It has become fashionable to engage in a debate about the state of public debate of late.
This introspection comes as some have made a dubious link between atrocities such as the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in Arizona or the recent killing spree in Oslo, and normal albeit robust discussions on talkback radio and the internet.
In the frame are issues like asylum seekers, immigration, and as The Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen put it in an excellent piece mid-week, “the relationship between Islam and modernity”.
Free speech she said, “must include the right to offend”.
The suggestion from some on the Left that merely by questioning policies such as multiculturalism, radio personalities promote the violent acts of extremists, is absurd. And to use such tragedies to stifle discussion is nakedly opportunistic.
Nonetheless, what might be termed “the debate debate” does have a more legitimate sphere and is occurring against a generalised complaint that politics has become unhealthily polarised and perhaps a little too willing for its own good.
Some cite the Liberal Party’s move from moderate policies under Malcolm Turnbull to those under Tony Abbott as well as the rise of Tea Party conservatives in the US, to claim that the previously shared middle ground has been vacated.
Mr Turnbull drew a withering put-down yesterday merely for observing that small-L liberals have a place in his party and that elections are won in the centre. That such a benign and sensible observation was seen as inflammatory by his chief destroyer, the retired Nick Minchin, says much about the rawness of political culture at present.
Environment and Water Minister Tony Burke addressed this theme last month at the Sydney Institute listing three “iconic issues” in his court: climate change, the Murray Darling Basin, and protection of National Parks.
“Not long ago all three brought bipartisan support. All three were the product of shared values. All three are now in the thick of partisan politics. How much has changed in two years?”
Quite.
From the political Right, there is derision at this assertion as members point to the past aggressions of Paul Keating and Mark Latham and to the vitriol routinely directed at John Howard, Philip Ruddock and Peter Reith. They have a point.
On the Left however, there is a sense that Mr Abbott’s unbending adversarialism has licensed a new sense of anger in talk-backland and that this has given others permission to become ever-more shrill and offensive. Certainly Mr Abbott prefers to chat to his cheerleaders on commercial radio over the less sycophantic scrutiny of the national press gallery. But he’s no pioneer there.
Of course, the right to offend in a liberal democracy must remain untrammelled. But in practice the jewel of free speech comes with strings attached. As with many rights it has to be mediated against the greater good.
Consider speeding. We readily accept that in a democracy we may go where we choose free of border checkpoints and travel papers. But we also readily accept conditions on that. We know freedom of movement does not imply freedom of the speed of movement.
Speed limits on the roads are just one of thousands of examples of negotiated rights which are delimited for the safety and wellbeing of others and importantly, for the maintenance of the social order as a whole. This is the deal we all implicitly make as members of a society.
Yes it would be disastrous to legislate further limitations on free expression - those already in place are more than enough, literally. But that does not mean that individuals should not maintain respect and civility in their exchanges. This should not be a matter of law but of civics - and dare I say - of common sense.
Which is where the call for a return to less heated and more respectful public discussion has merit.
Those in positions of influence who show disrespect for example to the office of prime minister, do as much harm to the principle of free speech as those who would silence them.
This goes to recent well-known examples of radio demagogues treating Julia Gillard with scant regard in interviews and then railing to their complicit audience that she is a liar and should be dumped at sea in a bag. And it goes too to the disrespect shown to scientists in the carbon debate.
Yes this is free speech but it is also abuse. Exploiting discontent and seething victimhood may lift their own ratings but they diminish the whole and weaken the fabric of society.
This is not about political correctness because no subject should be ruled out of bounds.
Rather it is about the protection of free speech through the mature exercise of that right and the eschewing of over-heated rhetoric which serves no other purpose than to offend.
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
@ToryShepherd I hope that's in your piece tomorrow. Also - are you coming over this week or laaaaaater?
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters
Bill Kelty made a memorable speech last week. Addressing the ACTU Congress Dinner in Sydney, the legendary…
Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…
Speaking of yourself in the third person is usually a sign that you’re suffering from delusions…
South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.
If South Australia had just arrived in the world, red and wrinkled and mewling, what would we call it?…
Nosebleed Section
choice ringside rantings
From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
Michael S says:
"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone
Change Up! says:
I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]Gentle jabs to the ribs
They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more
Most commented