Is it "free speech" or is it

something else? 

I do not watch "breakfast" television or listen to early morning radio. I do not know the person at the centre of a "row" of some sort. The person in question apparently interviewed someone whose views are unacceptable. I know very little about that someone too. From what little I do know I do not think I would care for his views either.

That said, does he have the right to be heard? It is a question which should be debated at the highest levels and it should be debated seriously. It is no good simply saying "his views are abhorrent and he must be banned".  All that is going to do is make his views even more attractive to people who are already leaning in his direction. There will be others who have not even thought in his terms who will also find his ideas attractive simply because he has been banned. They will seek him out.

His removal from breakfast television (whatever that is) has reminded me of Giggle v Tickle again. One of the people behind that, the one who is attempting to retain as "girls only" space, tried to get our ABC (the Downunder version of the BBC) to publish her side of the arguments being put forward. They have published, interviewed, discussed and more the other side of the arguments. The bias they are displaying is clear. It matters not that the ABC is the publicly funded broadcaster whose charter demands they not take sides. They are not going to allow her side to be heard...at least yet. I cannot help wondering if this will change should the matter go her way in the High Court. 

If the High Court comes down on the other side then there is no hope for us as a country. I wonder if they will even be able to do what it is clear must be done. The government certainly intends to do nothing.  Why should it? It will just upset the very vocal minority group who will be able to manipulate the media into presenting the story so that they appear to be the victims.

It is that "victimhood" approach which is so successful. Behind the scenes of some of the major media stories there is a very different story being played out. One of the few aid workers left in a war zone told me recently that a "foreign" news crew came in. They filmed a "distraught" father holding a "dead" child. When the filming was finished the child went back to what he was doing. The crew apparently did not see this as a problem "because it is the sort of thing which is happening". Is it? Quite possibly it is but is it happening in the way which the media is telling us? One side of the story will have it that there was no "real" violence surrounding the kidnappings in Israel and that no children have been abducted by Russians in Ukraine. The protests in Iran are apparently all against America and the ebola outbreak has been contained and...I could go on. 

The reality is that "free speech" is intent on selling us the story others want us to hear. Sometimes it is a reasonable representation of what is actually happening but the reality can also be very different. The people on that maritime flotilla heading to Gaza want us to believe the worst about those who perhaps prevented them from likely being, at best, taken hostage. They have succeeded in meeting the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister. The media is telling their story - and many people believe it. Is the reality different? It might be. We are only being told one side.

It would be good to have other views sometimes, even views we find abhorrent. We need to teach children to think about what is actually being said and encourage them to search for alternative views. 

 But...speaking up has consequences.