Yesterday the Macquarie Radio Network (MRN) decided to suspend all advertising on Alan Jones’ radio show on 2GB. The move follows an intense campaign against the sponsors of 2GB and MRN after Jones said that Julia Gillard’s father probably ‘died of shame’.
What was probably more startling however, were the comments that came from MRN following with the announcement of the suspension. Here is an exert (more in the link above):
“Now in Australia these people of course have the right to express their views to anybody who wants to listen, about any subject they want, including Alan Jones and his radio show. They also have the right and plenty of choice; freedom of choice, to listen to any of the hundreds, in this digital age, thousands of radio programs available to them.
“What they do not have the right to do is on the one hand decide for our listeners who and what they are going to hear on the radio station they choose to listen to, and on the other hand decide for Australian based companies which media outlets they will or won’t use to advertise their products and services. They do not have the right to interfere with freedom of choice and they do not have the right to attempt to censor –not Alan Jones, not this radio network, not the people who choose to listen to it and not the companies who choose to advertise on it.“
“What we are seeing here is 21st Century censorship, via cyber-bullying.”
What MRN are basically saying is the campaign against Jones, and in particular against the sponsors of Jones’ show, is one of censorship, and importantly one to remove Jones’ right to free speech.
This is a very simple take on the idea of free speech, and one that really ignores the intricacies of this quite complex freedom. Whilst free-speech may give you the right to say what you want, it certainly doesn’t give you right to avoid the consequences of this speech.
There are two issues at play here. Firstly, whilst the ideal of free speech says that we have the right to say whatever we want, it doesn’t give us the right to a platform to say that. Put simply, no one has a guaranteed right to have our own radio show.
This reality therefore also works in the reverse. Our lack of right to a platform also means that you don’t have the right to keep your platform if you get one, particularly in a paid role. Just like every other employee of companies around Australia, media personalities have to stick to their employment contracts, as well as keep their customers happy. If they don’t, their companies have every right to fire them (which clearly MRN has no intention of doing with Jones), thereby removing their platform.
Let’s think about this in another way. Whilst on a smaller level, we can all imagine that a shop assistant has a platform of speech. They have the ability to talk to potentially hundreds of people every day. But if a shop assistant started abusing their customers or saying offensive things, it is clear that the customers have the right to complain, or ask for the shop assistant to be fired. If this didn’t happen, and the abuse continued, no one would give it two thoughts if these customers then started to apply community pressure on the management for supporting such abuse. It would be considered a perfectly natural response.
Just because Alan Jones’ platform is larger doesn’t mean he becomes exempt from these sorts of rules. He is both an employee and is accountable to his customers and to the community. The community therefore has the right to apply pressure on MRN’s management and to demand he be fired if he insults them.
Second, free speech does not mean a right to speak without consequences. Just as you have the right to say what you want, I have the right to inflict consequences (within the law) if I find what you say insulting or threatening.
This is a standard that we place across a range of different areas. Going back to our shop assistant example, the reporting of their abuse to their management, and their possible firing, is a justified form of consequence for their abusive speech.
This campaign is just another form of inflicting consequences for hateful speech. Yes, the people involved in this campaign may not listen to Alan Jones, or even suffer personally from he is saying, but the campaign is a way of saying ‘I find what you say offensive and I don’t think you should be able to get away with it’. There is nothing wrong with that.
Free speech is a complex issue. Whether you agree with the campaign being run against Jones or not however, it is really hard to see how it is taking away his right to free speech. Saying you have to deal with the consequences of what you say is nothing like saying you can’t say it in the first place.