything the speaker opposite is trying to communicate. Discourse has ended, combat has begun. That’s the way societies fragment from within.

Overcoming this negative predisposition requires making a sharp and conscious decision to attach very different meanings to the words ‘hear’ and ‘listen’.

In the context of discussing freedom of speech these two words are not synonymous.

I don’t want to get into a boring semantic discussion. So, at the risk of sacrificing some accuracy, let’s use an everyday example to highlight the difference.

President Trump certainly hears what others say about him. He’s known to be particularly diligent in scanning the media every night to hear who’s saying nice things about him – and who isn’t. He doesn’t really much care what they say, he simply sorts them into ‘like’ (good guys) and ‘dislike’ (bad guys) piles. Having done that he rewards the good guys (those that agree with Daddy) and sets out to wreak revenge on (or marginalise) those who fail to do or say what he wants. His reflexive reaction is to post “off with their heads” type messages on Truth Social.

He betrays little or no interest in listening, in an objective or detailed way, to what some of his very knowledgeable friends and critics have to say. He shows even less interest in understanding what motivates such people to risk their careers by saying anything that might upset him.

Trump isn’t interested in learning anything because he already knows what he wants – adulating subservience from everyone, friend and foe alike.

He’s not interested in democracy, the welfare of working Americans or world peace. He just wants things his way – and to be universally recognised as the great man he believes himself to be.

While Trump certainly believes he, his minions and his adoring base have every right to say anything they like he denies that same right to his opponents because he believes criticising him (or what he says or does) is tantamount to treason, a crime against America. He believes such subversives should be silenced – denied the right to free speech.

He wants to force Universities to teach his view of history. He’d love to dismiss the Chair of the Federal Reserve because he’d prefer lower interest rates. He fired the Head of Labor Statistics because her department published statistics he didn’t like. He approved of RFK Jnr’s anti-vaccine stance which led to the resignation of key CDC scientists and the firing that department’s director. He fired the military’s Joint Chief of Staff because he found the General’s policies too ‘woke’….and on and on it goes.

This week he announced he’s thinking about cancelling the licences of the TV channels, newspapers and media groups who write nasty stories about him.

Unfortunately this ‘double standard’ interpretation of free speech (viz. ‘I can say whatever I want but you can’t’) is spreading at wildfire speed throughout America.

The consequence is that the US is splitting into ever more opposing groups. Some of those groups stay silent for fear of being punished (fired, demoted, ostracised or deported) if they speak out while others feel empowered to assert their will by force (not law). The cancer of violence is spreading throughout mainstreet America. Australian must not follow suit if we want our democracy to survive in better shape than the USA will.

WHY SHOULD I LISTEN TO YOUR CRAZY IDEAS?

One of those reasons is to promote civil dialogue with the aim of bringing, and keeping, people of different viewpoints in discussion so they can work toward finding ways of living together through understanding and compromise.

Achieving such a goal not only involves parties presenting their case and arguing why their viewpoint ought to prevail. It’s also essential both parties ‘listen’ to each other if they’re to understand why those who don’t agree with them believe what they believe, why they feel what they feel and what and why they want what they want.

Standing in the shoes of others for a while helps bridge gaps between opposing sides it encourages those in disagreement to lift the visors on their armour so they can see things in broader perspective. It’s a process that can only increase the probability of finding a mutually acceptable path to tread. It’s a process that brings people together rather than one which pushes them apart.

Neither side who face each other is (short of war) likely to get100% of what they’d like. Both sides are far more likely to arrive at a mutually satisfactory outcome when both sides make some concession to the other, an outcome both will be content (if not always happy ) to live with.

Listening this way is not an easy thing to do. It requires maturity, discipline and effort. But it’s the way democracy is meant to work, indeed it’s the only way democracy can work. That’s why freedom of speech is important.

BREAKING BAD HABITS

Guideline 6. Words matter-and so do the protocols  of good manners .

Many aspects of a criminal trial in a courtroom strike  the lay observer sitting  in the gallery as theatrical ,archaic or  excessively formal.

 
Yet Court etiquette (dress, seating, rituals such as standing when the judge enters, addressing the Judge as “your Honour”, the coat of arms on the wall above and behind the ‘bench’, the taking of the oath, the faux politeness of barristers addressing each other as ‘my learned friend’ and opponent solicitors as ‘my friend’ etc.) plays an important role in demonstrating the importance of the proceedings and respect for the legal system, the court and its officers – and the rights of both the plaintiff and the accused.

Etiquette (and manners) also serve to minimise emotional outbursts from witnesses, lying, the use of hyperbole and grandstanding – the red herrings that can distract and distort proceedings to the point where a court’s rigour and objectivity, its very fairness, might be called into question.

It took the law a long, long time to develop a communication system, a control system, that could produce both justice and the appearance of justice. We can learn from it.

When in conversation with people of differing opinions it’s unwise telling them you find what they’re saying is offensive, disgusting, bigoted, racist, cowardly, weak, stupid (or any one or combination of an almost endless lexicon of pejorative words). Nobody likes being called a moron.

Using judgmental and emotionally loaded words like these is analogous to pulling the pin on a hand grenade. Once that’s done the explosion which follows makes it impossible to put the fragments back together again. You’ve killed any chance of productive dialogue.

When body-language is used to augment the impact of words you’ve moved up to  using mortar shells in your attempt to silence those you disagree with. Rolling of eyes ,pointing fingers, turning sideways to avoid looking at who’s speaking, fidgeting, leaning forward across table in a hunched posture, interjecting, mumbling, raising your voice etc are all expressions of disrespect and hostility….the opposite message of respect and equality is made when extending your hand to make a handshake, a gesture that’s even used by sportsmen, business people and nations before they go into fierce competition with each other.

We all need to cool it if we really want to live in harmony. Rituals and protocols help us do that. So does the practice of good manners.

The same line of logic applies to public demonstrations and protests.

Peaceful demonstrations (such as the huge Sydney Harbour Bridge march supporting the rights of Indigenous Peoples [2000 ] and the Pro Palestinian demonstration of 2025) are not only fine, they’re signs of a healthy democracy.

Fortunately, the vast majority of demonstrations in Australia have been peaceful, very few have ended in serious violence. To my knowledge no one has been killed this century although millions have marched for various causes.

The wisdom of Gandhi’s non-violent (peaceful resistance) philosophy that emphasised “just means lead to just ends” holds true.

Unfortunately, overseas trends in the West are going in the opposite direction. Intolerance and violence are on the rise – and the worry is that trend will reach our shores. To be aware of this possibility is to be forearmed .

Demonstrations can become confrontational, not necessarily by intent but rather by dint of the way they are structured.

Marching in unison alongside those with whom you agree (while under the gaze of TV cameras) builds feelings of camaraderie, self-sightedness and justifiable anger. Chants gradually become war-cries. (WHAT DO WE WANT….). As the theatre of the day draws to a close there’s a lot of accumulated emotion looking for a place to unload. And as in any good piece of theatre there’s a need for a climax. The police often help in delivering one. They become the lightning rod that attracts and dissipates all that pent up energy by way of engagement in scuffles when trying to keep the peace or breaking up protester/anti protestor fights.

Physical interactions of this kind are becoming more common. It’s the way violence becomes normalised. Once that happens the streets can soon become battlefields – and where there are battlefields there are casualties, physical, civic and social. The implosion of American democracy in less than a year of Trump 2 attests to that.

IN CONCLUSION

Christ said many wise things but his reassurance that “the meek shall inherit the earth” wasn’t one of them. Resisting would be autocrats and dysfunctional governments is the duty of every serious citizen living in a democracy. The best way of doing that is to work together to assert our control over our political class by exercising our right to free speech and using our vote to remind them they are our servants, to drive home the point that it’s not the other way around. We are not their vassals to be manipulated and told what to do.

Another of Christ’s sayings gives excellent advice. It provides a vital clue as to how we need to treat each other, even those we don’t agree with. We need to live in civil harmony, to speak in unified voice to our leaders as to what is and isn’t acceptable. Christ’s dictum was “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Capish?