Free speech, Jeremy Cordeaux argued on this Garage edition of the Court of Public Opinion, is not really tested by the words we like. It is tested by the words we do not. That, he said, is why he defends Pauline Hanson’s right to take her Section 18C case all the way to the High Court, whether or not he would have chosen her words himself.
An Attack On What You Can Say
Jeremy’s objection is to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which he regards as a restriction on free expression. It is not the first time it has come into sharp focus, he noted, recalling that the columnist Andrew Bolt once copped a heavy penalty when he fell foul of it.
To his reading, 18C is an attack on what he is free to say, and therefore an attack on free speech itself. A law that penalises people for causing offence, he argued, inevitably narrows what anyone dares to express.
Voltaire’s Principle
The heart of Jeremy’s argument was a principle older than the law in question. He reached for the line long associated with Voltaire: I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.
He applied it even-handedly. He recalled being among the thousands, himself included, who took great offence when Senator Faruqi made remarks about Queen Elizabeth on the day she died. He disagreed profoundly. But the answer to speech you dislike, in his view, is not to ban it; it is more speech, and the freedom for everyone to have their say.
The Case She Is Taking On
The specific dispute stems from a heated exchange in which Hanson told Senator Faruqi, in Jeremy’s paraphrase, that if she did not like Australia she could leave and go back to Pakistan. Faruqi pursued the matter under the racial discrimination provisions; Hanson now intends to challenge the outcome in the High Court.
Jeremy was candid that he probably would not have phrased it as Hanson did. But that, he suggested, is beside the point. Whether or not you would have said it, the question is whether the state should be able to punish you for saying it.
Standing Up For All Of Us
What Hanson is defending, Jeremy stressed, is not merely her own position but a principle that protects everyone. Taking a case to the High Court is not cheap, he acknowledged, but sometimes it is necessary to stand up for what you believe in, and what she is standing up for is the right to free speech that belongs to all of us.
His closing question was the one that animates the whole debate. Do you want to live in a world, he asked, where people have to watch every word they say in case they offend somebody? Not me, he said. Not in the court of public opinion.
Listen To The Full Episode
Catch the complete Garage edition of The Court of Public Opinion, recorded live around the dining room table.
Watch The Full Episode
The Court of Public Opinion streams live every Friday from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. (ACST), right here at jeremycordeaux.com. Download the podcast anytime on your favourite podcast app, and join the conversation with your calls and comments.
