What Free Speech ?

Filed under: thus far... — Leave a comment

March 21, 2013

The teeth gnashing and squealing of Australias “free press” over the proposed media laws is a little like watching and listening to feeding time on a pig farm.

Acting as though they are the outraged agents of the God of Truth they line up to save the citizenry against the devils who would kill free speech.

And what is it the threat? The Government wants to upset the industries self regulation body by adding an independent overseer in the public interest. This, according to the Murdochracy puts us as a nation on par with Nazi Germany and Iran. Nothing brings out the baying dogs of the press more than a threat to their total supremacy in the market of ideas.

Lets get real there is no diversity of opinion in Australian media. The Murdoch empire dominates Australian media and the first edict of the Australian press theocracy is “ I am thy lord thy emporer and there shall be no other emporer beside me”.

When one media proprietor completely dominates the discussion there is no plurality of ideas being discussed. In Australia the lack of plurality is as evident as the dominance of Pravda in the old Soviet Union.

The Levenson inquiry in the United Kingdom showed that free speech looks more like corruption when fearful subservient politicians do the bidding of newspaper proprietors. It lead to an appalling lack of morality by British tabloids even criminal acts that trampled on the rights of privacy for many Britons. The Murdoch newspapers were the worst offenders.

In Australia the hegemonic powers of Murdoch,s Australian press is even greater. There is no doubt that it has been destabilising the Gillard Government with such fervour and lack of balance it competes with Fox news as the most dishonest media outlet in the Western world.

It is interesting that the media as one push for an independent body to examine the police saying that because of their power, in a proper democracy the police cannot and ought not judge themselves. How often have we seen headlines saying “Who should police the police?”.

In an industry that wields an even greater power, the power to create new truths and realities, the power to destroy governments, the media ardently believes they should be their own police.

The concept of free speech is largely derived from the ideas of influential philosopher John Stuart Mill who said:

…the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. … the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. (On Liberty ch.1 ¶9)[2

Mill never envisaged a mass media that would be dominated by few extremely powerful individuals and corporations,or that proprietors would happily destroy the good name of others for entertainment of their audience, or deliberately mislead their viewers about life and death issues like climate change.

Is it healthy for one individual to dominate political discourse to the extent that members of parliaments are so fearful of being politically destroyed that they bow to the will of that proprietor at the expense of their constituencies and good governance?

Despite the growth of online blogs there is not a healthy plurality of views being aired in Australia as the corporate monopolistic mass media drowns out alternative views and furthermore it has dependent governments hooked on its ability to give and take power.

At this moment a conga line of such politicians in the parliament are selling us out while bowing to their puppet master and clamouring for his anointment in the upcoming election. Even Craig Thompson has joined in the chanting of the penitential rites.

Priest (Abott): Have mercy on us, Lord Rupert
Congregation: For we have sinned against you.
Priest (Abott): Show us, O Lord, your mercy.
Congregation: And grant us your salvation.