I am very excited to listen to this! I am also becoming increasingly worried about the demand to control speech (even speech I find repulsive). Then again, I think democratic freedoms are so fragile and can only really work within a society that is civil, rational, and interested in discourse, and I feel our society is straying from that. Recently I heard that Hash Taye will be charged on “offensive speech” or something like that. This is deeply unsettling. I hate what he says and it is dangerous, not offensive. If offending is criminalised we are f**ked
Totally agree re Tayeh, Sharonne. Ludicrous that VicPol had to land on "offensive" speech. I think you'll find Alan's perspective fascinating. He's that very rare academic who is prepared to buck orthodoxy. And he's not just a two-dimensional free speech fundamentalist: his position is very well thought out.
Wow what a terrific conversation. No platitudes or polemics (although I do love a good polemic!) just really intelligent, and indeed sensitive, discourse! Thanks again Julie!
Thanks Julie; great conversation. As a university dweller who works in the Humanities, I have been boarder-line structurally immoral and oppressively privileged before I open my mouth for some decades now. For I am white, Christian, married, and male. Having to ontologically shame signal before I have even spoken is something I am boringly familiar with. I say ‘boringly’ here because I indeed am a member of a formerly privileged class (an academic) so a lot of the rhetoric of how systemically oppressive I must be is something of a lip service social joke that people who know me ignore, as the old habits of genuine free speech are still incoherently assumed. But the gaging pressure of unspeakable zones of moral disagreement has been dramatically on the rise over this past decade. It is indeed freer speech that we need, the opportunity to seriously interrogate matters of fact and moral validity, not more restriction via predetermined vice formulas imposed by the arbitrarily orthodox verbal moral authorities who now rule on acceptable and unacceptable public utterance. The virtue/vice polarities of DEI now protects any race, “sex”, or religious victim class (excluding – for reasons I find imponderable – women, Jews, and Christians) and imposes automatic vice sanctions on anyone trying to actually work out what the facts and moral significance of this new legislatively charged dynamic entails. More hate speech legislation is only going to continue this silencing and heresy hunts. We seriously need stronger free speech protections at this time.
I was so inspired by Alan's measured and compelling reasoning for the benefits of free speech that I put my money where his mouth is and joined the FSU. In particular, I found his distinction between upstream causes and downstream effects to be one that all lawmakers and "so-called community leaders" should listen and be made to articulate a response to before they vote on a bill or publicly advocate for its passing. In my view, it is all but inarguable that suppressing speech only leads to bigger problems.
At a simplistic level, we are taught from an early age to "use our words" when frustrated about some state of affairs. We are taught that this is better than physical violence. We are constantly taught that all relationships are improved by communication. Why is this engrained lesson sought to be discarded when we don't like what someone else is saying?
My own personal view is that no hate speech laws should exist. We already have laws against inciting physical violence. That is sufficient for the ordering of society and the prevention of criminal unrest. To go further is to stifle legitimate debate, which can only see frustrations build until people indeed forget to use their words and take to the streets instead. I firmly believe that the next widespread rioting to occur in the UK, Australia and other places seeking to censor much needed discussion of cultural differences will have its genesis in these laws.
His "You have the right to be a bigot" speech unleashed a torrent of bigotry. And the behaviour that the Liberal party modelled in Opposition, especially under Tony Abbott, didn't further the cause of civil discourse in a democracy.
I have always felt intuitively that there should be some limits to the freedom of speech. For example, vilifying others and actively inciting violence and hatred.
"Your freedom of speech ends at the tip of my nose" and all that.
However, I listened to this conversation at the same time as I finally caught up with this interview with Tim Snyder:
Julie, I have received this email with the podcast at the very moment when I have begun to kick back at my local pizza bar in the inner southern suburbs of Brisbane in order to avoid going stir crazy at home due to cyclone precautions. I will therefore postpone listening to the podcast until tomorrow morning
One issue that is related to the topic of the podcast is the recent adoption by Universities Australia of a statement opposing antisemitism and statements by UA that its member universities will move swiftly to implement it. I am still considering my position - not on the laudable general goal that UA is attempting to achieve with this initiative, but on the specifics of how the implementation of it could apply to my work and to the activity of my students.
You stay safe up there, Paul! You are absolutely excused for leaving this podcast till tomorrow morning. 😂 Regarding UA and the anti-Semitism definition. I agree with you; I'm also in two minds on this. While I agree with UA on the substance (obviously) in an ideal world universities would say nothing about anything other than to affirm academic freedom. They would fly no flags other than the flag of the university, literally and metaphorically. (And in my view affirming academic freedom includes not letting any one group hijack academic space -- again literally and metaphorically -- so encampments are not consistent with academic freedom.) In the real world, sadly, universities say a great deal about many things. One notable thing about this statement is that it contradicts campus orthodoxy, which has essentially mainstreamed the demonisation of Israel. So in this instance UA is going against the academic fashion and not reinforcing it. That's something, I guess. I can't imagine the statement would have any material impact on you/your students' work but if it does I'd be interested to hear.
What's missing from this discussion is an analysis of the actual terms of the legislation, its scope, the elements of what constitutes an offence, and the evidentiary thresholds needed to be met to prove an offence has been committed.
On a very cursory reading of the amending legislation - linked to the article - it seems the mere critical discussion, or even vilification, of a religious or other belief or ideology or practice isn't sufficient to constitute an offence. The vilification, it seems, must go further and be directed at a person, or group of persons, on the grounds that, or because, they have one or other of the 'protected attributes', and be reasonably considered to be hateful, seriously contemptuous of, or reviling of, or ridiculing of that person or group.
Perhaps a legal specialist in the field can correct me if I'm wrong.
You're right we didn't get into the detail of the bill -- Alan was giving a philosophical overview of the trend. The more I've thought about this the more I've come to the view that I'm against hate speech laws entirely: the specificity of the crime should be considered at sentencing and not from the outset as a legal wrong in respect of certain attributes but inevitably not others. (Because to that extent the Vic Bill raises a real problem: ie: why is inciting hatred against someone on the basis of their religion considered unlawful but the same doesn't apply to inciting hatred against someone on the basis of their sexuality?) For a powerful discussion on the Victorian Bill see here: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/country-must-beware-victoria-elevating-new-antivilification-laws-to-state-religion-status/news-story/923f18cfdf1ab998b9b5b8868ff0efdd
Just got around to listening to this Julie with Alan, Thankyou. It helped me prep for a meeting I’m having with my head of department which will touch on many of the issues you discussed re the academy.
Agreed Celine Baumgarten’s case was shockingly under reported. However, I think FSU’s media strategy could be refined in recognition that it is pushing a counter narrative that at first blush sounds “a bit suss”. Great episode! 💜
I am very excited to listen to this! I am also becoming increasingly worried about the demand to control speech (even speech I find repulsive). Then again, I think democratic freedoms are so fragile and can only really work within a society that is civil, rational, and interested in discourse, and I feel our society is straying from that. Recently I heard that Hash Taye will be charged on “offensive speech” or something like that. This is deeply unsettling. I hate what he says and it is dangerous, not offensive. If offending is criminalised we are f**ked
Totally agree re Tayeh, Sharonne. Ludicrous that VicPol had to land on "offensive" speech. I think you'll find Alan's perspective fascinating. He's that very rare academic who is prepared to buck orthodoxy. And he's not just a two-dimensional free speech fundamentalist: his position is very well thought out.
Wow what a terrific conversation. No platitudes or polemics (although I do love a good polemic!) just really intelligent, and indeed sensitive, discourse! Thanks again Julie!
Haha, not too sensitive I hope! Glad you enjoyed it Sharonne. I could honestly listen to Alan all day long!
Such a relief to find to hear your voice joining those of us who feel unrepresented, caught between the pro-Hamas left and the Putin-embracing right.
Really value your journalism.
So much appreciated Bianca.
This is excellent. Well worth a listen. Much to think about!
Thrilled you've listened and you think so, Michael. Alan's take is fascinating.
Thanks Julie; great conversation. As a university dweller who works in the Humanities, I have been boarder-line structurally immoral and oppressively privileged before I open my mouth for some decades now. For I am white, Christian, married, and male. Having to ontologically shame signal before I have even spoken is something I am boringly familiar with. I say ‘boringly’ here because I indeed am a member of a formerly privileged class (an academic) so a lot of the rhetoric of how systemically oppressive I must be is something of a lip service social joke that people who know me ignore, as the old habits of genuine free speech are still incoherently assumed. But the gaging pressure of unspeakable zones of moral disagreement has been dramatically on the rise over this past decade. It is indeed freer speech that we need, the opportunity to seriously interrogate matters of fact and moral validity, not more restriction via predetermined vice formulas imposed by the arbitrarily orthodox verbal moral authorities who now rule on acceptable and unacceptable public utterance. The virtue/vice polarities of DEI now protects any race, “sex”, or religious victim class (excluding – for reasons I find imponderable – women, Jews, and Christians) and imposes automatic vice sanctions on anyone trying to actually work out what the facts and moral significance of this new legislatively charged dynamic entails. More hate speech legislation is only going to continue this silencing and heresy hunts. We seriously need stronger free speech protections at this time.
Agree Paul and solidarity. "Having to ontologically shame signal.." geez.
I was so inspired by Alan's measured and compelling reasoning for the benefits of free speech that I put my money where his mouth is and joined the FSU. In particular, I found his distinction between upstream causes and downstream effects to be one that all lawmakers and "so-called community leaders" should listen and be made to articulate a response to before they vote on a bill or publicly advocate for its passing. In my view, it is all but inarguable that suppressing speech only leads to bigger problems.
At a simplistic level, we are taught from an early age to "use our words" when frustrated about some state of affairs. We are taught that this is better than physical violence. We are constantly taught that all relationships are improved by communication. Why is this engrained lesson sought to be discarded when we don't like what someone else is saying?
My own personal view is that no hate speech laws should exist. We already have laws against inciting physical violence. That is sufficient for the ordering of society and the prevention of criminal unrest. To go further is to stifle legitimate debate, which can only see frustrations build until people indeed forget to use their words and take to the streets instead. I firmly believe that the next widespread rioting to occur in the UK, Australia and other places seeking to censor much needed discussion of cultural differences will have its genesis in these laws.
How wonderful that you joined the FSU!
FIRE is doing similar good work in the US - https://www.thefire.org/
I have always blamed George Brandis.
His "You have the right to be a bigot" speech unleashed a torrent of bigotry. And the behaviour that the Liberal party modelled in Opposition, especially under Tony Abbott, didn't further the cause of civil discourse in a democracy.
I have always felt intuitively that there should be some limits to the freedom of speech. For example, vilifying others and actively inciting violence and hatred.
"Your freedom of speech ends at the tip of my nose" and all that.
However, I listened to this conversation at the same time as I finally caught up with this interview with Tim Snyder:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/tim-snyders-warning-israel-depends-upon-a-functioning-us-trump-and-musk-are-destroying-it/
To have two thoughtful people independently warn the Jewish community about the dangers posed by Hate Speech Laws is giving me food for thought.
And they both independently call out the role of journalists in promoting a healthy civil discourse in a functioning democratic state.
Indeed, there are quite a number of observations that both men make that are in parallel.
So much to think about... Yay!!!!
Yes a number of us have gone on a similar journey with this issue.
Julie, I have received this email with the podcast at the very moment when I have begun to kick back at my local pizza bar in the inner southern suburbs of Brisbane in order to avoid going stir crazy at home due to cyclone precautions. I will therefore postpone listening to the podcast until tomorrow morning
One issue that is related to the topic of the podcast is the recent adoption by Universities Australia of a statement opposing antisemitism and statements by UA that its member universities will move swiftly to implement it. I am still considering my position - not on the laudable general goal that UA is attempting to achieve with this initiative, but on the specifics of how the implementation of it could apply to my work and to the activity of my students.
You stay safe up there, Paul! You are absolutely excused for leaving this podcast till tomorrow morning. 😂 Regarding UA and the anti-Semitism definition. I agree with you; I'm also in two minds on this. While I agree with UA on the substance (obviously) in an ideal world universities would say nothing about anything other than to affirm academic freedom. They would fly no flags other than the flag of the university, literally and metaphorically. (And in my view affirming academic freedom includes not letting any one group hijack academic space -- again literally and metaphorically -- so encampments are not consistent with academic freedom.) In the real world, sadly, universities say a great deal about many things. One notable thing about this statement is that it contradicts campus orthodoxy, which has essentially mainstreamed the demonisation of Israel. So in this instance UA is going against the academic fashion and not reinforcing it. That's something, I guess. I can't imagine the statement would have any material impact on you/your students' work but if it does I'd be interested to hear.
What's missing from this discussion is an analysis of the actual terms of the legislation, its scope, the elements of what constitutes an offence, and the evidentiary thresholds needed to be met to prove an offence has been committed.
On a very cursory reading of the amending legislation - linked to the article - it seems the mere critical discussion, or even vilification, of a religious or other belief or ideology or practice isn't sufficient to constitute an offence. The vilification, it seems, must go further and be directed at a person, or group of persons, on the grounds that, or because, they have one or other of the 'protected attributes', and be reasonably considered to be hateful, seriously contemptuous of, or reviling of, or ridiculing of that person or group.
Perhaps a legal specialist in the field can correct me if I'm wrong.
You're right we didn't get into the detail of the bill -- Alan was giving a philosophical overview of the trend. The more I've thought about this the more I've come to the view that I'm against hate speech laws entirely: the specificity of the crime should be considered at sentencing and not from the outset as a legal wrong in respect of certain attributes but inevitably not others. (Because to that extent the Vic Bill raises a real problem: ie: why is inciting hatred against someone on the basis of their religion considered unlawful but the same doesn't apply to inciting hatred against someone on the basis of their sexuality?) For a powerful discussion on the Victorian Bill see here: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/country-must-beware-victoria-elevating-new-antivilification-laws-to-state-religion-status/news-story/923f18cfdf1ab998b9b5b8868ff0efdd
Just got around to listening to this Julie with Alan, Thankyou. It helped me prep for a meeting I’m having with my head of department which will touch on many of the issues you discussed re the academy.
Agreed Celine Baumgarten’s case was shockingly under reported. However, I think FSU’s media strategy could be refined in recognition that it is pushing a counter narrative that at first blush sounds “a bit suss”. Great episode! 💜
Katherine Stewart https://x.com/kathsstewart/status/1899133008051134959 is onto Christian Nationalism's tools of oppression. In https://newrepublic.com/article/192091/trump-emergency-rhetoric-autocratic-rule she writes about one of modern oppression's root sources - Carl Schmitt.
That is sooo good to hear Arna!