We have followed the evisceration of free speech values in the United Kingdom and other Western nations. Australia has been one of the most chilling examples of how a population can be conditioned over time to view free speech as a threat. The country now criminalizes and regulates an ever-expanding range of speech, including political and religious viewpoints. The most recent example is the Supreme Court of New South Wales upholding a conviction for ‘vilification’ after women’s rights campaigner Kirralie Smith and the publication Binary Australia referred to two transgender individuals as men due to their biological sex. That led not only to $95,000 in fines but also to a sentence of compelled speech.
The complaint was filed in November 2023 by Justin “Riley” Dennis and Nicholas “Stephanie” Blanch after the defendants objected to their inclusion in women’s football.
Rather than engage in that public debate on the merits, Dennis and Blanch also sought to punish the defendants for causing “serious contempt” and “severe ridicule” by refusing to use female pronouns and other identifiers according to their transgender status. The NSW Local Court found Smith and Binary Australia incited hatred and severe ridicule of the two trans women, holding that they exposed the athletes to “a sustained campaign of belittling, harassment and intimidation.”
Found guilty, Smith was given a $55,000 fine for Blanch and another $40,000 fine for Dennis to be paid within the next 28 days.
In an added chilling penalty, the court ordered Smith and Binary to publish a statement that they reject and to keep it featured on social media for three months. The addition of compelled speech makes this a perfect storm of anti-free speech measures.
We have previously written about the free speech nightmare in Australia. Former Australian Attorney-General and Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland has been an enthusiastic champion of censorship. She insisted:
“Misinformation and disinformation pose a serious threat to the safety and wellbeing of Australians, as well as to our democracy, society and economy. Doing nothing and allowing this problem to fester is not an option.”
The lack of free speech protection by the courts has fueled this trend. Previously, the High Court ruled that newspapers and television stations that post articles on social media sites like Facebook are liable for third-party comments on those posts. That exposed publications to crippling costs for allowing free speech exchanges on social media. While there have been occasional wins for free speech litigants, the Australian courts have shown comparably little fealty to free speech.
Polls have shown that many Australians still have concerns about the government’s crackdown, and 45 percent believe that information deemed “misinformation” by the government should still be protected. That is still a sizable portion of the population. With a mere majority supporting free speech principles, there is a sharp disconnect from the extreme anti-free-speech policies passed by the legislature and enforced by the courts.
Christian groups are pushing for a final appeal in the case.
One can disagree with Smith and still support her right to reject transgender status and criticize the inclusion of trans athletes in women’s sports. While I have low expectations for the Australian courts, the Australian people still hold lingering free speech values even after years of crackdowns and prosecutions. However, it will take a major political movement to remove anti-free-speech elements from the country’s legislature and courts.
Insanity
When a nation welcomes a culture and a faith which will tear one’s arm out by the shoulders in response to criticism the response to same is to pillory the critic. Appeasement never won a conflict. Only emboldened the adversary. Chamberlain.
Give the framers credit. A written First Amendment is worth more than most people realize, especially standing next to a country like Australia that just watched two citizens get hit with $95,000 in fines and ordered to publish a retraction, just for stating a biological fact.
But here’s what should worry us. That protection’s only as real as who’s sitting on the Court interpreting it. The text doesn’t enforce itself. Pack the Court with justices who don’t take the Bill of Rights seriously, and you don’t need to repeal the First Amendment to gut it. You just need judges willing to rule around it instead of on it. The form stays right there on the page. The function that gives it teeth disappears. That’s the real danger in court packing. Not that it erases what’s written, but that it hands the enforcement of your rights over to people who don’t care whether they mean anything at all.
Compelled speech in Australia and Europe is reminiscent of the Catholic Inquisition of hundreds years past. The case here was of famed astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei, who in 1633 was forced to publicly recant his heliocentric (sun centered) views about the solar system, and then to live under permanent house arrest (in lieu of a fine)..
A point of note is that Galileo’s Inquisitors were very conscious of making his conviction scrupulously legal – just like now.
It has been years since we were in Australia, but my recollection is of strong, independent people. It is appalling what a handful of people can do to a society.
The “strong, independent people” must be asleep to allow such rulings. God help them.
Communists cannot take over while free speech exists.