COMMENT: Our tenuous grasp on freedom of speech

FREEDOM of speech is defended by politicians when used to abuse, but is treated as less important when it challenges or questions the powerful.

A protester is seen during a "Straight Lives Matter" rally held in Darlinghurst, Sydney, Saturday, September 23, 2017. (AAP Image/Danny Casey) NO ARCHIVING. Picture: DANNY CASEY

WHAT do we mean when we talk about 'freedom of speech'?

I used to think that was a simple question, but it seems different people mean different things when they use the phrase.

It was not that long ago a bunch of politicians were demanding section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act be changed because someone, somewhere, might face legal consequences for saying something racist (turns out they won't, but apparently that was too nuanced for those demanding change).

Then, last year, we had the marriage equality survey, during which the LGBTQI community were told they had to suck it up and live with the vile, hateful things people were saying to them, because we value freedom of speech.

However, at the same time we've had a government that has gagged workers in our detention facilities at Nauru and Manus Island and worked to limit any independent reporting on those centres. We've also we've seen Australia's Human Rights commissioner lambasted for pointing out the horrors faced by children at those centres.

More recently, we've had a general assault on the ability of charities to speak on political matters (which, when you get down to it, is everything), at least partially driven by some in the government's desire to get GetUp! to shut up.

And now we've got a plan to tighten restrictions on reporting in a way that could send journalists to jail for just receiving a classified document, or overhearing classified information.

Under these rules, journalists at the ABC who recently reported on the classified documents left in a filing cabinet sold in a Canberra second-hand furniture store would potentially face the sort of jail terms we expect the worst of murderers to receive.

Those stories included:

• Tony Abbott's push to bar all people over 30 from receiving welfare;
• Scott Morrison's 'go slow' order to ASIO so asylum seekers would miss critical deadlines (just in case some of them turned out to be genuine refugees, you understand); and
• Kevin Rudd having been warned about the dangers of his government's home insulation scheme.

Those are all stories that provide an important view of the attitudes of the people we elect to govern our nation and they are all stories the community should know, but because they were stamped with variations on 'top secret', they would appear likely to fall under the proposed new security laws.

Our government seems all about freedom of speech when that freedom is being used to hurl abuse at the vulnerable. However, when that 'freedom' is used to speak truth to the powerful and to inform the governed, it suddenly becomes far less accommodating.

One of these uses of freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our society and essential if we are to remain a democracy, the other is an abuse of power.

Can you tell which is which?

Originally published as COMMENT: Our tenuous grasp on freedom of speech