Fear drives a bid for censorship

Given the wide definition of terrorism employed, praising Nelson Mandela’s role in freeing his country from racist tyranny, in part by armed struggle, would presumably qualify for creating such a risk. Or perhaps the excellent film Paradise Now which treats a Palestinian suicide bomber with some sympathy would be seen as offering the sort of “indirect counsel” or “direct praise” that might unhinge the feeble-minded and send them on a terrorist path? Who knows?

The fact is that we understand very little about the causation of terrorist behaviour, and a democratic society should not trade off its significant freedoms for security against obscure risks.

The authors of the proposal piously proclaim that “freedom of speech is a valued part of Australian society” and profess no intention to restrict “investigative journalists’ work, satirical pieces, or patriotic material that might appear to glorify war or battle”. Nor would they restrict treatment of “contentious subject matter in an entertaining, informative, educational, ironical or controversial way”. If it is not intended to do that then it should be rewritten, or better still abandoned.

As it stands, these reassurances are no more than empty platitudes, except perhaps for the endorsement of patriotic gore. We are further reassured that “The Board and Review Board are used to dealing with such material and giving appropriate classifications”.

No doubt, but in a free society we should never be comforted merely by the injunction: “Trust me: I’m a censor!”