A right racket

A cacophony of calls to protect free speech has resounded on both sides of the Pacific this week. On the one hand, Donald Trump banned three media organisations—CNN, MSNOW and Politico—from White House press conferences ‘for “reporting” FAKE NEWS!’. On the other, his government has made an extraordinary intervention into Australian domestic politics by making a submission¹ on the draft digital duty of care bill, expressing its ‘opposition to foreign measures that result in extraterritorial censorship of protected speech by Americans online’. These positions parallel those of fellow right-wing populist Pauline Hanson, who has banned the ABC, Guardian and The Age² from press conferences for being critical and ‘wanting to have a go at me’. Hanson also rejects the digital duty of care, calling it ‘Orwellian machinery’ for government censorship. 

In this context it’s worth remembering the fundamental reason that democratic polities recognise—albeit in different ways—a right to free speech: to hold government and the powerful to account. Hanson’s and Trump’s moves against the press directly restrict its freedom to report in an effort to avoid accountability. UN General Comment 34 on the Freedoms of Expression and Opinion observes that ‘a free, uncensored and unhindered press or other media is essential in any society to ensure freedom of opinion and expression’ and is ‘one of the cornerstones of a democratic society’. Paragraph 34 states that the penalisation of a media outlet or journalist solely for being critical of the government ‘can never be considered to be a necessary restriction of freedom of expression.’ 

The same cannot be said for the digital duty of care, which seeks to hold digital platforms to account for the harms that occur online—particularly to children. There are genuine questions about whether the bill is drafted in a way that ensures any restrictions on speech that might result are proportionate and legitimate. Indeed, and somewhat bizarrely given the government’s experience with the 2024 misinformation bill, it completely ignores freedom of expression. And defining the duty of care in terms of protection from harmful content may lead platforms—and the regulator—to focus on content takedown rather than platform systems and conduct, such as engagement-driven algorithms or data harvesting. But rejecting the bill outright will ensure only that digital platforms continue to operate without accountability. 

Of course, accountability is what Hanson, and Trump, want to avoid. Seemingly without irony, One Nation’s official policy on free speech³ is that it is a ‘fundamental right that must be protected’, by having it ‘enshrined in the Constitution to safeguard open debate, free expression, and the rights of all Australians to speak their minds without fear’. One Nation ‘will always stand for your right to speak, debate, and express your views.’ Clearly this doesn’t extend to media scrutiny of One Nation. By all means, let’s enshrine the right in the Constitution. But let’s recognise what that entails.

References

1. https://au.usembassy.gov/u-s-government-response-to-the-australian-consultation-on-the-online-safety-amendment-digital-duty-of-care-bill-2026/ 
2. https://www.nine.com.au/australia-news/vic/pauline-hanson-one-nation-state-election-upper-house-candidates-leader-20260803-p60kux.html 
3. https://www.onenation.org.au/free-speech-policy