You've reached our premium or archival content
To access this page, and more great content just like it, you need to become a paid subscriber.
If you already have an account, please login.
Otherwise, registration is quick and you'll have access instantly after payment.
Freedom of speech is a misunderstood concept. We choose not to say a lot of things in some settings because we might believe it's not in our best interests to say what we think to some people. But strictly speaking, freedom of speech is only the legal protection from prosecution for what we say.
The other point to remember is that YouTube (and Facebook, Twitter, etc) is a privately-owned platform. No one has any right to be there unless the owners agree.
... so Peter, did you publicly applaud the ACMA when, after doing "some serious research", it called out the ABC's 4 Corners for breaching its own code of impartiality? don't remember reading that comment ...
Generally speaking yes that's true Dan but it does get a little more complicated than that. Antidiscrimination protections still apply, and they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending upon the country in which the users are accessing and contributing to the platform.
There's a song that makes me think of free speech.
I think there's something in it we can all get something out of.
Charlie Daniels Band - The Devil Went Down to Georgia.
While I agree almost wholly with your arguments, Peter, I might just comment on your use of the classic legal maxim on the limits on freedom of speech. In Schenck v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” The moral (and legal) distinction is clear. You CAN shout fire in a theatre if there is a fire in order to avert harm to other people. But if there is no fire and your shout causes serious harm to others (i.e. panic), that is not morally right or legally protected. It seems a very clear matter to me and I cannot after 50 years as a journalist understand why some people in the media still do not get it.