Free speech: The cornerstone of democracy
by Terry Strates

Imagine if, when we were born, we were fitted with a little chip that is attached to our larynx. Imagine the little chip is programmed so it reads the electrical impulses coming from our brains and only allows words, sentences and concepts to be communicated that comply with pro-establishment views. Imagine having thoughts or ideas that may be beneficial to others but cannot be conveyed because they do not serve the interests of the privileged few. Pretty frustrating isn’t it?

Freedom of speech is a notion most of us take for granted in Australia. It is the cornerstone of democratic society. In a democratic state, sovereignty rests upon the people, so free speech serves as an open channel of communication amongst and between citizens and leaders. Through open unrestricted communication, we can be aware of our choices, so we can make informed decisions about who we want to lead our country and what their policies are on issues such as education, law, welfare, immigration, defence and health. On a day-to-day level, the free flow of information could also affect our judgment on which companies we want to support through our purchase decisions (Are they ethical? Where does the money go? Are they environmentally friendly?), whether it is worth spending the extra money on organic produce, or whether we choose natural medicine over modern Western medicine to keep us in good health. This is the theory.

We all know by now that what occurs in theory versus what happens in reality can be quite different. Even in a democracy, do we really have the freedom to say, communicate and express what we would like to publicly? Some would argue that we already have a silicon chip well and truly embedded in our larynx and it should be immediately removed. These same people might argue that we are unable to express our views, so that the select few are able to maintain the status quo, making sure their nests are feathered often to the detriment of others.

On the other hand, can uninhibited communication be realistically justified? How do we ensure no harm is done through dangerous, offensive or misleading information? Even worse, how do we curb incitement to prejudice or violent acts? If limitations on free speech are warranted, what are they and who decides? Once we draw these questions into the equation, the issue becomes a little more complicated.

The tug of war between the liberators and oppressors of free speech is usually a fierce battle, because something of value is at stake to the parties concerned, and perhaps, to many others. Historically, countless individuals have fervently defended their right to freely express their views while those that oppose them have gone to great lengths to silence them.

Even as far back as ancient Athens, the cradle of democracy, Socrates, who was one of the pioneering Greek philosophers and arguably one of the most influential thinkers of all time, was put to death for practising free speech.

To maintain his dignity and demonstrate his unwavering belief in this much revered concept, he stood by his convictions when he was put before the jury and then willingly drank the hemlock when he was sentenced to death by poisoning.

Throughout history there have been many accounts of people dying, suffering or being ostracised because they have publicly challenged authority to stand for what they believe in – even in democratic society! Some that come to mind in more modern times include Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Malcolm X, Ghandi, Muhammad Ali and John Lennon to name a few.

Despite their suffering, a lot of good was achieved by these people defying authority. Imagine if they or anyone else had not spoken out? Would we still think war is a great option or an honour to take part in? Would apartheid still be part of South Africa? Would we still have a segregated society? Had they bowed down to the wishes of authority and remained silent, we would still be living in a far less egalitarian, conformist world full of ignorance.

However, there are many smaller players that make a difference to our everyday lives by speaking out against powerful governments or corporations and keeping them in check. Some writers, artists, people working in the media, members of advocacy groups to name a few assess, criticise and question the actions of the powerful and look for better alternatives. As a result, we have a greater and more balanced awareness of social issues and how the world beyond our doorstep affects us and others.

When it comes to integrative health, many of us are far more aware of how to eat healthily, what supplements may be useful in boosting our well being, what therapies may benefit us when we do have a problem and what "conventional" medicines might do us more harm than good. Years ago many natural therapists who spoke out about some of these subjects would have been labelled crackpots or charlatans, yet today they might be regarded as progressive and in many cases are highly esteemed health professionals. If some of these professionals hadn’t spoken out, we might still believe that the best way to handle the flu is by getting a shot of penicillin and some aspirin to go!

Undoubtedly, we have progressed as a society and we do actually have more freedom of expression than we did fifty years ago. The problem is, unlike Socrates, who had a forum to vocalise his beliefs, we rely on the media as our forum to the public. Unfortunately, not everybody is granted access. The media, one could argue, is the metaphorical silicon chip that limits what we can say.

Even those who are granted access to the media have many limitations placed on them in what they can and can’t say. Depending on the organisation, some media outlets may be pressured by sponsors or regulating bodies not to rock the boat. This pressure is filtered down from upper management to the newsroom and many journalists may choose to toe the line out of fear of losing their jobs. Overt censorship can also muzzle someone with something worthy to say. Censorship might be regulation bound by legislation or it could be a more ad hoc means of limiting information in response to a situation.

In some cases, it is fair to say censorship is justified. In light of the recent race riots in Cronulla, it’s easy to see how anyone inciting hatred or harm to another should be banned from the public eye. In the case of integrative medicine, it is fair to say that there should be some regulation to ensure nothing dangerous or grossly misleading is sold to the consumer.

In saying this, there lingers one important question – who decides what can and cannot be expressed and, furthermore, what are the criteria? This area is very grey, but what is important is that nobody that has a vested interest in either disseminating or suppressing information should be involved in the process. Furthermore, this process of censorship should be entirely transparent. The problem with so much censorship today is the secrecy behind the suppression of information. What stakeholders are influencing the process?

A movie I recently saw highlighted this point. The Constant Gardener delves into a global pharmacy conspiracy where the main character, a British diplomat, discovers a pharmaceutical company is using African men, women and children as guinea pigs for medicine with often deadly side effects. Already enmeshed in searching for his wife’s killers, he becomes the object of prey when he starts speaking to people about what he has found. The film was certainly food for thought and highlighted why free speech can be so crucial to ensuring those in power, corporate or government, don’t exploit their power and why any action on their part to censor information should be exposed. After all, who’s to say this film wasn’t loosely based on a real-life situation?

It’s fair to say that no matter where you live, the media will limit what you can air publicly. Admittedly, I am writing this article with the confidence it will get published. The problem is there are many others out there with something to say that have been silenced because someone has stopped them from going public. For better or worse, we need to know who programs this metaphorical silicon chip and just what their agendas are.