FREEDOM TO SPEAK

Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.

Freedom of speech is different to freedom to open your mouth and speak. It is a right in a civilised society to be able to speak your mind and portray a point of view without fear of persecution. In a democratic system, this principle is fundamental to freedom of the individual and person. Like the financial system, the internet or something as basic as relationships - when there is no trust, there is no future. Why else are so many countries around the world suffering from civil unrest? We put an incredible amount of faith and trust in our rulers, and a break down of that trust leads to a break down in the system and people will inevitably rise up and rebel.

Remember the former Prime Minister John Howard, the likeable guy who used to walk every morning along the water’s edge at Kirribilli constantly approached by the Chaser crowd and media? John Howard’s pitch to voters before the 2004 election was simple: “Who do you trust?” And he was overwhelmingly endorsed by the Australian public. The polls however, 3 years later showed a different story and the trust meter began to turn. As a result, Australia voted in an inexperienced but trustworthy, confident and talented leader in Kevin Rudd and so a new era began in Australian politics. Something special happened which many of us take for granted, and that is a change of political power overnight with no bloodshed, no legal challenges or courtroom injunctions, no burning of buildings, or statues being erected or destroyed. This was freedom of speech at its best.

Our system works, but can it be improved? Are our freedoms of speech being unnecessarily inhibited? September 11, 2001 is a day most of us will never forget and marked a major shift in the global-political landscape. Western democracies introduced thousands of pages of legislation well-intended to protect its people by increasing powers of Government over its people and impinging upon basic civil liberties. You may be arrested without charge and without access to a lawyer up to a certain period of time if under suspicion of terrorism. Training in foreign lands deemed by your resident country to be “terrorist affiliated” is now a criminal offence. Your movements and web-searches are traced and calls at any time may be monitored. Your transactions analysed by public servants on incogitable sized databases looking for patterns and red flags. But don’t be paranoid; this is the price of freedom and the price of safety.

The sacred right of “innocence until proven guilty” is arguably under threat. But what role does the Government have to interfere with peoples rights to privacy in order to bring back confidence that it’s safe to catch trains to work and your leaders will protect you from all the evils of the world? We elect our Governments and they are there to represent our interests. We pay them to make the tough decisions and decide when certain freedoms must be restricted because they pose a greater risk. If you work for a bank and have access to certain account information, it is right to expect your movements and transactions will be closely monitored by management to ensure that when you are in a position of “privilege”, if you give into temptation and cause harm to another – you will be caught and punished in order to protect the innocent. So with that said, it should then be noted that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. Is it a better outcome that a suspect is not monitored or approached due to lack of “substantial evidence” and blows up a building or that the authorities, appropriately subject to internal reviews and strict codes of conduct, are able to exercise their discretion and act accordingly doing what they are trained to do?

Transparency is crucial to the process. As citizens we have every right to question our leaders and their motives. If we do not agree with their decisions we have a right to write to them exercising our opinions and requesting a response. We may appeal decisions to various independent panels or the judiciary. We may raise complaints to various Ombudsman offices. We can vote against them at the next election. Or even better, if we want to be heard we can run against our local member at an election and put our hat in the ring. Plato once remarked that “Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.” In this country we can criticise just about anyone on virtually any media channel without fear of disappearing in the night. However, we must acknowledge that people have rights to protect their own reputation from false accusation which may damage their reputations. We have all experienced or seen cases where another’s words can be hurtful and offensive, and this freedom then goes too far. We need to find that balance.

The internet surely tests the limits of freedoms of speech. From your very own home in the privacy of your own walls under the virtual veils of anonymity, we may place material on facebook or myspace walls and public bulletin boards spreading damaging gossip about others with little fear of being caught. In some cases it may not be illegal per se, but unethical and cruel. Do Governments have a role to play and if so what? On one hand we should be able to enjoy the privacy of our own homes, but should that extend to the right to access pornography deemed unacceptable by community standards, or access terrorist propaganda? Or how about HSC questions before the exams? People have a right to truth and transparency – a right to “know in the public interest”. But what about when “knowing” may damage or pose a threat to innocent people like children? How do we know the difference between truth and heresay? As much as we love gossip, do we have a right to spread it knowing that it is unsubstantiated? What punishment then fits the crime?

This is after all, an age of information! It’s what we use it for that matters right?  We have one big world wide library out there with more information than we could absorb in several lifetimes. But in a free world, we are limited by what we can access and are subject to censorship by our politicians. Should bureaucrats be given such power to decide what we can and can’t access? After all, we are virtually buried by strict rules and red tape despite our constant reminders of how lucky we are and we’ve never been so free. From rules around smoking in pubs to watering your lawn to paying your council rates on time and wearing a helmet when on a bicycle. And don’t even start me on the rules around taxes that baffle even the most brilliant legal minds – we have over 20,000 pages of it in this country but don’t dare make a mistake or you just might be visited by a suit waving a badge and a calculator with the power to hit you with penalty tax and backdated interest or feel the wrath!

I don’t pretend to have an answer, but we must understand that the world is not black and white. We have to take more responsibility for our own actions. Greater reliance on Government will result in being relieved of the freedoms which we take for granted. We must never be afraid of our Governments; after all, we are their masters. When people can no longer stand up and question their Government, then God help us all because we are a democracy no longer. Everyone is accountable to somebody at the end of the day and the voter holds power. Like shareholders of a company, ask questions, seek answers, be involved and choose wisely. That ladies and gentlemen, is your enduring right. But remember, in a democracy (Government for the people by the people), with every right comes responsibility.