![Picture](/uploads/8/4/1/7/8417532/201201.jpg?188)
In response to both the recent Alan Jones comments, and the seeming on-going decline in the level of public discourse, I feel it is worth examining the concept of freedom of speech.
Free speech is obviously essential to outcomes like a free and open society, effective democracy, equity and fairness, and individual freedom and happiness. Very important to us all.
Despite what some commentators would suggest, Freedom of Speech is subject to limitations. Free speech is not the right to say whatever you wish. It comes with responsibilities, and even heavier responsibilities for public figures and those in the media.
In expressing our ideas, we all have the responsibility to steer clear of libel, slander, obscenity, inciting hatred, revealing information that is classified under a court (or gag) order, and any incitement to commit a crime.
Alan Jones did damage to our social fabric and acted outside of the tenants of free speech at the time of the Cronulla riots.
His on-going use of the chaff bag remark is both slanderous and libelous.
And his most recent attempt at commentary (???) followed by his 'Clayton's' apology ticks all the usual boxes for Jones, as well as crossing the line into obscenity. I'm yet to hear a single voice (publicly or privately) in support of Jones' right to speak in such a manner and I feel that says a great deal for us as a nation. It would also suggest that we understand more about free speech than Alan Jones.
The other high profile case that comes to mind is that of Andrew Bolt. In the 12 months since the High Court ruling against him there has been a great deal of comment written in defense of Bolt, based on the need to preserve free speech.
Regardless of your level of interest in what Bolt has to say or write, there is no valid argument that the Federal court's ruling was either misguided or likely to be an assault on free speech. Alan Austin's article in the Global Mail provides an excellent account of how the debate has been subverted in the media through errors, misreporting, and (perhaps intentional) exclusion of aspects of Justice Bromberg's judgement.
While some commentators suggest that the actions of Bolt and Jones, and the subsequent reactions affirm free-speech, I believe they do the opposite. Jones and Bolt sit at the extreme of opinion-making, and from there push the boundaries into the misleading, the libelous and the slanderous. As they are allowed to get away with misrepresentation, slander, fabrication and general nastiness, they open up more space for the less extreme to slide into the space behind them.
The nasty, shrill, uninformed, and low tone of current public discourse has been enabled by the likes of Jones and Bolt, and others who are willing to follow the trail they have blazed. The effect is that fair comment becomes lost among the extremism and the sensationalism which grabs attention and headlines... effectively drowning it out. What's so free about an inability to be heard? When it comes to speech, it will be set free by raising the quality, not the quantity.
We're all better and smarter than what current standards would suggest. It's high time we stopped tolerating the low quality of public debate because it undermines who we are... a tolerant society.
What are your thoughts?