Free speech isn't a hobby for people with columns. It's how a people thinks in public. Whenever Canberra reaches for a new rule about what may be said online, it is reaching for the conditions of politics itself. This sample essay takes the old position: the answer to a bad argument is a better one, not a quieter citizen.
Australia doesn't need to import every speech code that other capitals have tried. We need a culture that can hear One Nation, hear its critics, and let voters decide without a referee in a ministry.
A right-leaning magazine will be protective of the space in which its own readers talk. That's not special pleading. The same rule protects a union hall, a pulpit, and a campus that still remembers what a university is for. Laws against true threats and true defamation already exist. Expanding them to cover hurt feelings is how a country talks itself into a smaller life.
This paper will not attack named private individuals and will not invent scandals. It will defend the right of political actors — including people we like and people we don't — to make their case. Journalism that requires a permission slip isn't journalism.
The sample kicker is on this piece because it is house copy. The stance isn't sample. The Gold Standard is a free-speech paper.
The paper
Comments
No notes on this story yet.
Sign in to comment