<
https://theconversation.com/newspapers-cannot-justify-running-clive-palmers-trumpet-of-patriots-ads-as-freedom-of-speech-252024>
"The publication by the
Newcastle Herald of a political advertisement by
Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots party stating “there are only two genders –
male and female” has provoked a backlash that has seen the advertisement
removed from the paper’s online edition.
The publisher, Australian Community Media, has apologised for printing it in
the first place. The ad also ran on the front page of
The Age on March 12.
This raises a question about freedom of speech, particularly political speech.
There are three reasons why this advertisement does not deserve the protection
of the free-speech principle.
The first is that it is factually wrong. The second is that it attacks people
for an attribute of birth, and the third is that it is unjustifiably harmful,
being calculated to arouse prejudice for political gain.
It is factually wrong because there are people in the community who are trans
or gender-diverse. The Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne has a Gender
Service clinic to assist children and adolescents in this situation. It states
on its website that being trans or gender-diverse is seen as part of the
natural spectrum of human diversity.
Understand how AI is changing society
The clinic’s website also draws attention to the risk of harm to these often
vulnerable young people. It states that they experience considerably higher
rates of depression, anxiety, self-harm and attempted suicide compared with
their cisgender peers because of their experiences of stigma, discrimination,
social exclusion, bullying and harassment.
More generally, the British philosopher A. C. Grayling has developed a scheme
for assessing harm arising from prejudice against people on the grounds of
certain attributes.
In his scheme, he identifies what he calls attributes of birth: race,
nationality, skin colour, gender, sexual orientation and disability among them.
This provides valuable guidance about the attributes that deserve the most
robust protection.
It is not necessary for the editor of a newspaper to be familiar with any of
this in order to see that an advertisement of the kind published in the
Newcastle Herald was totally indefensible. All that had to be done was to
substitute race or skin colour for gender and ask: would we publish such an
advertisement?
On top of that, since 1984 Australia has had a
Sex Discrimination Act, the
latest iteration of which makes it an offence to discriminate against a person
on the grounds of gender identity or intersex status, making it clear that
these are protected attributes under the law.
Australian Community Media said it has checks in place for political
advertising, “but on this occasion the process failed and the advertisement was
not reviewed before publication”."
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
