Free speech is not a hobby for people with columns. It is 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 does not 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 is 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 do not — to make their case. Journalism that requires a permission slip is not journalism.

The sample kicker is on this piece because it is house copy. The stance is not sample. The Standard is a free-speech paper.


The paper
Comments
No notes on this story yet.
Sign in to comment