anything goes? censorship, vilification and the right to ... · 3. free speech is essential for...
TRANSCRIPT
Copyright ©Australian Catholic University 2012
Anything Goes? Censorship, Vilification and the Right to Free Speech
Perspective: Victims of Vilification and Internet Hate Sites
What belief is held by this group?
What resolution would they opt for?
Who would benefit?
Perspective: Print and Broadcast Media
What belief is held by this group?
What resolution would they opt for?
Who would benefit?
ANYTHING GOES? CENSORSHIP, VILIFICATION AND THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
A number of resources have been provided for you in this package. Use any/ all of the material to complete your analysis.
Your Task: 1. Select an issue from the list provided.
2. Describe the issue (150 words)
3. Explain why this is an issue of justice or the common good (150 words).
4. Identify the people or groups who have a stake in the issue and analyse
their perspectives on it. Why would some stakeholders not want the
situation to change? (750 words)
5. Analyse the issue in terms of the principles that have been studied that
promote human flourishing. Which perspective would most effectively
promote the common good? (750 words)
6. In light of your analysis, and after considering the ethical questions provided, discuss how you would respond to this issue. (200 words).
Perspective: Artists (eg. visual and fine artists. film makers, authors,
dancers, actors, musicians) What belief is held by this
group?
What resolution would they opt for?
Who would benefit?
Perspective: Organisations
whose Core Business is the
Internet or Internet-Related
Products
Who might belong to this group?
What belief is held by this group?
What resolution would they opt for?
Who would benefit?
Perspective: Governments and Legislators
What belief is held by this group?
What resolution would they opt for?
Who would benefit?
Perspective: Comedians What belief is held by this
group?
What resolution would they opt for?
Who would benefit?
Perspective: Internet Filter Software Companies
Who might belong to this group?
What belief is held by this group?
What resolution would they opt for?
Who would benefit?
Perspective: Internet users Who might belong to this group?
What belief is held by this group?
What resolution would they opt for?
Who would benefit?
Can you think of any other perspectives?
Perspective: A Christian Perspective What belief is espoused in Christian
teaching?
What resolution is presented in this perspective?
Who would benefit?
Copyright ©Australian Catholic University 2012
Introduction to the issue:
In countries such as Australia, the United States and Canada, there has been a long and largely unquestioned tradition of free speech.1 In an increasingly globalised
communications environment, intellectual freedom necessarily moves to the centre of professional development and can then become explicitly, instead of implicitly, a
central focus for academic study.2 The normal aim of censorship is to suppress speech, publications and other forms of expression in whole or in part. In theory, outrage at
the very idea of censorship is a powerful tool for advocates of free expression. Freedom of expression was a founding tenet of the Enlightenment philosophies that gave
birth to liberal democracies.3
The following resource provides an insight into the history and development of freedom of speech:
Richard Allsop, “Freedom of Speech: The Difficult History of Free Speech,” Quadrant Online 56, nos.1-2 (Jan-Feb 2012),
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2012/1-2/the-difficult-history-of-free-speech.
…and here you will find an introduction to the difficulties that arise as a result of free speech:
Ineke Sluiter, & Ralph M. Rosen (eds.), Free Speech in Classical Antiquity (Leiden, NLD: Brill Academic Publishers, 2004).
With the rise of the internet, the free speech of individuals and groups can now reach a far greater audience than ever before – and it can do so in less than a second. The
effect of such speech, therefore, can have much larger ramifications. As Rodney Smoller points out,
“Speech may be uplifting, enlightening, and profound; but it is often degrading, redundant, and trivial ... may confirm and affirm; it may be patriotic and supportive of prevailing values and order; but it may also be challenging, threatening, and seditious, perhaps even treasonous.”4
To this end, Governments around the world have sought to censor parts of the internet. At the same time, human rights activists have recently called attention to an
upsurge in the arrest of bloggers, religious figures and activists,” spotlighting a “host of constraints on freedom of speech.”5
So the ultimate question is: Can limits to free speech ever be justified? And if so, under what terms can we justify such limits?
The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (article 19).
1 A.C. Grayling, “Tolerating Intolerance,” Index on Censorship 36, no.2 (2007): 124-130. [Note: You will need to click ‘Full text (PDF)’ to the right of the Abstract.] 2 P. Sturges, “Comedy as Freedom of Expression,” Journal of Documentation 66 no.2, (2010): 1. 3 S. Jansen and B. Martin, “Exposing and Opposing Censorship: Backfire Dynamics in Freedom-of-Speech Struggles,” Pacific Journalism Review 10 no.1 (2004): 29-45. 4 Rodney A. Smoller, as cited in Amponsah, Peter Nkrumah. Libel Law, Political Criticism, and Defamation of Public Figures : The United States, Europe, and Australia (New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2004), 1. 5 Samantha Libby, “The Art of Censorship in Vietnam,” Journal of international Affairs 65 no.1 (2011): 209-218.
Copyright ©Australian Catholic University 2012
At the same time, the Declaration offers a word of caution:
“Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the
destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein” (article 30).
In other words, the Declaration affirms the right to freedom of expression, provided that it does not impinge on the rights of others. Consider the many so-called “hate
sites” on the internet. Would they be sanctioned under this Declaration?
The following article offers a great deal of insight to this discussion:
John W. Tate, “Free Speech or Equal Respect? Liberalism's Competing Values,” Philosophy & Social Criticism 34, no.9 (Nov 2008): 987-1020.
____________________________
Before we go on, it would be useful to look at some definitions:
Freedom of speech
“is regarded as a basic human right within democratic societies. Freedom of speech means a person has the right to express their views on any given topic even if
those views are offensive to other people or contradict other people's views.”6
According to Pullan,7 free speech is underpinned by four common assumptions:
1. Free speech is essential for individual fulfilment;
2. Free speech enables peoples to discover the truth;
3. Free speech is essential for democracy and people’s rights in decision-making; and
4. Free speech is essential for achieving change peacefully.
In addition, McGowan8 argues that free speech is underpinned by the following tenets:
1. Free speech allows the free-flow of ideas which is the best way to access the truth;
2. Free speech must be protected in order for democracy to function well; and
3. Free speech is necessary so that people are autonomous and can decide for themselves what to think and do.
However, another caution is offered: Freedom of speech “does not mean that a person is free to say whatever that person wants to say.”9 To allow harmful speech would
be to uphold freedom of speech as more important than other human rights, and could undermine the rights of equality and security. This is where censorship and
vilification laws come in.
6 “Censorship and Freedom of Speech,” University of Newcastle, Australia, http://www.newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Divisions/Academic/Library/information-skills/infoskills/using/page9.html. 7 R. Pullan, Guilty Secrets: Free Speech in Australia. North Ryde: Methuen, 1984. 8 M.K. McGowan, “The Ethics of Free Speech,” in The Routledge Companion to Ethics, edited by J. Skorupski (London: Routledge, 2010), 769-770.
Copyright ©Australian Catholic University 2012
Censorship
“is the suppression of information or ideas. Censorship occurs when a person or group of people restrict access, ban or destroy material they find to be
objectionable or offensive. Censorship can be applied to almost any form of expression including books, films, songs, paintings and speech.
With relation to information sources, censorship can occur when a person or group of people place pressure on authorities and institutions including libraries to
restrict access to, remove or destroy material. In the past censorship has usually been applied to books and speeches, but another dimension has emerged with the
increase of material found on the Internet.”10
View the following resource for information on the history of censorship:
Mette Newth, “The Long History of Censorship,” Beacon for Freedom of Expression, Norway, 2010,
http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/liste.html?tid=415&art_id=475.
Vilification,
“on the basis of race or religion, is a public act of hatred – and it is against the law” in most Australian States. “It can include things such as graffiti in churches or
other public places, speeches, abuse, remarks in the media or on internet sites, gestures, posters or stickers. For these sorts of things to be considered vilification,
they need to be public and to incite people to hate others because of their race or religion.”11
The following resources provide an insight into the purpose and nature of vilification laws in Australia:
“Vilification and Race Hatred in Australia,” The News Manual, http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_05.html.
Victorian: “Racial and Religious Tolerance Act: What You Need to Know,” Factsheet,
http://www.wypin.org.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=uhoRdR4Yogs%3D&tabid=68
View the following resources for an insight into other laws that limit free speech:
Peter M. Amponsah, “Libel Law, Political Criticism and Defamation of Public Figures: United States, Europe and Australia.” In Law and Society: Recent
Scholarship, edited by Eric Rise, (New York, N.Y.: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2004). (See the “Introduction” in particular.)
Andrew T. Kenyon, Tim Marjoribanks, “Chilled Journalism?: Defamation and Public Speech in US and Australian Law and Journalism,” New Zealand Sociology 23,
no.2 (2008): 18-33.
____________________________
9 McGowan, “The Ethics of Free Speech”, 769. 10 “Censorship and Freedom of Speech,” University of Newcastle, Australia. 11
“Vilification,” Anti-Discrimination Commission, Queensland; see also Racial Vilification Law in Australia, Australian Human Rights Commission, (2002).
Copyright ©Australian Catholic University 2012
So, how do we define censorship and freedom of speech in Australia? How do other cultures view the issue of censorship and freedom of speech (e.g. the prohibition of the
use of Facebook in China or the constraints concerning the exhibition of art in Vietnam)?
Browse the following websites for news articles on the issue of censorship and freedom of speech in other parts of the world:
“Freedom of speech,” The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/freedom-of-speech.
“Censorship,” The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/censorship.
This resource package aims to provide you with a cross-section of perspectives in relation to censorship, vilification and the right to free speech. As you work through the
topic, consider the following questions:
When does ‘freedom of speech’ violate human rights? When is it a form of healthy and proactive dialogue and defence?
What are the issues of censorship and freedom of speech that arise in a digital world with multiple modes of technological devices and platforms?
Consider, again, the questions posed earlier in this package: Can limits to free speech ever be justified? And if so, under what terms can we justify such limits?
Perspectives: There are various groups (“stakeholders”) that are involved in the issue of censorship vs. free speech in some way. In this section, please reflect on the information from the
previous section and from the following resources. In reviewing the information from these sources, identify the perspectives and interests of each stakeholder group.
Consider the questions provided on the cover sheet of this task in order to guide your reading.
Perspective 1:
Internet Users
The following speech, by Hilary Clinton, outlines a range of benefits afforded to users of the internet as a result of freedom of
speech, and the role of governments in ensuring this freedom is upheld: Hilary Clinton Speaks on Internet Freedom, , YouTube
video with subtitles available, 3:27, The Newseum, Washington, DC, January 22, 2010,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbwiXRmzKi0
Australian media commentator Cassandra Wilkinson weighs the dangers of censoring free speech on the internet. “Wilkinson
argues that, although a complete freedom of speech might enable unwanted activity such as pedophilia, the ‘risk of un-free
speech’ is more dangerous than censorship.” View the full discussion here: “In Defense of Free Speech on the Internet –
Cassandra Wilkinson,” YouTube video with [somewhat unclear] subtitles available, 4:41, ForaTV, December 18, 2008,
Copyright ©Australian Catholic University 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LctUJubJxFQ
The following resource discusses the power of the internet in promoting freedom of speech, and the benefits to the user as a
result: “Internet Freedom of Speech,” 2000, http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ip_speech.htm.
Ethical Questions for Reflection
Hilary Clinton said that the “internet is a network that magnifies the power and potential of all other (networks).” Do you agree
with this statement? Under what circumstances might this be both a positive and a negative thing?
Referring to article 20a of the UN Declaration on Human Rights, Clinton says, “The freedom to connect is like the freedom of
assembly, only in cyberspace.” How does this impact your view of freedom of speech and censorship on the internet? What
benefits does such assembly hold for users of the internet? How might this assembly be used in a destructive manner?
What are the potential hazards to internet users in terms of freedom of speech? Do you agree with Cassandra Wilkinson that
the benefits outweigh the risks?
Perspective 2:
Organisations whose Core Business is
the Internet or Internet-Related
Products (eg. Internet Service Providers,
Search Engines, Social Media Providers)
The following quote comes from the introduction to a compelling forum presented by the Institute of Ideas, entitled, Battle of
Ideas: Caught in the Web (video only). This is the transcription for the video Battle of Ideas: Caught in the Web.
“The internet is increasingly seen as a threat in need of containment: a threat to public morality, to children, to privacy
and even to knowledge itself. Lobby groups campaign for the removal of offensive pages, businesses worry about
copyright piracy (while others worry about corporations monopolising the web), and, amid fears of terrorism, home
secretary Jacqui Smith announced at the beginning of this year that the internet is ‘not a no go area for government’.
The internet is fast becoming a place where different groups clamour for digital authority, and control. So how free
should the internet be, and who gets to decide?
From the pragmatic self-censorship of Google in China to legal battles over copyright and music-sharing, it certainly
seems there is more to the issue than overt state censorship. At the same time, the internet is heralded as a new
democratic force, bringing people together to collaborate in novel ways. So does this require absolute internet
freedom, or is censorship just another issue to be redefined by the netizens of Web 2.0, and made a collective
enterprise? It is striking that, rather than being the outcome of public debates, decisions affecting us all tend to take the
form of private deals between Internet Service Providers and various lobby groups. So are we seeing democratisation,
or rather the ‘privatisation’ of internet censorship? Has the utopian ideal of unrestrained freedom on the internet given
Copyright ©Australian Catholic University 2012
way to resignation in the face of inevitable regulation, or even an embrace of it? Or does this obscure the real question
of who’s in control?”
The following article provides an interesting insight into the role of businesses in relation to censorship on the internet.
Particularly pertinent to this perspective is Chapter 1, “Speech and Censorship on the Internet”:
Dawn C. Nunziato, Virtual Freedom: Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age, (Pal Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press), 2009.
Ethical Questions for Reflection
What responsibility do internet providers have to protect the rights of their users, and monitor content? Must they comply with
national laws? What responsibility do they have in relation to the establishment of a national code of practice or conduct? Are
they responsible for the monitoring of conduct in relation to this code?
Are social media sites such as Facebook exploited by those who manage and make money from the site?
How does the use of Facebook impact on freedom of speech and censorship issues? Are those who use Facebook both users
and abusers of free speech and censorship?
In what ways can the internet be both a positive and a negative force for society?
Perspective 3:
Internet Filter Software Companies
In Chapter 2 of the forum discussion mentioned above, Jo Glanville, editor of Index on Censorship, discusses the role of Internet
Filters and the problems that can also be associated with them: Institute of Ideas, Battle of Ideas: Caught in the Web, FORA.tv
(note: for Jo Glanville’s section, you will need to click on ‘2. Internet Revolution in Censorship’).
The following article explores the arguments for and against internet filters in public libraries: Lana Gottschalk, “Internet Filters
in Public Libraries: Do They Belong?” Library Student Journal (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, 2006).
Listen to the following TED talk for a discussion on the related issue of “filter bubbles: Eli Pariser: Beware Online “Filter
Bubbles”, TED (2011) (video and transcription).
“As web companies strive to tailor their services (including news and search results) to our personal tastes, there's a
dangerous unintended consequence: We get trapped in a "filter bubble" and don't get exposed to information that
could challenge or broaden our worldview. Eli Pariser argues powerfully that this will ultimately prove to be bad for us
Copyright ©Australian Catholic University 2012
and bad for democracy.”
Are filter bubbles a form of censorship? In what way might they be considered to be censorship? Is it self-censorship, or is the
censorship imposed by the internet filter company?
Ethical Questions for Reflection
Do institutions and organisations have the right to filter information for internet users?
When could this be seen as discrimination or blocking the freedom of information or dialogue?
Do internet filters have a place in a public library or a university?
Perspective 4:
Governments and Legislators
When considering the “Internet Users” perspective above, you were asked to view an edited video of Hilary Clinton’s speech at
The Newseum last year. Now, read the rest of the transcript for an insight into the role of governments in protecting free
speech: “Remarks on Internet Freedom,” The Newseum, Washington, DC, January 21, 2010,
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135519.htm
The following article looks at internet censorship in countries around the world: Barney Warf, “Geographies of Global Internet
Censorship,” GeoJournal 76 (2011): 1-23
Chapter 5 of the following resource provides an interesting discussion on the challenges associated with hate speech in
democratic societies: Ian Cram, “Wounding words: The Constitutional Challenge Posed by Hate Speech in Modern Liberal
Democracies,” Contested Words: Legal Restrictions on Freedom of Speech in Liberal Democracies (Abingdon, UK: Ashgate, 2006).
Ethical Questions for Reflection
Is freedom of speech possible in a communist country and how do we define oppression?
What is ‘soft’ censorship? What are the implications of ‘soft’ censorship in terms of freedom of speech?
Do governments around the world have a responsibility to enforce their own laws in cyberspace?
Should standards for “public morality” be introduced that cross international borders, particularly for cyberspace?
Does any government have the right to censor what their citizens can access?
Perspective 5: How do we define what is ‘right’, ‘proper’ or ‘wrong’ in terms of the common good and the use of censorship? For the purposes
Copyright ©Australian Catholic University 2012
Artists (e.g. visual and fine artists. film
makers, authors, dancers, actors,
musicians)
of this perspective, we will look separately at the issue of censorship in art, theatre and music.
Art
Censorship raises the question of how an object is deemed ‘art’, ‘obscene’ or ‘inappropriate’. How do we interpret what
constitutes ‘art’ and ‘artistic expression’?
Sociologists have studied how cultural objects are interpreted according to the cultural frameworks of any society, but little has
been written about how we might interpret art to be unsuitable for a general or specific audience.
See the following resource for an insight into the issue of art and censorship:
N. Beisel, “Morals Versus Art: Censorship, the Politics of Interpretation and the Victorian nude.” American Sociological
Review 58, no.2 (2012): 145-162.
… and this article:
“Recent controversy has surrounded the creation of an installation inviting people to pulverise a live goldfish in a
blender; all of this done in the name of art.”
Simon Longstaff, “The Goldfish is Dead, But Is It Art?” St. James Ethics Centre, 2003.
Theatre
The following article traces the history of protest theatre in Zimbabwe: Praise Zenega, “Censorship, Surveillance, and Protest
Theater in Zimbabwe,” Theater 38 no.3 (2008): 67-83. (Note: to read the full article, you will need to click ‘Full text (PDF)’ to the
right of the abstract.)
Music
The music career of Kris Kristofferson was halted in its tracks after the lyrics of his songs called the action of the American
Government into question. Shortly after this, Kris starred in a film depicting a negative view of American history. In 2005,
Andrew Denton interviewed Kris Kristofferson. Read the transcript here: “Kris Kristofferson,” transcript, Enough Rope with
Andrew Denton, ABC1, July 25, 2005, http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1422317.htm.
The Dixie Chicks had their songs pulled from radio station playlists, after they publicly criticised President Bush’s plans for war in
Iraq. For more information, see the following resources: “Dixie Chicks Pulled From Air After Bashing Bush,” CNN International,
March 15, 2003, http://edition.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/14/dixie.chicks.reut/.
Copyright ©Australian Catholic University 2012
Ethical Questions for Reflection
What are some of the issues related to censorship in the arts (music, visual and fine arts, theatre, dance, film), and literature?
Freedom of Expression applies to forms of artistic expression as well as to the spoken or written word. What examples of art,
theatre or music have ‘tested the boundaries’ of freedom of expression in the previous few decades?
Bill Henson’s photographic works have been the subject of censorship actions in several countries including Australia. What are
the arguments for and against these actions? How would you evaluate them?
In countries such as Vietnam, art is regulated according to the State’s wishes and needs. What do you think about regulations
being placed on the exposure of art to the general public? Does this serve the common good? Why/ Why not?
Consider the issue of ‘censorship backfire’ – when censorious attacks on a film or book cultivate increased demand for the
forbidden work rather than restrict access to it.12 Does this benefit or harm the common good?
Theatre has long been considered a ‘mirror of society’. Should theatre be censored in any way, given that patrons ‘choose’ and
pay to see a performance?
In the past, theatre was considered ‘dangerous’ for the mass audience, because it expressed opinions that could be divisive. In
some regimes, it still is! What role do you think theatre plays in freedom of expression? Is it ethical for governments to ban
plays that express divisive opinions?
What role does censorship play in the music industry? To what extent is the popularity of a musician based on the popularity of
their opinions? Did the radio stations act ethically in relation to the pulling of the Dixie Chicks and Kris Kristofferson from their
playlists?
In the field of art, is it a case of ‘anything goes’? What rights do visual and creative artists have in terms of voicing their opinions
to the masses? What responsibility do they have to respect the rights and social mores of others? What responsibility do they
have with respect to the religious sensibilities of their audience?
Perspective 6:
Comedians
“I was only joking.” This is a statement often used as an explanation for incidents of vilification. Comedy may be a healthy satire
or parody of social values and structures. When is something ‘funny’ and when does it stop being funny? Why?
Considering the above question, read the following article:
12
S. Jansen & B. Martin, “Exposing and Opposing Censorship: Backfire Dynamics in Freedom-of-Speech Struggle,” Pacific Journalism Review 10, no.1 (2004): 29-45.
Copyright ©Australian Catholic University 2012
Simon Longstaff, “Free Speech and Offence,” Living Ethics 63 (Autumn 2006).
Ethical Questions for Reflection
According to The News Manual’s article, “Vilification and Race Hatred in Australia,”
“Jokes about race, colour, nationality, ethnic, ethno-religious or national background will generally not be covered by
vilification laws, but they might if they cause serious damage to another person. One person’s idea of what is funny is
often not shared by the victim of the joke, and the laws are meant in part to protect victims.”
What are some issues related to ‘comedy’ as a means of self-expression and social comment?
Is there any place for censorship in stand-up comedy routines? Is it vilification when comedians make jokes about ethnicity,
disabilities, religion or political dispositions?
Perspective 7:
Print and Broadcast Media
Does private ownership of print and broadcast media affect freedom of expression?
Read the following article for a discussion on this question: Eric Beecher, “Beecher: Censorship Alive and Well in the Australian
Media,” Crikey.com, April 17, 2008.
The recent move of Gina Rinehart into Fairfax Media ensures a media monopoly between Rinehart and Murdoch: John Pilger,
“Murdoch is But One Player in the Media Junta,” The Drum Opinion, ABC, July 2, 2012,
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4105038.html.
The following article, by Mark Pearson, discusses the issues of censorship and freedom of expression in print media: “My Piece
in The Drum: Media Regulation Made Simple By ‘Responsible Truth-Telling’,” Journlaw.com, January 23, 2012,
http://journlaw.com/2012/01/23/my-piece-in-the-drum-media-regulation-made-simple-by-responsible-truth-telling/.
The media, particularly radio and television, pose another important issue relating to freedom of speech. Like social media, live
radio and television presents a unique opportunity for people to have their say and to have it broadcast instantaneously.
Consider the difficulties that arise in this area when freedom of speech is taken too far. For example, in the interest of securing
ratings, so-called “Shock Jocks” have utilised hate speech and deliberate provocation in the name of comedy. Can you think of
any instances in the recent past when a media personality has said something that caused harm?
Copyright ©Australian Catholic University 2012
Ethical Questions for Reflection
What responsibilities do the media have in relation to freedom of speech? Are there limits to free expression in the media?
What are these limits?
Why is media monopoly a concern for freedom of expression in Australia and around the world?
If journalism has global impact, what are its global responsibilities?
Should television and radio shows ever be censored? Why/ why not?
What about the case of the ‘shock jock’ on live radio? Is there any place in the media for individuals like this?
Should violence in media be censored? What about violence in war torn or oppressed countries in news reports and
documentaries?
Does censorship of television and radio violate the right to free speech?
Perspective 8:
Victims of Vilification and Internet Hate
Sites
There are various laws throughout Australia that protect minority ethnic and religious groups from vilification. View the
following sites for an overview of these Acts:
Victoria: Racial and Religious Tolerance Act: What You Need to Know
ACT: ACT Human Rights Office Issues Paper: Racial and Religious Vilification in the ACT – Investigating the Effectiveness
of Part 6 of the ACT Discrimination Act 1991, ACT Human Rights Office, 2006.
The article mentioned earlier, from The News Manual, “Vilification and Race Hatred in Australia”, outlines the key issues related
to vilification, and the legal protections afforded to victims.
The following paper examined the responses of 266 volunteers as they viewed 11 different hate sites on the Internet,
particularly examining perceptions of harmfulness and persuasiveness: Laura Leets, “Responses to Internet Hate Sites: Is Speech
Too Free in Cyberspace?” Communication Law and Policy 6, no.2 (2001): 287-317.
The Australian Human Rights Commission’s Report on the Cyber-Racism Symposium examines the impact of cyber-racism on
the victims.
Copyright ©Australian Catholic University 2012
As we have seen in this resource package so far, there is often a very fine line between the right to freedom of speech, and the
responsibility to minimise harm to the listener. Consider the recent cases in the AFL:
A Collingwood fan was stripped of his membership after racially vilifying a Gold Coast Suns player:
“Magpies Fan Stripped of Membership for Racial Slur,” ABC News, June 5, 2012, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-
05/magpies-fan-kicked-out/4053608
“AFL Takes Action on Racial Vilification,” video only, Yahoo7! Sport, June, 2012,
http://au.sports.yahoo.com/afl/videos/watch/29559902/
A recruiting manager for the Adelaide Football Club was sacked after racial vilification. He subsequently received
counselling and education from the AFL:
“Sacked Adelaide Recruiter Matt Rendell Counselled Over Vilification,” Sunday Herald Sun, March 25, 2012,
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/sacked-adelaide-recruiter-matt-rendell-counselled-over-
vilification/story-e6frf9jf-1226309140568
In each of these cases, what harm was caused to the victim? Why do you think such definitive action was taken by the AFL?
Ethical Questions for Reflection
Vilification laws in Australia are designed to protect the rights of minority ethnic and religious groups. These basic human rights
– the right to equality and non-discrimination; the right to freedom of religious beliefs; the right of ethnic and religious
minorities to use their language, practice their religion and enjoy their culture; and freedom of expression13 – are the
foundation upon which vilification laws are built. What conclusions can you draw from this about the nature of freedom of
speech and the common good?
In the ACT Human Rights Office Issue Paper, mentioned above, a number of questions are asked. If these questions were posed
to you, how would you answer them?
Do you think the existing racial vilification provisions are providing people who may experience racist abuse with adequate protection?
Do you think people are aware of and understand the law?
13
ACT Council of Social Services Inc., Comment on the ACT Human Rights Office Issues Paper: Racial and Religious Vilification in the ACT, 2006.
Copyright ©Australian Catholic University 2012
Who should be able to make a formal complaint about racial vilification?
Does our law strike the right balance between freedom of expression and protection from racial vilification?14
Perspective 9:
A Christian Perspective
The Pontifical Council for Social Communications (PCSC) posits that communication of any kind between people must reflect the
responsibility incumbent upon all persons to protect the common good and the dignity of the human person. They call for the
“two-way flow of information and views” to reflect “freedom of expression which is sensitive to the wellbeing of the
community.”15 They say that media “do nothing by themselves; they are instruments, tools, used as people choose to use
them.” However, they say that the question must be raised as to “whether, as a result of it, the human person is becoming truly
better, that is to say more mature spiritually, more aware of the dignity of his humanity, more responsible, more open to
others, especially the neediest and the weakest, and readier to give and to aid all.”16
Article 12 of the PCSC document, “Ethics in Internet,” discusses the importance of freedom of expression:
“We strongly support freedom of expression and the free exchange of ideas. Freedom to seek and know the truth is a
fundamental human right, and freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democracy. Man, provided he respects the
moral order and the common interest, is entitled to seek after truth, express and make known his opinions...he ought
to be truthfully informed about matters of public interest. And public opinion, an essential expression of human nature
organized in society, absolutely requires freedom to express ideas and attitudes.
In light of these requirements of the common good, we deplore attempts by public authorities to block access to
information—on the Internet or in other media of social communication—because they find it threatening or
embarrassing to them, to manipulate the public by propaganda and disinformation, or to impede legitimate freedom of
expression and opinion. Authoritarian regimes are by far the worst offenders in this regard; but the problem also exists
in liberal democracies, where access to media for political expression often depends on wealth, and politicians and
their advisors violate truthfulness and fairness by misrepresenting opponents and shrinking issues to sound-bite
dimensions.”
However, this freedom must be tempered with responsibility. The PCSC offers this statement in relation to the use of the
internet to spread ideas of hatred and violence:
14 “Have Your Say About the Law”, ACT Human Rights Office Issues Paper: Racial and Religious Vilification in the ACT – Investigating the Effectiveness of Part 6 of the ACT Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT Human Rights Office, 2006), ii. 15 John P. Foley, Ethics in Communications, Pontifical Council for Social Communications (2000), 26. 16
Foley, Ethics in Communications, 4.
Copyright ©Australian Catholic University 2012
“Among the specific problems presented by the Internet is the presence of hate sites devoted to defaming and
attacking religious and ethnic groups. Some of these target the Catholic Church. Like pornography and violence in the
media, Internet hate sites are reflections of the dark side of a human nature marred by sin. And while respect for free
expression may require tolerating even voices of hatred up to a point, industry self-regulation—and, where required,
intervention by public authority—should establish and enforce reasonable limits to what can be said.”17
The PCSC asserts that “the fundamental ethical principle” is that the internet and other media of social communication must
serve the common good: “The human person and the human community are the end and measure of the use of the media of
social communication; communication should be by persons to persons for the integral development of persons.”18
Ethical Questions: There are numerous questions we need to ask, from an ethical point of view, in relation to the censorship and freedom of speech. Many of these questions have been
asked through the examination of the various perspectives. A few more are listed here. Can you think of any others?
G.K. Chesterton said, “To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.” In light of all you have read in this “hot topic”, what moral
obligations do you think people hold when exercising their right to freedom of speech?
Why should freedom of expression be considered a basic human right?
When does freedom of expression serve the development of the common good?
When might freedom of expression hinder human flourishing?
Does freedom of expression mean that you are allowed to say whatever you wish at any time even if this may be deeply offensive or hurtful to others? Why or why
not? How does the right to freedom of expression stand up against other human rights? Are there instances where one might take priority over the other? Are
there basic guidelines that can be applied to freedom of expression? What should these be?
Some authorities propose that freedom of expression is the primary human right. How might this impact on other human rights? How might tensions between
conflicting rights be expressed and what resolutions are possible?
What is vilification? Is it wrong? Why or why not? How does this relate to freedom of expression?
What is censorship? Do you believe censorship is ever justified and when, if ever, should it be applied and by whom?
When, if ever, can censorship serve the development of the common good?
17 John P. Foley, The Church and Internet, Pontifical Council for Social Communications (2002), 8. 18
John P. Foley, Ethics in Internet, Pontifical Council for Social Communications (2002), 3.
Copyright ©Australian Catholic University 2012
When might censorship hinder human flourishing?
The University of Sydney has recently authorized a ‘Pro-Life’ club as an official university organisation. This has met with considerable opposition from members of
some other university clubs who are demanding that it be removed and the university officials who allowed it be censured or removed from office. What are the
key issues here in relation to freedom of expression? Is an action based on vilification justified? Is a group being vilified and by whom?
Consider the following quotations. Do you agree with their premise? Why/ why not? What values are evident in the quotes? How do they relate to the common good?
All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All
progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions.
Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship.
George Bernard Shaw, Mrs. Warren's Profession
The censor's sword pierces deeply into the heart of free expression. Earl Warren
The Pontifical Council for Social Communications states,
“The fundamental ethical principle is this: The human person and the human community are the end and measure of the use of the media of social communication;
communication should be by persons to persons for the integral development of persons.
The common good—the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily—
provides a second basic principle for ethical evaluation of social communications. It should be understood inclusively, as the whole of those worthy purposes to
which a community's members commit themselves together and which the community exists to realize and sustain. The good of individuals depends upon the
common good of their communities.”19
So, how can we most effectively promote the common good? Consider all that you have read in this module. Think about the history and background to the issue, and the diversity of perspectives and interests among the various
stakeholders. Think about the ethical questions, and how the different positions dispose us to thinking differently about what the stakeholders should or should not do.
Now ask yourself what the best course of action would be for securing the common good. What should each of the stakeholders do to bring about the common good?
What should the Australian Government do to bring about the common good? How will the common good be realised in this situation, and who must contribute?
And what about us? What should we do?
19 John P. Foley, Ethics in Internet, Pontifical Council for Social Communications (2002), 3.
Copyright ©Australian Catholic University 2012
This package has provided you with more than enough resources to complete your task, but if you are hungry for more,
visit the ACU library guide: Anything Goes? Censorship, Vilification and the Right to Free Speech.