In Defence of Freedom of Speech: From Ancient Greece to Andrew Bolt (Chris Berg)

Berg blends a very well referenced history of freedom of speech with a developing argument in favour of free speech as a fundamental right rather than a necessary attribute of an effective democracy.

The two examples of the title receive no great emphasis in the text, but serve merely to bookend the millennia in which this debate has surged back and forth. The selection of milestone examples is excellent both in terms of their illumination of key differences in underpinning philosophies and their resemblance to aspects of the current debates.

Philosophy is revealed more as an endlessly repeating conversation than a developing argument. Participants in these conversations (including oneself) are often revealed as woefully ignorant of the precedents and historical background of their views – and the opposing arguments.

I very much doubt that proponents of laws based on the United Nations Human Rights documents are aware that the speech restrictions written so broadly within them were included at the request of totalitarian regimes.

The book primary focus is to illuminate the historical sequence of ideas and political developments that echo today in the new international onslaught on freedom of speech. The arguments, even those openly supported by Berg, are put very briefly. For instance, Berg only allocates a few sentences to assert that freedom of speech should be considered a right because this is the current majority view. Those arguing for limits more commonly omit mention of this "right" and argue limitations based on the harm principle.

Contrary to Berg, I continue to agree with Bentham, that all human rights are philosophical “nonsense upon stilts” and with Mill, that all rights must have utility.

Extreme tolerance (not approval) of diverse viewpoints in a society is both an index as well as a mechanism for cultural health and robustness.

There is a natural accretion of power to any organization that grows in size. All power affects the balances between opposing interests, so a growth or creation of any power source (social or technological) affects individual power - most commonly to diminish it. The fastest growing powers in the world are no longer the much maligned multi-nationals, but governments. Governments have a natural tendency to govern rather than serve their people.

Limiting government power is the main strategy in defence of freedom.

Language is a key battleground in governing the way the people think about their freedom. Freedom of speech therefore, becomes a key underpinning of all other freedoms. Philosophers, such as Milton and Mill, as well as writers, such as Orwell, Bradbury, all knew this.

The fight for the use of the term “chairperson” over "chairman" was primarily conducted through persuasion and was one small political step in realigning our thinking about the role of women. The use of the term “asylum seeker” instead of “illegal immigrant” is also one of many small political steps seeking to realign our thinking. The difference is that it is the government that is effectively making the term illegal in the Australian public debate.

Limiting government power to control speech is the main strategy in defence of freedom of speech.

We have lurched a long way into a world where many people define freedom as merely the right to do what the government says is legal. Many people are frankly surprised that anyone should argue for a limit to government - as long as it is making more and more laws that they agree with.

Berg’s book is a timely reminder of how long it has taken for freedom of speech to gain even partial acceptance, and how quickly it can be lost.