Money talks, and defending free speech now comes at a cost

What are the boundaries of acceptable free speech? And do those boundaries change if there is money on the line?

The answer depends on who you are and which side you fall on any given divisive debate – the Gaza-Israel conflict, trans issues, whether you are pro or anti-affirmative action.

Freedom of speech issues affect us all. Credit: Michael Howard

These issues are tortured and difficult but none of us can really escape them. Not any more.

We live in an extraordinary moment in history in which boundaries of free speech have to be set and policed by ordinary people all the time. We do this while being pulled from two directions. On the left, there is strong ideological pressure from a loosely grouped collection of activists who regularly call for the “de-platforming” of controversial views, and who include psychological and emotional harm in their definition of what constitutes dangerous speech. On the right, we have, at least in the United States, an increasingly authoritarian approach to free speech under the cover of radical libertarianism, which ends up giving open licence to bigots.

This authoritarianism is genuinely frightening and none too subtle. Two recent instances of this: the banning of the Associated Press newswire from the White House press pool because AP did not fall in line with Trump’s re-branding of the “Gulf of Mexico” as the “Gulf of America”. And the peremptory detention, last Saturday, of the Palestinian activist and Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil, along with the revocation of his green card. He faces deportation. He is married to an American and has not committed any crime. It didn’t matter.

President Donald Trump posted on social media that “this is the first arrest of many to come”, saying that many other students had engaged in “pro-terrorist, antisemitic, anti-American activity”.

Palestinian activist and Colombia University student Mahmoud Khalil has been detained, despite the fact that he has committed no crime. Credit: AP

There is no evidence Khalil has engaged in any of that; if he had, he would presumably be charged under the relevant laws.

As Michelle Goldberg wrote for the New York Times, “if someone legally in the United States can be grabbed from his home for engaging in constitutionally protected political activity, we are in a drastically different country from the one we inhabited before Trump’s inauguration.”

Australia is not America, and while there have been calls to deport visa-holders who break the law during pro-Palestine protests, there are firm legal grounds to do so. But freedom of speech is under pressure here too – from all sides.

This week it was reported in the Australian Financial Review that Australian university researchers who rely on co-funding from American federal agencies have been asked if they comply with Trump’s “two genders only” policy.

The anti-science, anti-intellectual Trump administration has declared open war on America’s world-class universities, which they regard as nests of “wokedom” and left-wing activism.

President Donald Trump hands out pens after signing an executive order barring transgender female athletes from competing in women’s or girls’ sporting events.Credit: AP

Now it seems to be spreading its reach to Australian institutions too. In recent weeks, Julie Hare reported in the AFR, Australian researchers who conduct joint research with American government agencies in diverse fields including foreign aid, medicine, vaccines and defence, have been sent a 36-point questionnaire. It has been sent directly to the researchers – not through the universities’ administrators – and in one case, a response was required within 48 hours.

It asks questions about links to China, but it also “dives deep into the Trump agenda, asking on issues such as secure borders with Mexico; diversity, equity and inclusion; ending government waste; terrorism; the war on opioids, and eradicating anti-Christian bias”.

There is also a question about “protecting women” by recognising there are only two genders.

The Group of Eight university lobby group wrote to US senators expressing their concern over the “chilling implications” of the questionnaire. The implied threat is clear – pay service to our agenda or we will pull your funding. Separately this week, there was controversy about an advertisement from Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots party which ran on the front page of The Age.

The ad says, “There are only two genders”, which is offensive and hurtful to many trans and non-binary people and those who love them. It is a senseless and stupid aping of a Trumpian agenda. It is disappointing, to say the least, to see it emerge in Australia.

Trump has declared a “war on woke”. Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

Many staff at The Age and readers were upset by the ads, which have also run on television. Some readers said they would cancel their subscriptions. The Age defended itself by saying that if it rejected some political ads, it might be seen as endorsing the ones it published.

It also pointed out that it ran an editorial published in the same edition which called Palmer “a persistent wart on the foot of Australian politics”.

Underlying the debate about free speech is, of course, the reality that the media needs money from advertising, just as academics need American wealth to co-fund their research. They can do this happily as long as their independence and integrity is not undermined by the source of the money.

The Sydney Writers’ Festival, scheduled for May (disclosure: I will be appearing as a panellist) also relies on donor money.

This week it was reported, again by the AFR, that some private donors to the festival are considering pulling up to $500,000 in funding as they worry the festival is becoming too partisan.

As with other arts organisations, the SWF has struggled to balance the free speech rights and “platforming” of both sides of the Palestine-Israel divide.

Kathy Shand, former chair of the festival, departed three weeks ago, saying that freedom of expression “should not be used as a justification to accept language and conversations that compromise the festival as a safe and inclusive space for all audiences”.

The new festival chair, Robert Watkins, has said that the event “will not be a forum for antisemitism, racism or bigotry of any kind”.

The festival’s artistic director Ann Mossop said: “Disagreement is not harm.”

People and governments are entitled to direct their money wherever they choose, and to take it away from people or organisations that don’t align with their values.

But we need to consider carefully about whether we agree with money being cut off in some instances but not in others – and why. Because all of us are on the front line now.

Ideals such as freedom of expression don’t exist in a vacuum, and increasingly they need to be navigated by all sorts of decision makers, high and low.

The cost of freedom of speech is becoming more and more literal.

Jacqueline Maley is a senior writer and columnist.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.