True defenders of free speech (NDL Letters, Gus Batley, May 23) understand truly what it is they are defending.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The doctrine of freedom of speech invokes nothing more or less than freedom from government censorship or punishment for one’s public utterances. But free speech does not entitle any of us to a free megaphone for our views.
Nor does free speech grant us immunity from disapproval by others.
What a newspaper editor chooses to print has far less to do with freedom of speech than it has to do with community standards and, let’s be fair, a commercial imperative to remain relevant and to sustain the interest of the reading public.
No-one is “shut down”’ if a newspaper chooses not to print their letter – they just have to find an alternative means of stating their case.
Furthermore, free speech does not grant us freedom from responsibility for the effects of our words.
If our words contribute to a culture of harm to the vulnerable, then we bear a moral (and in some cases legal) responsibility for such outcomes.
Personally, I would much prefer that people focus also on our freedom to speak thoughtfully, respectfully and, dare I suggest, with some degree of factuality – habits that are in increasingly short supply, including among self-styled defenders of “free speech”.