Protecting freedom of expression

Freedom of speech is a vital democratic liberty that many of us take for granted, with most Australians firmly believing that they have, and that they should have the right to free speech.

Associate Professor Katharine Gelber from UQ's School of Political Science and International Studies has made it her mission to explore these rights and protect freedom of expression by establishing herself as a leading researcher and commentator on speech regulation in Australia.

Dr Gelber has secured a total of over $1.4 million in Australian Research Council (ARC) funding (as well as other research funds) to publish extensively on this topic, and is using her ARC Future Fellowship to work on her current project, Free Speech after 9/11.

This comparative, four-country study of the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia focuses on the often overlooked phenomenon of speech-restricting measures that have been ushered in to support counter-terrorism policy.

I will use this four-year research position to investigate how some anti-terrorism measures introduced after 9/11 infringed on one of the key civil liberties that is the reason for our being targeted by terrorists in the first place, Dr Gelber said.

Dr Gelber's broader research surrounding human rights and freedom of speech focuses on the interface between political culture and legal frameworks in the arena of speech regulation.

My work looks at understanding how freedom of speech is protected, philosophical debates about why it ought to be protected, and when it might justifiably be limited, such as in the regulation of hate speech and how it has changed over time in response to legal restrictions, she said.

Dr Gelber believes that freedom of speech ought not to be considered in absolutist terms, and that there are some appropriate limits to freedom of expression one of the most obvious of these being vilification a speech or expression which is capable of instilling or inciting hatred of, or prejudice towards, a person or group of people on a specified ground.'

If it can be established that vilification is able to prevent individuals from developing their capacities to participate as full members of our community, and by doing so to prevent their equal participation as citizens and community members, then there is an argument for its regulation, she said.

In Australia, finding the right balance between freedom of speech on the one hand and appropriate limits on the other is not easy, but what Dr Gelber is trying to do is outline a framework within which we might be able to make sensible decisions about where that balance might lie.

Read the rest here:
Protecting freedom of expression