FREEDOM OF SPEECH

It’s been an interesting week for the right to speak freely in this nation.

Yesterday, we saw one of Australia’s most infamous journalists and political commentators found guilty of racial vilification for two articles he wrote about indigenous Australians.

Although I had not read the articles in question, and a lot of the key issues around this case have been kept from the media, I think there are a few interesting points to note.

The people that were offended by these specific articles chose not to pursue Andrew Bolt (the journalist) and the Murdock Media through a defamation suit.  They chose to pursue them through a constitutional law that was introduced in the Keating era, which relates to racial vilification.  Why?  Well, to be successful with a defamation suit, the court must believe that defamation has occurred.  In this case, what Bolt had written was not defaming.  Therein, could it have been the truth? 

I am not a legal expert, and certainly not an expert in the area of constitutional law, so a ruling that these articles were founded in racial bias could well be accurate.  We’ll just have to see how that plays out.

There are also suggestions that this was an opportunity for powers far greater than us to silence one of the governments’ greatest critics.  This is just speculation, of course…

A dear friend posted an article announcing the Bolt/Murdoch’s loss in this case on Facebook yesterday, with a tagging comment of: ‘Freedom of speech is a privilege that provides people the ability to present the facts as news and be protected against bias to do so, not an open door to promote your Nazi agenda, eat shit Bolt.’

This comment resounded within me so strongly, I actually had to sit back and think about it for a while.

This is my friend’s personal opinion, and an opinion he is clearly entitled to.  However, in my opinion, he has contradicted himself in doing so.  You see, my friend is right: freedom of speech is a privilege that we enjoy, and it should be used to present facts without bias.

However, it would appear that my friend is displaying a bias of his own. 

It would seem that he doesn’t listen to Andrew Bolt on the radio every morning, nor watch his show, because if he did, he would understand the kind of person he is, and that he certainly does not have a ‘Nazi agenda’.  He would understand that he is a conservative Labor man that has worked with Bob Hawke on two election campaigns, and being from a migrant family himself (having come to this country at a very young age), is the last person to attack someone on racial grounds.  He is a political and social commentator, and entitled to his opinion.  Does he have an agenda? Possibly.  Is it Nazi based; I don’t think so. 

I would like to point out, that I do find what Andrew Bolt has to say, quite interesting.  However, that doesn’t mean I agree with everything he has to say.  That’s a freedom of expression that I enjoy; choice.

This ‘Nazi’ comment raises a very interesting question though, and I find my friends choice of words quite ironic.

You see, what is of great concern to me, and I dare say every other blogger, journalist, media commentator and individual that seeks and speaks the truth as they see it, is the government’s current inquiry into the print media.

This enquiry is fuelled by Senator Bob Brown’s pure hate for any media outlet (particularly the Murdoch Media) that highlights the inadequacies of the current Labor/Greens government.  Senator Conroy (our Communications Minister) even held an interview on the Today Show not so long ago, in an attempt to hose down Brown’s overzealous comments about the enquiry, and tried to assure the public that it wasn’t a personal witch hunt.  Massive fail on that one, Conroy.  We can see right through Senator Brown.

So the government are holding an enquiry into the print media, and how much freedom it actually has, to ensure that they are not overstepping their boundaries.  That is what we’re being told by the Gillard government.

The underlying threat here is the government wish to restrict what the print media publish, specifically anything that may be negative toward the government, as they feel that it encourages public unrest and dissatisfaction.

God forbid the public not be happy with the way the government are spending their money and running their country.

Mmmm… so, if the government control what we read, does that mean that we won’t be seeing the truth?  That we won’t be able to access alternative opinions to the ones they’re spewing out toward us?  That cases presented will only include the facts that support what the government want us to understand and believe?  Mmmm… the government controlling what we read… sounds like Nazi Germany to me… please wheel out the Minister for Propaganda, thank you…

I will also note that the Gillard government is not the first Australian government to come up with this idea, either. 

So I find it interesting that my left thinking friend believes a journalist has a Nazi agenda, but cannot see those tendencies within the socialist government he voted into office. 

BUT.  In saying that, my friend is entitled to his opinion, and I am mine.

And what is an opinion? I know I have blogged about this before, but I feel I need to re-emphasise it after this week’s events.

An opinion is neither right nor wrong.  It just… is.  Social pressures put weight on opinions, and as such, force this right/wrong mentality about them.  An opinion is quite simple really; it’s an expression of thoughts on a particular issue, founded from personal experiences.  Nothing more. 

It is freedom of speech in its simplest form.

I treasure my friends opinion, because although I may not agree with them, I find them quiet intelligent and debatable.  His opinions actually make me stop and think about things, and look at life from a different angle.  Isn’t that what an opinion should do?  Open your mind?

I believe you should try to be as open minded to everything as possible, but that doesn’t mean you have to agree with it.  This is a lesson I’ve taken a long time to understand.

It also doesn’t mean he’s right, I’m wrong, or vice-versa.  It is an expression of views from his personal stand point.  That’s what I think opinions come back to, and what we forget; opinions are formed from people who come from different stations in life, and to understand these opinions, we must try to understand where they are founded.

I’m older than my friend, and have lived a very different life to him.  I have a teenage child, he has an infant, I live in Victoria, and he lives interstate.  The paths we have travelled to these points in our lives are quite different, so our view on life is naturally different.

I respect his opinion, and the freedom with which he has to express it, which brings me back to my main point.

Freedom of speech; the ability to voice our opinions, is one of the greatest gifts that this democratic society provides us with.  We may not agree with everything we read or hear, but at least we have the right to do so. 

I hope my friend, myself and these controversial political commentators keep expressing them, for the day that we all stop being able to do so, will be a very dark day indeed.

Peace out.