User:Miles w/18c 2020

This policy is ready to be presented to the membership for discussion and adoption. This policy proposal is now in its final form and will be presented at the next policy meeting or Congress. Please note that this proposal is the final form that will be presented for discussion, but is still not endorsed by the party.

Position statement on Free Speech, Hate Speech and Section 18C

Statement

Pirate Party Australia acknowledges that the modern political debate on free speech in Australia is fraught by tribalism and misunderstanding. We consider free speech to be an important principle, but also acknowledge that speech can be used to cause forms of harm particularly to vulnerable members of the Australian or international community. Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Commonwealth) is one area of the law that has provoked considerable debate in Australia with regards to free speech and hate speech.

For a number of years it has been party policy to repeal section 18C in order to defend free speech more broadly in Australia, conditional on existing common law protections being sufficient to prevent hate speech and discrimination. A position taken by electoral candidates for the Party from 2012-2019 (see campaign statements made by Brandon Selic, Sara Joyce, Miles Whiticker et al) has been that existing protections are insufficient, thus the unofficial party position prior to 2020 has been that Section 18C is currently doing more good than harm. The specific portion of Section 18C that we consider to be censorious overreach are the words "offend" and "insult".

Our policy platform states "Pirate Party Australia does not believe that regulating opinions is a legitimate function of the state". Despite this we hold a growing recognition that certain opinions can come to cause harm, and that a principled defence of free speech should exclude forms of speech which induce violence or harm.

Thus any future policy of Pirate Party Australia, whilst carefully guarding against overreach into the political theatre of "regulating opinions", should also specifically acknowledge that advocacy for violence or harm cannot be considered "free" speech, as it comes with the cost of reducing the "freedom" of the victims. None of us can be free until all of us are free.