Is free speech a shield for open discourse or a vehicle for hate speech? This piece examines where reason should guide our understanding of that boundary.
This article explores how free speech sits between liberty and ethical duty. The core question is: How do we reconcile the legal ability to insult with the societal need to protect human dignity? This ongoing debate, attracting criticism especially from right-leaning groups, boils down to finding a balance between safeguarding liberty and maintaining societal decency.
A key issue is what people from right-leaning groups, the media, and others feel constrained from openly expressing. For instance, a conservative journalist once mentioned in an interview that discussing immigration policy from a critical perspective often draws harsh backlash – accusations of malice rather than thoughtful discussion. As the journalist stated, “In today’s polarized climate, attempting to explore the nuances of immigration policy can brand you as intolerant.” This example shows the challenge of fostering balanced dialogue amid social reprimand and helps transition to a broader discussion on perceived boundaries.
Another example involves a university speaker known for advocating traditional family values, who felt silenced after protests led to the cancellation of their event due to public safety concerns. In response, a student argued, “While free speech is vital, it should not come at the expense of marginalized communities’ safety.” These situations clarify how different individuals experience perceived restrictions on free speech. By exploring who feels limited, I encourage readers across the spectrum to reflect on the actual boundaries they face.
Stepping back, I have observed that people across the political spectrum express a devotion to free speech, though their ways and emphases differ.
On a personal note, I wrote the following piece in 2017, which was published in The AIMN that year. I have now updated it. I invite you to consider my thoughts, and if you’d like, please share your views in the comments section before moving forward to the next topic.
Turning to Australia’s legislative landscape, the Joint Committee on Human Rights made 22 recommendations for next steps. A recent poll found 58% of Australians support enacting these reforms to strengthen human rights laws. Now, Liberal Prime Minister Turnbull faces a choice: yield to his party’s hard right, or take a more moderate path? A significant change, such as restricting or expanding hate speech laws, could either protect vulnerable communities or risk emboldening prejudice, impacting societal harmony and free speech. This consequential decision underlines the importance of the recommended reforms.
This leads us to the question of free speech and what it means for an enlightened society.
During the ‘long 18th century’ (1685-1815), European politics, philosophy, science, and communications were radically reoriented in a movement known as the ‘Age of Reason.’ The Enlightenment promoted reason as the basis for systems of aesthetics, ethics, government, and religion, aiming for objective truths about reality. In today’s digital era, communication challenges persist, though they have evolved. Social media, like 18th-century salons and coffeehouses, hosts competing ideas, misinformation, and ongoing debates over free expression. This continuity shows that, while technology changes, the core difficulties of interaction endure, underscoring the need for thoughtful, reasoned discourse today. The Age of Reason taught us to harness rational thought over chaos; now we must apply that lesson to navigate the complexities of social media responsibly.
For example, someone like Cory Bernardi might say we now live in an enlightened society.
However, it remains unclear how he would actually respond to that question.
If we are truly enlightened, why legalise hate? At the heart of the debate is distinguishing hate speech – which incites violence or prejudice – from speech that merely offends. Clarifying this boundary is essential: should the defence of free speech outweigh the protection of people from harm? To help make this distinction, we might introduce a clear, three-part definition of hate speech:
- In the first instance, were the words used 100% truthful?
- Intent: Determining whether the speech was meant to dehumanise or denigrate others.
- Likely Harm: Assessing the potential of the speech to incite violence or promote prejudice.
With these criteria in place, readers can better understand where the legal line might be drawn. By introducing such a benchmark, we can guide subsequent legal comparisons and discussions.
Surely, an enlightened, progressive, and open-minded society would seek to reduce hate, rather than institutionalise it through law.
This question does not require deep philosophical or ideological debate; some consider it clear. While some believe hate is not a necessary aspect of human nature, others may disagree.
We live in an era of rapid technological change. Yet, our tolerance lags. Social media connects millions, but also fuels hate and fake news. A recent study by [Research Firm/Organisation] found a 45% rise in hate speech on social platforms over three years. This shows both the growth of prejudice online and the difficulty of fostering understanding amid moral decay.
If we were truly enlightened, we’d treat others with respect, love, and loyalty. We’d follow the golden rule, avoid causing harm, and live life with happiness and wonder.
We’d shape our views through reason and experience, not just follow others. We’d test beliefs against facts, discard those that don’t fit, and admit mistakes. Humility lets us grow, and truth leads us forward.
We’d enjoy our own sex lives as long as no one is harmed, and let others do the same in private, no matter their preferences. It’s not our business.
We’d agree that no person or group owns the idea of being right. Instead of judging, we’d try to understand and choose dialogue over confrontation.
Global stewardship means valuing internationalism over nationalism. Our planet’s resources are limited and need to be cared for so that all can survive. This means looking past our lifetimes, seeing that collective support upholds rights, and sharing responsibility for the world.
We’d aim to provide equal access to education, as knowledge can promote understanding. Rather than following a single approach, we’d teach students to think independently, assess different perspectives, and question ideas. Schools could emphasise ethical analysis alongside academic content.
We must never shut out dissent and must always respect others’ right to disagree.
It’s important not to ignore wrongdoing or avoid justice, but we should also be ready to forgive when someone admits their mistakes and feels remorse.
Finally, we’d question everything – what we see, feel, hear, read, and are told—until we understand the truth. Thoughtlessness stems from a lack of understanding and can never replace facts.
These are the signs of enlightenment. How do we measure up? Some societies and people have made progress, such as greater gender equality and better education in some countries. However, perspectives differ on the extent of overall advancement.
The central dilemma is whether laws protecting against hate speech truly safeguard society or simply restrict free expression. For instance, Australia’s Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act prohibits ‘offending, insulting, humiliating or intimidating’ based on race, prioritising protection with some limits on speech. In contrast, the United States upholds broad speech rights, even allowing hate speech unless it incites violence. This comparison highlights the trade-off between societal protection and robust free speech – the focal issue of this discussion.
Consider this scenario: someone in Australia posts an abusive tweet about a racial group, violating Section 18C. Legal action may follow. In the U.S., such a tweet might stay up unless it directly calls for imminent violence. These legal differences show how each framework affects accountability and norms.
If free speech primarily allows insult and humiliation, we must reconsider its role. The central question is whether its protection brings more societal benefit or harm. Legally and morally, the main argument is: Should freedom of expression remain paramount even if it enables hate, or should limits be justified to protect dignity? The purpose of this article is to prompt readers to consider their own stance on balancing liberty and dignity.
And if free speech only insults and humiliates, we must also reconsider its purpose. Some say it exposes wrongdoing, but if it causes more harm than good, it’s a strange form of freedom for an enlightened society. It’s worth debating if hate is essential to being human.
As Jonathan Holmes once reflected: Remember Carlie Hebdo.
“Let’s be clear: Charlie Hebdo set out, every week, with the greatest deliberation, to offend and insult all kinds of people, and especially in recent years the followers of Islam, whether fundamentalist or not.”
Looking at one of Charlie Hebdo’s recent covers through the lens of my earlier discussion on distinguishing hate speech from merely offensive speech, we can start to apply this standard rigorously.
Consider a cover depicting a caricature of a figure from the Muslim Brotherhood under a hail of gunfire, accompanied by a harsh message. This could be critiqued for crossing from provocative satire into potential hate speech, as it might foster prejudice and incite harm against a particular community, rather than contribute a valuable or insightful discourse. By examining the satire’s intention and potential impact, we can better assess whether such expressions align with the values of an enlightened society.
The Charlie Hebdo massacre was horrific and unjust, but it didn’t give repressive leaders the right to lecture on free expression. The hypocrisy was striking. Some Paris March leaders came from countries with poor press freedom. Egypt, for example, ranked 159 of 180 in the World Press Freedom Index. Seeing Egypt’s Foreign Minister march was especially two-faced, since Peter Creste was in jail for over a year.
They call it satirical free speech, but it is often seen as empty shock without meaningful insight or truth. In an effort to better distinguish between shocking provocation and insightful satire, a two-part test could be implemented: first, considering whether the satire serves a genuine purpose of provocation that encourages critical thought; and second, assessing whether it delivers a constructive message that enhances understanding or dialogue. Establishing this standard could provide a clearer framework for when satire deserves protection and can naturally lead to a call for more defined guidelines.
Free speech in an enlightened society should reflect our advancement in thinking. Educated people may prefer that free speech allow truth-telling in any medium. To better understand this, it is important to consider the criteria that define ‘truth’ in our discussions. Truth, especially in satire, includes not only factual accuracy but also the intention behind the commentary. A guiding criterion for labelling speech as ‘truthful’ could be verifiability, ensuring that statements can be supported by evidence or facts. By articulating the standards for what constitutes truthful and insightful discourse, we can better address the challenges of free speech. Formulating clear guidelines can help clarify the limits of acceptable speech and pre-empt disagreements over what counts as truthful or constructive commentary.
This situation raises interest in why some defenders of free speech feel restricted by current laws. I do not. I have never felt limited in what I think or say. There was a moment, though, during an intense debate with a colleague, where I felt the temptation to let go of my restraint, to say something pointedly hurtful to win the argument. But then, a voice within reminded me of restraint, urging me to consider the impact of my words. I chose to express my views with respect, adhering to my principles, and this decision fostered a more meaningful and constructive dialogue. Such experiences underscore the importance of maintaining dignity and respect in discourse, even in challenging conversations.
I do not feel the need to go beyond my own sense of decency to express my views.
I remember a particular Day in my childhood when I sat in my classroom, gazing at a poster of Superman next to a map of the world. Our teacher spoke of the United States as a beacon of hope, a nation that would stand up and help when others were in need, embodying the ideals of justice and freedom. As I grew older, my once clear-cut view was challenged by global events. Reality hit as I realised that America’s priorities shifted with its interests, and my hero, once steadfast in my young eyes, began to seem fallible.
My thought for the day
An enlightened society is one in which the suggestion that we need to legislate ones right to hate another person is considered intellectually barren.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
Thank you John, nothing much changes, insults fly, people get hurt.
What is important is how we (I) respond when a conversation goes ‘off the rails’, where respect and decency ar ignored.
Recently I asked out of a regular catch up with a couple of friends, it was shortly after the Bondi attack, and the guys were full of hate, full of insults, and when I tried to slow the conversation down, I was talked over, so I left, saying that I did not want this discussion.
Both men apologised a few days later.
I value the friendship of those men, but there must be ‘red lines’, there must be respect and respectful debate. We still meet each week, but since that day, the conversations have beed conversations rather than a diatribe of venom.
So they should Bert