Thread by @matthewtbeard

Here's a THREAD on what the fuck is going on with 'free speech' and why the whole notion is a bit bullshit. I'm writing a column on this at the moment, but my daughter won't sleep and I only have my phone, so Twitter it is!

Perhaps the most striking thing about free speech debates in Australia is the abject hypocrisy. Whomever cries 'what about free speech?' on one day is conspicuously silent when another, seemingly analogous issue arises.

Then you get the same thing: commentators, lawyers, politicians and - yes - philosophers like me, writing op-eds and tweeting about what free speech *is* and *isn't*.

And here's where we pull the wool over your (and our own) eyes. We imply that there *is* some essential, universally agreed upon ideal form of free speech that ~they~ (our moral/political opponents) have corrupted due to their ideology.

So, basically we've billed the political/moral problem of free speech as being one of the ideological corruption of an otherwise pure, useful and good concept. And so we set about trying to win the argument for our account of free speech.

ENTER Stanley Fish, who decided to monologue via book title when he wrote 'There's no such thing as free speech (and it's a good thing too)'. Fish's argument is that there is no *essential* freedom of speech; our concepts are grounded in existing political and moral beliefs.

Debates about free speech aren't attempts to create a normative playing field on which political disagreement can take place. They aim to eliminate disagreement by removing the 'free' part of speech that advances ideas we don't like. (That's Fish's claim, as I understand it).

Free speech, on this view, is a proxy war. It's a way of illegitimising the moral claims and politics of an opponent without having to do so explicitly. And it's a way of supporting some claims without explicitly giving them the nod.

E.g.: You don't necessarily have to say 'we agree with Israel Folau', they just need to defend his freedom to express himself. Similarly, you don't need to say 'Folau's theological/moral beliefs are wrong/don't belong here', you can just restrict his faith to the private sphere.

But really, what you're doing either way is pretending to be 'content neutral' when the whole determination of whether you think he has the right to speak is based on whether you agree or disagree that this comment falls within the kind of political world view you want.

I don't have a clear conclusion here - in no small part because I need to go re-read Fish - but I think he's onto something. And that tells us that we should stop talking about free speech/expression/free press as though it has an essential definition... Maybe it's not a thing.

This helps us understand why (a) a supposedly liberal, pro-liberty government are cracking down on press freedom and civil liberty; (b) why the Opposition, who orchestrated many of these laws are now up in arms; and (c) another way of defending/reclaiming liberty (TBC)...

That has less to do with making idealistic claims about some cookie cutter version of free speech and more to do with getting into the kinds of world-views, moral claims and values that are asserted and advanced by certain kinds of censorship or permission.

OH and one more important point from Fish (sorry this is rambling: I'm on parental leave and Mr 2.5 and Ms. 4 weeks hate sleep). Fish points out that by defining these issues as 'free speech' issues, we've primed ourselves to be skeptical of any restraint. Do you hate freedom?

But in reality, the only kinds of speech that AREN'T restrained have historically been weird and niche ones like academic discourse or high school debates. That's where the whole 'hear me out, be rational, follow the idea regardless of effect' norms apply.

And, SURPRISE, that's the kind of context the historical champions of 'free speech' inhabited. But really, nobody is actually pro total free speech. Everyone has a limit, and that limit - for Fish - isn't determined philosophically, but politically, in ways that suit me.

So, if we were to shift the debate about free press (for example) to being about reasonable restraint on freedom, we might have a more constructive reply to AFP raids. I.e. 'Here is where a raid IS reasonable, here is why it doesn't apply here.'

OK, daughter is asleep. I have a deadline to hit or Oz will stop letting me ramble about ethics for @abclifeau. Thanks for bearing with me through... Whatever this was. I don't even know if I'm onto soemthing here. @ me with your thoughts.