Say whatever you like

Voltaire famously desired to defend with his life one’s right to say whatever one wants, even if he disagreed. That line is glibly trotted out to symbolise our supposedly enlightened attitude to freedom of speech. But does it?

Parliaments in Australia, Europe and Canada have legislated vague ‘bills of rights,’ where hurt feelings of the aggrieved trump logic, fact and liberal principle. The spectre of terrorism gags debate about the effect of religion on a free society. A catechism of cultural relativism, strong in the universities and the media, crimps criticism of immigration, personal behaviour and history.

That’s why Brendan O’Neil’s contribution to the ABC’s Q&A program on Monday night was so refreshing, and so controversial. The young British journalist and editor of Spiked Online gallingly rejected the view that ‘right-wing’ commentators worldwide, including some in Australia, should share responsibility for Anders Breivik’s murderous rampage in Norway. Even if the Norwegian had been inspired by his interpretation of their views, those views should not be censored, he argued.

Should not individuals have responsibility for their own actions? Is history not smattered with evil acts that occur entirely independent of prevailing debates? Should the mere possibility of crime choke national discussion? Are bureaucrats or judges qualified to censor individual views?

While answers to these questions are obvious to me, I was surprised that O’Neil’s co-panellists appeared to struggle to understand how he could disagree with ‘right-wing’ views, yet trenchantly defend their publication. The Q&A panel was noteworthy more for its confected outrage than its intellectual agility.

Twitter erupted with support and condemnation of O’Neil. That Voltaire’s old maxim, put in a modern context, could so polarise viewers in a supposedly liberal country like Australia is telling. Perhaps it demonstrates how far we have drifted from our intellectual heritage, or perhaps it shows how boring or stale our public debates have become.

That O’Neil, who describes himself as a ‘left libertarian,’ could not easily be categorised as ‘right-wing’ or ‘left-wing’ only aggravated the frustration. For him, the main political divide is how much the state should control our property, our incomes, and our opinions. He can disapprove of drug use, for example, without wanting it banned.

Voltaire, the prolific grandee of the European Enlightenment, had good reason to want freedom of expression. Louis XV routinely imprisoned him for upsetting the pieties of Church and State.

Men and women, scientists and writers, fought valiantly and suffered for the freedoms of expression we blithely take for granted today. Yet those freedoms are steadily being eroded. We should mock those who seek to shut down free speech. History amply demonstrates that tolerant, liberal countries are peaceful; authoritarian and censorious countries are not.

Adam Creighton is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.