Author’s Note
This is a repost of a piece I wrote around six months ago. I am re posting because of the current interest in the proposed changes by Attorney General George Brandis to Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act. For those who are vitality interested in this subject I would first like to recommend you read two other points of view on the subject.
The first is by guest writer for The AIMN, T J Curtis who argues that we have sufficient free speech. The second is by Daniel Ward who argues that there should be no limits to free speech. That if people want to make fools of themselves then then they should be given ample opportunity to do so.
Both are scholarly and wonderfully articulated. In fact one could easily agree with either.
I think mine differs in so much as it is more an earthy expression of experiences relating to the subject. In any case it is a debate of many voices.
“We will never truly understand the effect Free Speech has on an individual until we have suffered from the abuse of it.”
John Lord
Free Speech or Licensed Abuse
Most Australians would never have heard of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC). It is a church of hate that is anti-almost everything socially progressive. However, it saves its most vitriolic and vile hatred for gay people, Catholics and Jews. On a regular basis they picket the funerals of gay service men. Although they don’t limit themselves to gays.
In fact, WBC members say that “God’s hatred is one of His holy attributes” and that their picketing is a form of preaching to a “doomed” country unable to hear their message in any other way.
In 2011 they picketed the funeral of Matthew Synder with placards like “Thank God for dead soldiers,” You’re Going to Hell,” God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” and one that combined the U.S. Marine Corps motto, Semper Fi, with a slur against gay men. The fact that Matthew was not gay was irrelevant because the churches founder and homophobic Pastor Phelps believes that God is killing American soldiers as punishment for the nation’s sinful policies
Now Matthews father Albert took exception to this malevolent behavior by a Christian Church. After all, he was suffering the realisation that is every parent’s nightmare: The death of a loved child. And the personal grief must have been an ordeal in itself, let alone the added agony that these protests evoked.
So he sued Phelps and the church for intentionally inflicting emotional distress. He won $11 million at trial, later reduced by a judge to $5 million. The federal appeals court in Richmond, threw out the verdict and said the Constitution shielded the church members from liability. The Supreme Court agreed saying that:
“A grieving father’s pain over mocking protests at his Marine son’s funeral must yield to First Amendment protections for free speech.”
All but one justice (8 to 1) sided with the fundamentalist church that has stirred outrage with raucous demonstrations contending God is punishing the military for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality.
Some extracts and views from the judgment.
Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion for the court, protects:
“Even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
The ruling, though, was in line with many earlier court decisions that said the First Amendment exists to protect robust debate on public issues and free expression, no matter how distasteful. A year ago, the justices struck down a federal ban on videos that show graphic violence against animals. In 1988, the court unanimously overturned a verdict for the Rev. Jerry Falwell in his libel lawsuit against Hustler magazine founder Larry Flynt over a raunchy parody ad.
Justice Samuel Alito, the lone dissenter, said Snyder wanted only to bury his son in peace:
“Instead, Alito said, the protesters “brutally attacked” Matthew Snyder to attract public attention “Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case, he said.
“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker”
Roberts said Snyder’s reaction, at a news conference in York, Pa.:
“My first thought was, eight justices don’t have the common sense God gave a goat.” He added, “We found out today we can no longer bury our dead in this country with dignity.”
But Roberts said the frequency of the protests – and the church’s practice of demonstrating against Catholics, Jews and many other groups – is an indication that Phelps and his flock were not mounting a personal attack against Snyder but expressing deeply held views on public topics.
While distancing themselves from the church’s message, media organisations, including The Associated Press, urged the court to side with the Phelps family because of concerns that a victory for Snyder could erode speech rights.
He said it was possible he would have to pay the Phelps’s around $100,000, which they are seeking in legal fees, since he lost the lawsuit. The money would, in effect, finance more of the same activity he fought against, Snyder said.
I have been following the frequent outlandish behavior of this church and its leader for some time now and I often shudder at its evilness. I also wonder at what inclines judges to make these sorts of judgments and I also despair at the elevated prominence free speech plays in making them. And how human dignity can be devalued to such utter unimportance. I am shaken by the insensitive calmness of those seeking to uphold the right to free speech.
On Q&A this week I watched George Brandis try to make a case for free speech by saying that we should be judged by what we allow people to say rather than by what we don’t. How simplistic. That people should have the right to insult, harass, humiliate or offend simply because it is their right to freedom of expression is alarming. And they need to be protected by law in doing so. This is why we endure the likes of News Ltd, Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones.
What is missing here is not the individual’s right to free speech, but the way in which he/she does so. If we live in a collective (society) then what does the individual owe to the collective. In the same way that labour comes before capital, collective rights and freedoms must come before the individual’s right to free speech. And the individual’s right not to be abused by free speech surpasses the individual’s right to use it. Maggie Thatcher is famous for her statement:
“There is no such thing as society. There are only individuals making their way. The poor shall be looked after by the drip down effect of the rich” (Paraphrased).
This of course is completely wrong because the individual cannot exist outside of the collective and its morals and ethics. Therefore, for the collective to work harmoniously individuals must be constrained by the ethics of truth and decency otherwise free speech is not really free speech. It is no more than licensed hate.
In Australia (and by comparison the USA) the pedlars of verbal violence and dishonesty are the most vigorous defenders of free speech because it gives their vitriolic nonsense legitimacy. With the use of free speech, the bigots and hate-mongers seek to influence those in the community who are susceptible or like-minded.
The original intent of free speech was to give a voice to the oppressed and to keep governments honest. In the United States, the first amendment is now used as a justification to incite racism, validate hatred and promote both religious and political bigotry. In a democracy the right to free speech is given by the people through the parliament. However it is impossible to legislate decency. Therefore, it should be incumbent on people to display decorum, moderation, truth, fact, balance, reason, tolerance, civility and respect for the other point of view.
After all the dignity of the individual (or individuals) within the collective is more important than some fools right to use freedom of speech to vilify another.
What do you think?
SHARE THIS ARTICLE:
Categories: Social Justice
The Australian Independent Media Network 
So bullying is ok then?
Bullying is not ok in schools. It is not ok in workplaces. But apparently it IS ok if you are some moronic radio shock jock or gossip columnist, a politician, or part of some whacko religious hate group.
David Irving must be preparing a lecture tour of Australia to celebrate this new era of Free Speech.
Let’s not forget Geert Wilders.
Who is Geert Wilders?
Wilders is leader of the Netherlands’ third largest political party, the Party for Freedom (PVV), and has been a Member of the House of Representatives since 1998. He is best known for his anti-Islamic stance, having compared the Koran to Mein Kampf, and labelled Muhammad a paedophile.
He has been banned from entering a number of countries such as the United Kingdom, and has been taken to court for incitement of hatred and discrimination.
Wilders portrays himself as a defender of liberty and freedom. By couching distinctly illiberal policies in a liberal package, Wilders rewrites the rule-book for populist strategy. His hatred of Islam comes along with a spoonful of artificial sugar in talk of freedom and liberties.
South Australian Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi, who initially invited Wilders to visit Australia, echoes his messages almost exactly, by reportedly claiming, “Islam itself is the problem – it’s not Muslims […] Muslims are individuals that practise their faith in their own way, but Islam is a totalitarian, political and religious ideology”.
http://theconversation.com/whos-afraid-of-geert-wilders-populism-and-the-politics-of-hate-12326
I have written a reply to Mitch. Post soon.
True freedom only comes with the right Not to encroach on the rights of others.If individuals cannot morally curb their inabilities to encroach on others.Then there must be guideline in law that protect those individuals Rights
The individuals right to free speech have been stolen by organizations with the albility to shout louder than anyone else.
Distinctions in law should be made between the individual exercising their right to free speech and the organizations using their muscle to shut it down.
The Murdoch Press is in fact the greatest threat to free speech we have ever seen in this country.
There is no excuse for hate speech, bullying or abuse of any kind. It is easy, with a pause for reflection, to present one’s views to another, even though said views are contradictory, by starting with a foundation of respect for both the other and oneself. Behaving like a 2 year old is not respecting oneself nor is it free speech – it is just a tantrum.
Free speech means a free and open exchange of ideas and opinions. It is not free speech to yell louder than your opponent or otherwise prevent another from speaking out – it is suppression, it is bullying, time such people grew up.
I think this push for “free speech” to protect the hateful opinions of those with the loudest voices and strongest influence represents yet another death blow to our humanity and (apparent) civilisation.
Fully agree with Lisa which is the sad part of our society but would like to add that what really angers me is the fact that commentators or journos can print blatant lies,fully knowing that they are lies,but passing it of as hard facts,and if caught out they either laugh it off,or attack the fact finder.This actually shows a complete falseness in our existence.
Agreed doctorrob54,
Our society today has lost the value of truthfulness.
Lies are now accepted as a part of life – lies are told seemingly without consequence.
Our advanced civilisation is based on the lie of fairness – we well off citizens accept the lie that we are more worthy of our comforts than those without such comfort.
Our sense of fairness is corrupted by a comfortable lifestyle of entitlement – I’m alright Jack reigns.
Sharing is seen as ‘unprofitable’ activity – neglect of an opportunity to exploit.
Lies are now accepted as an acceptable means to achieve our selfish ends. Our media and leaders just shake off proven untruths and move on unscathed to the next ‘challenge’- which no doubt will be addressed with more ‘comforting’ lies that an indifferent egotistical public now prefers to hear.
History tells us that society based on greed and lies is capable of extreme evil – and inevitably falls when the truth of reality overtakes.
On natures tally sheet reality prevails – lies are valueless.
Tim Wilson’s appointment as Human Rights Commissioner could see cuts to a program on school bullying as the Australian Human Rights Commission accommodates his six-figure salary without any extra funding from the government.
The incoming Human Rights Commissioner, who is due to take up his position in February, will be paid about $320,000 – a sum equal to that of his fellow commissioners, though less than president Gillian Triggs.
On Sunday, Professor Triggs said Mr Wilson’s salary would have to come out of the commission’s current annual budget of about $25 million. ”This really does squeeze the commission,” she said.
Professor Triggs said that she and the other commissioners would meet in January to decide where cuts would come from to make room for Mr Wilson’s salary, but suggested that an anti-bullying program and a program on education for older Australians might be in the firing line.
She said that an inquiry into asylum seeker children who are held in detention would still go ahead.
The commission had not anticipated it would have to pay Mr Wilson’s salary as new appointees usually come with extra federal government funding, a spokesman said.
Finance Minister Mathias Cormann suggested the entire commission could be on the chopping block. ”Over the medium to long-term, let’s just watch this space and see what happens,” he told Sky News when asked why the government should not abolish the whole organisation.”
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tim-wilsons-appointment-as-human-rights-commissioner-could-see-cuts-to-a-program-on-school-bullying-20131222-2zt17.html#ixzz2oEXJIZ4A
I see, the Abbott government appoints a person who is openly acknowledged as anti-Human Rights Commission and this same commission has to foot the bill for his salary.
Riiiiight, thaaaaa’ts not suspicious – only if you are a rock…on another planet.
Gee that’s all a bit of a dogs breakfast. Do they actually know what they are doing.
The way to combat misuse of free speech surely isn’t to limit free speech, but to counter the inaccuracies and let the cases be put in the open market of ideas.
Limiting free speech is a way of suppressing ideas that run counter to the mainstream. of silencing dissent.
“That people should have the right to insult, harass, humiliate or offend simply because it is their right to freedom of expression is alarming. And they need to be protected by law in doing so”
Libel and defamation laws are adequate to ensure that when people breach the limits of free speech that aren’t challenged.
the crux is the freedom to be heard bolt, jones, the rabbott and brandis emit unchallenged views that are heard and echoed by autocue journalists who spout unchallenged support, Even large ordanisations like the labor party cannot find the freedom to be heard what chance does the individual.have.
we have to trust little billy to document the rabbott’s excesses and to publish online world wide in a derisory tone aimed at ridiculing the rabbott personally and showing the world how petty and nasty he is an how petty and nasty his followers become by association.
Little billy could do worse than use phelps as how free speech proposed by brandis would allow phelps to employ the church of hate tactice at Aust funerals???
@billy: you’d forgive cynicism from anyone not of the progressive disposition. Most journalists lean to the left. Bolt, jones are the exception. 99% of the press gallery were completely enamoured with labor for probably the first four years of their last government and were effectively unofficial labor mouthpieces rather than examining the validity of the statements made (as they should do of all politics).
At the last election, i don’t recall labor failing to be speak in the public square. it was that the public had stopped listening as the belief was that if labor were speaking, they were lying or smearing.
You do realise that westboro baptist aren’t taken seriously by anyone, and their performances don’t actually change any views. if the errors of either side are put forward without any histrionics, you’d probably find many reasonable people would concede the point. when you put up ridicule and desirory tones, people who you might otherwise convince will just switch off.
<
@Bob
"Most Journalists lean to the left".
Thank god for that.
For a moment there I thought you must have been a regular reader of Murdoch's trash.
Thanks for the xmas laugh …. gotta go now there's a pig flying around the Eiffel Tower and Peta Credlin is asking the French DSD to put some lipstick on it.
“Bolt, jones are the exception”…and Miranda Devine and Piers Ackerman and Tim Blair and Janet Albrechtson and Judith Sloane and Gerard Henderson and Chris Berg and Chris Kenny and Paul Sheehan and Dennis Shanahan, Paul Kelly, Paul Whittaker and Tom Switzer.
“the belief was that if labor were speaking, they were lying or smearing”….where did that belief come from and who perpetuated it? Was it based in fact?
“westboro baptist aren’t taken seriously by anyone”….I hope you could ignore them if they turned up at YOUR son’s funeral screaming abuse and waving placards. I would punch them in the face.
John Fraser: News corp are free to set whatever editorial settings they like. Freedom of the press and all that. Same with fairfax. Most concern only comes when ABC which is required by its charter to be impartial has a strong sense that it engages in advocacy “journalism” and a fairly big proportion of the society thinking that it acts more as the mouthpiece of the progressive left rather than all members of society.
Kaye Lee: those are columnists who predominantly write for news corp. A few have occasional columns on the drum. How many ABC hosts could you cite that even conservatives would own as their own?
I watched and listened to enough of parliamentary coverage during the last parliament to have formed that view of lying and smearing based on my own observations. I can’t say how others may have formed their views. I heard enough spin and smear and just plain meanness coming from labor in response to reasonable questions on their policy settings or their behaviour.
How would you set free speech rules such that you may well be offended by the speech of others but there were broad limits? Free speech doesn’t mean you’re never going to be offended by someone else’s speech. Who would you trust to set those rules?