Xavier High School, villification, and freedom of speech

Somewhat unusually for a GLBT person it seems, I'm opposed to the criminalisation of "hate speech". That includes opposition to the villification laws that exist in New South Wales and other Australian states. That means that on principle I must oppose the decision by Gary Burns to use villification law against Xavier High School in Albury after they printed a letter to the editor in their Alumni magazine from "former homosexual" Matt Price entitled "Imagine a world free from homosexuals".

Gary Burns is suggesting that this can only be interpreted as a call to murder gay people. I disagree: as an ex-gay, the author of the letter most likely thinks that "a world free of homosexuals" is more akin to the idea of "a world free of unbelievers" that the Catholic church presumably aspires to through its prosetylising. It can be interpreted as a call to conversion of homosexuals to heterosexuality rather than a call for elimination. Admittedly, other people might not think so.

It's especially difficult to judge as the full text of the letter is no longer available online. As Channel Nine reports, the online version of the newsletter in question has changed the text in question to remove all references to homosexuality. Price's letter now reads as the following inoffensive pablum:

Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. My family
moved from Sydney and then to Howlong, but my
parents divorced when I was in Year 7.
I started at Xavier North Campus in 1985. I stayed until
Year 11 when I transferred to Albury High, doing Year
11 again and completing my Year 12 certificate. Later
I was accepted into Sydney University to become a
Registered Nurse.
I have been a Registered Nurse since 1994 and have
pretty much worked full time since then. I am currently
living in Noosa and my mother is here also. I am really
pleased to say I am going regularly to church where I am
a reader. It is enjoyable and I can lead/heal my spiritual
life in the way I was guided as a child. “The Truth Will
Set You Free” is what Xavier taught me.
I have a surfboard which I’m still trying to learn, but I can
get up! I had a friend that I used to catch the school bus
with from Howlong – his name was Paul Lavis. I have
not heard from him since I left school. If you hear his
name in passing could you say Hello to him for me.
God bless! Yours,
Matt Price

According to SX News, a local paper called the Border Mail may have posted the original letter under the heading "world of sex and drugs", alongside an article entitled "gay activist demands cash from schools" which trys to paint Xavier High School as the victim. But again, neither of those two articles are available from the Border Mail website. There is an online copy of a letter to the editor of the Border Mail complaining that the Border Mail's coverage of the situation was inaccurate and misleading, but nothing more.

My approach to issues like this is that it is better to publicly expose bigotry as bigotry rather than try to censor it. I mean, it's kind of hard to publicly demonstrate just what's wrong with the letter when nobody's able to read it. Presumably it's out there somewhere, even if it's not online. If I find something, I'll post it. Otherwise....

Iinet sued for allegedly "allowing" copyright violations

Depressing:

THE Australian film and television industry has launched legal action against one of the largest internet service providers in the country for allowing its users to download pirated movies and TV shows.

The action against iiNet was filed in the Federal Court yesterday by Village Roadshow, Universal Pictures, Warner Bros, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, Disney and the Seven Network.

For the record, there's no legal precedent or ruling in Australian law that would suggest that Iinet can accurately be described as actively "allowing" people to download copyright-infringine material. ISP's aren't in the business of policing content, although the sheer number of political forces with a vested interest in getting them to start is worrisome.

First Stephen Conroy's pathetic effort to build a Great Firewall of Australia, and now this. I worry for the future of the Australian Internet sometimes.

And really, how long is it before the two ideas get combined? The conglomerates comprising the "Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft" are almost certain to have a list of demands for the government about further "unwanted" content that they want the filter extended to cover.

I note that ITWire has also put 2 and 2 together here. I agree also that it seems odd that it's Iinet, the ISP who just happens to employ the outspoken Managing Director Michael Malone, and not Telstra or Optus, that's getting sued.

Andrew Bolt vs the art community

Andrew Bolt lays in to Olympia Nelson's father Robert for refusing to lay down and dumbly accept the rhetorical beating that Australia's self-appointed moral guardians are giving to the art community. I could respond, but it seems Robert has already done so in comments. I'll repost here:

Robert Nelson answers Andrew Bolt

Dear Andrew

Let me answer all your questions. Incidentally, I counted eight, not seven.

“One: The argument never was whether looking at a naked child was child abuse. It was whether taking suggestive pictures of naked children exploited them, and left others in more danger.”

Rubbish. Polixeni Papapetrou’s genre stands accused of stripping children of their innocence, which is tantamount to child abuse. Your statement is illogical. If a picture really strips the innocence of a child, it’s clearly abusive. Your reasoning is devious if you think you can now soften the accusation.

“Two: It’s not girls from nice families like Olympia’s that run most risk of abuse when we endorse sexy shots of children.”

So would you care to explain how Olympia’s photograph exposes other children to risk?

“Three: Nelson loaned his naked daughter to defend pictures he actually detested before the public dared attack Henson, too. Three years ago he admitted Henson’s work was “pornographic”, showing a “vulgar relish in depicting naked, pouting teenagers” in a “teasing sexual spectacle” to present them as a “passive target for the viewer’s lust”. Why now defend pornography you once said you hated, Robert?”

No contradiction at all. We are not defending Henson’s pictures in every respect by seeking to justify the artistic use of child nudity in art. I can remain critical of Henson while supporting the principle that his work is art. Also, I have at no stage said that Henson’s work is pornography and not art.

Four: To defend Henson, Nelson and Art Monthly have switched an argument about pornographic shots of a pubescent 13-year-old into one about a mum’s picture of a child too young and demure for most to be thought sex bait. Why the whitewash, Robert?”

You contradict yourself in the very next paragraph where you’re claiming that the pictures inside the journal reveal “a soft-porn pose”. Please decide which you mean. There is no whitewash from us but a great deal of hogwash emanating from you.

“Five: Nelson focuses his defence on the cover shot of Olympia—one even newspapers feel is safe enough to publish. But inside the magazine is one closer to the issues raised by Henson—a shot no paper will publish that has Olympia in necklace and earrings, splayed naked on her arched back with chest bared in a soft-porn pose. Robert, now that your daughter is developing breasts like one of Henson’s models, will you have her pose like that again? If not, haven’t you wilfully ignored a critical difference between Henson’s pictures and that cover shot of your wife’s?”

Polixeni Papapetrou is the artist, not I. If Polixeni and Olympia want to do naked photographs at this age, I will most certainly not intercede to prevent it. This is their inalienable moral right. Do you seriously want to strip them of this right?

“Six: Nelson presented Olympia at the press conference as a girl mature enough to consent to or even suggest the nude pictures taken of her. In fact, Olympia was just six when they were taken, and little girls tend to dress up for pictures, not strip. Indeed, Nelson admits not all the photos were her idea, and I doubt any would have occurred to her without prompting. My suspicion was strengthened by the way Nelson prompted some of Olympia’s answers and actions. Robert, how much was she coached?”

Our house was besieged by reporters. We thought we might do as Bill Henson did and remain silent. As you say, Andrew, it didn’t do Henson any harm to keep his mouth shut. Still, I couldn’t bear the thought of hiding from the media and I spontaneously decided to put on my brightest shirt and speak directly. I rushed out of the house without even putting my shoes on and told them that we’d be ready in 15 minutes. I then completed getting dressed and emerged as promised. You can check this story with the news hounds. Andrew, I should get a new job as a coach if I can achieve Olympia’s performance in the space of 15 minutes while putting my shoes on and jotting down a few notes of my own.

Seven: And even if a six-year-old suggests nude shots, who is responsible for what happens next? The child, or the parent?

The parent. We take full responsibility. Please do not imply that Polixeni or I are in any way shirking this by allowing Olympia to have her voice. Brendan Nelson implied this with his disgraceful intervention, saying that Olympia speaking out compounded the damage. This was similar to Hetty’s sanctimonious and cowardly attack on Olympia, saying that she has been brainwashed, thus invalidating the child’s voice.

“Pedophiles often exploit just this excuse: “It was her idea.” Robert, as a good parent, aren’t you horrified to give this line of argument any weight?”

The fact that Olympia instigated some of the images was never used as the unique reason to produce or display the images. It has been raised as evidence of Olympia’s consent, as this has been consistently at issue. Andrew, you know full well that this was the basis for saying that some of the works were her idea. Why do you twist things so deviously in such an aggressive campaign against an artistic family?

If there is any matter that is at all unclear, please get back to me. I can’t read your blog because I have a day job and have to work for a living, but you know where to find me. Our family will not be bullied by this campaign. Neither Kevin nor Brendan nor Hetty nor Andrew leaves us in the slightest bit fazed. In spite of their collective zeal, they have failed to produce a good argument that Polixeni, Olympia, Robert and Maurice have done anything wrong.

Yours

Robert

Even the child being "defended" sees this for what it is

Fascinating: in the wake of the moral panic triggered by a photo of an unclothed 6-year-old girl on an art magazine, the girl herself says that she has no problems with the photos. You'd think that her claim not to need any defense might at least slow down the people rushing to defend her from the big bad artists just a little bit. Not so. And the rhetorical move used to counter her claim is entirely predictable: accuse her parents of putting her up to it

Mr Rudd is standing by his comments and has warned against allowing children to speak out on the issue.

"If people want to make a political point in opposition to me, I don't think it's right they use underage children to make that point," he said.

"They can engage the political debate as much as they want, it's a free country, but when it comes to protection of children, that should be a foremost responsibility for each of us."

Because, apparently, children have no will of their own and no ability to form an opinion that is different from their parents. One of the commentwrs at the ABC website ("kieran" at 07 Jul 2008, 03:02pm) put it best:

It may be the norm for you to treat your children like this (stifling them, leaning on them, making sure they say what you want them to say), however there are parents who do give their children the freedom to think... I can think of a number of parents who are like this, and they are generally involved in the arts (the whole freedom of expression, etc).

Olympia Nelson deviated from the script that the fiction of a child as a helpless and angelic non-entity would require her to follow. It's depressing, but not at all surprising, that her comments are hammered into fitting that script of child as helpless non-entity regardless.

This really is more about defending a magical ideal of childhood that exists in our society than it is about defending any actual child, near as I can tell. Or that's how I read it from the way that the moral guardians are refusing to admit that Olympia Nelson might possibly have a mind of her own.

World Youth Day Regulations are kind of but not really like regulations at sporting events

One of the justifications given by defenders of the World Youth Day regulations - for example by Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione towards the end of this news article - is that they're "no different to those used at sports stadiums and other large public arenas". I don't think many people are familiar with the regulations at sports stadiums. I wondered if this was actually true.

Sporting venues in New South Wales are governed by acts and legislation describing what actions can and can't be performed by the authority in charge of maintaining that venue (usually a private or state-run corporation that's given permission to manage the land). For example, Sydney Olympic Park would be governed by a regulation like, say the Sydney Olympic Park Authority Regulation 2007 - REG 17:

(1) A person who contravenes any provision of this Regulation while at a sportsground, or who trespasses or causes annoyance or inconvenience [emphasis added] on any part of a sportsground, may be removed from the sportsground or the relevant part of the sportsground by a person authorised by the Authority or a police officer.

(2) A person authorised by the Authority or a police officer acting in accordance with this clause may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of discharging his or her functions under this clause.

So people are actually telling the truth that restrictions on "annoying and inconveniencing" people have already existed in some type of NSW legislation. But calling the WYD regulations "no different" from something like what goes on at sporting events is really stretching it.

First, sporting venue regulations apply only to sporting venues. This seems fair to me: a person is paying money to enter that space, and should reasonably expect to find their behaviour restricted should they choose to pay for permission to access it. World Youth Day regulations prohibiting "annoyance" and "inconvenience", while they do not apply to the whole city, apply to some pretty important public parts of it. Issue 75 of the Government Gazette of the State of NSW has the complete list starting on page 5822. It includes the Domain, The University of Sydney, Hyde Park, The Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Sydney Jewish Museum (wtf?), the list goes on. The worst part, and a part which NEVER applies to my knowledge during, say, State of Origin matches, is that the regulations governing the event also apply to transport sites: all the inner city railway stations, Liverpool and Campbelltown stations for crying out loud, as well as various other stations and bus interchanges. This is hardly "no different" from what happens during major sporting events. It's unprecedented.

Also unprecedented is the existence of a $5500 fine rather than merely, as the Sydney Olympic Park Authority Regulation above says, removal from the grounds. Looking at the Government Gazette's reprinting of the regulations, a fine would be incurred for disobeying an instruction to cease engaging in "annoying or inconveniencing" activity rather than for the activity itself. This is less problematic than it could be. But even so, giving civil authorities this much arbitrary power to censor public speech is still asking for trouble. I'm very glad that the State Emergency Service and Rural Fire Service have indicated that they're going to refuse to use these powers.

I actually feel slightly less concerned about the regulations now I've had an opportunity to study them thoroughly, but I still view them as an unwarranted attack on the public expression of freedom of speech. Describing them as similar to those regulations that are in place at sporting venues is misleading in my opinion, as they go quite a bit further than anything that's ever been in place before.

Welcome to the art/children moral panic

Having utterly failed in their witch-hunt against Bill Henson, the self-appointed "moral guardians" of children believe they've found a more readily exploitable target in the form of Art Monthly Magazine. Art Monthly decided to put a photo of an unclothed six-year old on its cover for the most recent issue, and the Sunday Telegraph yesterday ran a front-page article fulminating about how "sick" the imagery was. The rest of the Australian media has since taken off in their reporting about this allegedly evil act.

I deliberately say "unclothed" rather than "nude", because, unlike everyone so far who has piously denounced it as horrific, I've actually seen the image in question, and "unclothed" is a more accurate description. The, according to some ignorant commentators, "illegal" photo is at the time of writing still readily available at the Art Gallery Monthly Website. Funny - the way the papers described it, you'd think the child in question was posing like a Playboy centre-fold or something. The actual reality I see here hardly seems like it warrants all this hand-wringing.

And how interesting that in this currently oppressive media environment, the very act of verifying for myself what the media is trying to dictate to me as the truth about this photo actually feels like a dangerous enterprise. Will I now be accused of trying to access "child pornography" merely for daring to try and make up my own mind about this issue based on my own direct observation of the photo in question?

I don't think I've ever seen something in Australia, including the various emo panics, that so readily fits the definition of a moral panic like this does. The music scene I guess has become accustomed to defending itself against the routine finger-pointing that they have to endure, and can blunt the impact. The Australian art community doesn't yet have that experience.

Take this article from the Daily Telegraph. Members of the art community complained about what Art Monthly did. Reading the actual article, it's clear that they simply didn't want to deal with another round of media-driven conflict about "the community vs the arts". But the Telegraph gives the article a highly misleading title "Art lover slam child porn pictures" which makes it look the disagreement of the art community with the decision to publish is because they agree with the accusations leveled by the Daily Telegraph that the photos are child porn. The liars.

Anti-WYD/Pro free speech t-shirts - what would I like?

Are there protest T-shirts for WYD available that protest the anti-annoyance laws without gratuitously attacking Catholics themselves? I don't actually have a beef with the followers - they didn't ask for these regulations as far as I know.

Let's see...this one isn't too bad: "free speech*" with "*$5500 may apply" just under it. This one is interesting: "WYD 08: Is this really what Jesus would do?", but doesn't address my main concern about the whole suppression of freedom of speech thing. Here's one that's apparently pretty popular: "$5500: a small price to pay for annoying Catholics". Okay I guess, but I don't have a beef with the followers.

And there's the dilemma: I want to protest these regulations by being annoying, but I don't actually see the point in annoying Catholics. It won't change their mind. They're not going to suddenly up and say "oh gosh I've been wrong all this time!" based on anything I can do or say. It just, well, annoys them.

The boyfriend is kind of irritated about the whole thing as well. He was considering going in to protest before he learned that the Sydney protests were being organised by people with whom he has strong ideological disagreements. Maybe we should do something together? There's a kiss-in being organised...

Maybe this one is the best option: "WYD has annoyed and inconvenienced me. Pay ME $5500".

Idiotic World Youth Day regulations

Five and a half thousand dollar fine if you "cause annoyance" during World Youth Day.

You know, I didn't actually feel motivated to be annoying during World Youth Day until I heard about this.

Maybe I should see if I get myself one of those annoying T-shirts that they're talking about?.

Bill Henson, "agenda-setting", and the strange malleability of politics

For all the talk of new media changing the media structure, blogs still tend to be more reactive than proactive. It's still the mainstream media and political leaders that set the public agenda of what's discussed, on blogs as much as anywhere else.

I haven't really felt inclined to discuss the Bill Henson situation because I feel like it's an issue that's been dragged kicking and screaming onto the public agenda. I did see some of Henson's work, photos of adolescents' bodies, when doing cultural studies at uni last year. I think it says something about the hysteria around the issue that I honestly cannot remember whether the adolescents in the images that I saw were completely nude or not. Either there was no full nudity, or the context was such that the question of exactly how much clothing was not being worn simply had no reason to stick in my mind.

The only real reason I'm commenting now is because Malcolm Turnbull has recently voiced his support of Henson and artistic freedom, condeming the raids that were done on the art gallery. Meanwhile, the previously linked news article says that the Prime Minister is standing by his initial criticism of the gallery display.

Just to re-iterate: it's the Labor Prime Minister that's currently advocating censorship on the grounds of sexual immorality, and it's the Liberal front-bencher currently defending freedom of expression in the face of that censorship. Weird.

Freedom of speech and the responsibility for reactions to it

Pondering the Day of Silence that occurs in American high schools had me looking at some of the free speech issues involved. America of course has much greater leeway than Australia when it comes to freedom of student expression (that wonderful First Amendment of theirs). The specific application of the First Amendment to the issue of student rights was dealt with in the landmark case Tinker vs Des Moines School District, in which it was held that school officials could not ban students from wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam war. The court held that student speech cannot be infringed unless it can be shown that it "would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school" to allow the speech. Importantly, a school must "be able to show that its action [in restricting speech] was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint." I'm told that the precedent set has been watered down somewhat in recent years, but it's worthwhile to note the general principle here: even unpopular speech that the majority will disagree with cannot be banned on that basis alone.

The dissenting voice of Justice Black that the armbands were disruptive is also illuminating for the reason he gave as to why he thought that way: "While the record does not show that any of these armband students shouted, used profane language, or were violent in any manner, detailed testimony by some of them shows their armbands caused comments, warnings by other students, the poking of fun at them, and a warning by an older football player that other, nonprotesting students had better let them alone. "

Interesting how Justice Black insists that the armband students should be considered responsible for the disruption and distortion that other students caused in response to the armbands. Are they responsible? I don't think they are.

When Muslims around the world protested the publication of the Danish caricatures, sometimes violently, the view that the violence of the protests was the responsibility of the cartoons' publishers was resoundingly rejected by free speech advocates. Yet here, at a much smaller level, disruption caused by students in reaction to unpopular speech was blamed not on the students being disruptive, but on the unpopular speech. I'm guessing that Justice Black was not a big fan of Vietnam war opponents' views, and that had something to do with who he blamed for the disruption that was actually the responsibility of the people who threatened people for daring to publicly express an unpopular opinion.

Conservative Christian parents are currently being encouraged to pull their kids out of school on the Day of Silence. If they do that, I hope that they are willing to see their children bear the brunt of the punishment that any delinquent child should get for non-attendance. I hope also that they do not try to blame their own sabotage of their childrens' education on other students expressing their constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech. Unpopular speech that provokes an anti-social reaction is not responsible for that reaction: the person reacting anti-socially is responsible for it.

Anonymous vs Scientology, Sydney edition

Congratulations to Anonymous for getting their Sydney anti-Scientology protest mentioned in a major Sunday newspaper. The article on page 40 of the Sun Hearld looks impressive, with a big photo of members of Anonymous wearing their Guy Fawkes masks. Some are wearing sunglasses over the masks. A bit odd looking, but also kind of cool. Their various protest signs also feature prominently.

Most of the text of the accompanying article is available here. There is further text in the print edition which follows the final quote from Vicki Dunstan, Scientology trustee, which I'll get to in a second.

But: "Vicki Dunstan, Scientology trustee"? In the Defamer she is called "the Australian head of the Church". NineMSN simply called her a "spokesperson". In the Brisbane Times last year she was called "President of Scientology Australia". Where does "trustee" suddenly come from?

Certainly the Church of Scientology operates some discretionary investment trusts in Australia, and has since 2003: The Church of Scientology ACT Academy Building Fund, The Church of Scientology Adelaide Academy Building Fund, likewise for Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth. No Sydney though. So, "Scientology trustee" of which specific Scientology institution?

In any case, the actual corporate position in the CoS structure tends to be less important than the internal management position. I have absolutely no idea what that is, but there's no guarantee that Miss Dunstan holds a high level in it: it's not uncommon for the corporate position of "President of the Church of Scientology" or similar to be held by someone with the internal position of "Head of OSA PR": their basic job is to be a spokesperson. But the represented title of "trustee" does seem odd...

The text not included in the online article is as follows:

Those who attended yesterday's Sydney protest by Anonymous denied they employed violent tactics against the church. One member, who did not wish to be named, said: "We are not a hate group - we just want people to know the truth about Scientology.

"People do not know what they're getting into because they're getting into because Scientology does not tell them the truth.

"Truth is not hate. One of the things about our group is that we came together from the internet. The internet is free and is all about freedom of speech. Scientology is not."

Other supporters said Anonymous' main objection was to what they claim is a policy of destroying families by cutting off followers from anybody who is not a Scientologist.

Hm. If this is still talking about the disconnection policy, then it's inaccurate: disconnection doesn't require cutting off all non-Scientologists, only someone who is a "Suppressive Person". This usually means someone who is vocally opposing the CoS, or else someone who used to be in the Church and has since been kicked out, or "declared SP". The practice of disconnection is obvious in such SP Declares, as they include the lovely phrase "his [or her] only terminal is the International Justice Chief", which in non-Scientology jargon means that the declared SP is prohibited from communicating with any Scientologist in good standing, except the IJC. Here's a typical example. Vick Dunstan did a poor job of trying to spin this in a positive light. A blanket denial of something that is evident in every official SP Declare issued by the Church? Please.

Moving on...

A former member of the church said: "I thhink these protests are just wonderful because they're getting the message out there about what happens in Scientology. I know mothers who have been cut off from their sons and families split up because of the church. It is dreadful."

Anonymous says its membership is growing every month and that more than 8000 people worldwide protested yesterday.

I am rather impressed by Anonymous' work here, all thing considered. But I do think they need to work on the precision of their criticisms.

The benefits of free speech illustrated: Rep Sally Kern(R)

I'm a strong supporter of freedom of expression. I believe that expressing even the most vile, hateful idea serves an important purpose in allowing the rest of us to see for ourselves just how vile and hateful an idea it is. This puts me at odds with people who support putting restrictions on "hate speech" and "villification".

Much buzz has accompanied the public airing of a tape of Oklahoma Representative Sally Kern saying some truly appalling things about homosexuality and gay people in general. Her subsequent two-pronged defense is interesting in what it reveals about free speech issues.

In the first instance, she insists in an interview with a local Oklahoma news outfit called news9.com that she
is just exercising her right to free speech:"What is wrong with me as an American exercising my free speech rights on a topic that is a very big issue today?" she asks. Absolutely nothing, says I. Everyone should have the opportunity granted by her free speech rights to hear what she has to say if she thinks that it's such an important issue for her to comment upon.

Yet funnily enough, Rep Kern herself doesn't see it that way. In fact she's very unhappy that her statements have been given the wide audience that such a "very big issue" would presumably deserve: "Shame on the person who didn't have the courage to come and say, 'I'm going to tape you and put it out on YouTube,'" she opines.

She wants to speak out on an important issue, but she compains when people actually hear what she says?

The idea of free speech in JS Mill's formulation of the concept is that it is a free people themselves, not their government representatives, that is best suited to judging the merit (or lack thereof) of an idea, through ongoing public discussion amongst each other. Good ideas will tend to rise up, bad ideas will tend to be discarded. It doesn't take too much thought to view something like "homosexuality is more of a threat than terrorism" as a bad idea.

It is very telling that Rep Kern, for all her protestations about free speech, is unhappy with her statements being subject to the scrutiny of that marketplace of ideas. It tells me that she knows her statements won't stand up to that scrutiny. She might view this as evidence of a "homosexual agenda" working against her, but I would say that it is an example Rep Sally Kern rejecting the belief that the benefits of freedom of expression are valid ones: the principle of freedom of expression allows noxious and paranoid ideas like the ones held and promulgated by Rep Kern to be publicly seen for what they are, and publicly rejected. That can't sit well with her.

It is the broad distribution of this speech, not the restriction of it, that has best served the cause of gay rights here. It is a commitment to the principles of freedom of expression through public exposure and condemnation of noxious ideas, not a commitment to the restriction of freedom of expression through banning of "hate speech" and "villifying" speech, that best serves the cause of gay rights in general. Or so I believe.

Good site for free speech issues in Australia

Here's a useful resource for censorship issues of all kinds in Australia: libertus.net. At the time of writing, their What's new page is linking to some fairly hefty-looking documentation about continuing steps to implement a mandatory ISP filtering scheme in Australia.

There's no RSS feed for when new links are added, which is a pity because it looks like a page worth checking frequently.

Freedom of speech and the cartoon controversy

In my Media, Information and Law tutorial at uni I managed to get some fairly intense heat directed at me from people on both sides of the Mohammed Danish cartoon controversy. I don't know whether that indicates my independence of thought from all entrenched interests or if it just means I'm an irritating and argumentative bastard who annoys people of any political persuasion.

I did feel extremely defensive at one point when a guy in favour of publication was complaining about what I suggested was an inconsistency in his believing that publishing the cartoons was okay but publishing a phrase like "jews are the new nazis" should be illegal. His response was that talking about Nazis was an order of magnitude worse than mere publishing of caricature.

My response to that was incredibly poor: I thought not rationally, but combatively. My remark in retrospect was incredibly lame as I said something stupid about that being a subjective judgement. It's not. Or I don't think it is. Yet my response was motivated more by a desire not to let the other guy "get one over me" rather than any reasonable attempt to get at the truth.

I'm tempted to let myself believe that I did nothing wrong and that it was the other guy's combative approach that's to blame for me refusing to concede a point. But I don't think I should. And I think that the question of who's to blame for not adopting a reasonable attitude is extremely relevant to the question of the Danish caricature, and it's a question that's completely neglected by most commentators.

I wrote one of my essays last year on freedom of speech in an attempt to challenge my own extremely favourable attitude to free speech and see if there was something wrong with it. I came away from it still being extremely pro-freedom of speech, but I've gained a few insights along the way.

The first one is that in order for freedom of speech to have any meaning at all, there must be an audience for the speech. If a tyrant claims his subjects have freedom of speech because they can say whatever they like in the privacy of their own homes, is that really giving people the benefit of the freedom? Speech that no-one can hear is not really free speech at all.

Accepting that freedom of speech requires an audience immediately shows another way of looking at the cartoon issue: stop looking so much at the opinions and actions of the publishers and start looking at the opinions and actions of the audience.

This is where the dispute really lies when it comes to whether or not to publish the Danish cartoons: on the extreme pro-publication side, it is axiomatic that the members of the audience who feel offended by the cartoons are themselves responsible for "taking it too personally", with no real responsibility for the publisher. On the extreme anti-publication side, it is just as axiomatic that the audience members who feels offended and hurt can justly place the responsibility for that hurt, and for subsequent reactions to that hurt, on the publishers for "deliberately attacking Muslims".

I suspect that most people wouldn't be found on either extreme, and would only lean one way or the other. But I think that's a better starting point for the discussion of the issue: who is responsible for the feeling of harm and/or offense caused by the publication of the cartoons, and why? The answer may not be as straightforward as people think. My own experience above, where I was tempted to think it reasonable to blame my own poor actions on somebody else's speech, makes it harder for me to come down on the pro-publication position of believing the Muslim audience is "taking it too personally" than it otherwise would. I still strongly lean in favour of publication, though.