General news
30 May, 2025
Want to send us a letter or post on our social media pages? Read this.
Don't hesitate to contact us about our editorial guidelines
WHEN I opened the envelope and read the slurs scrawled on a piece of paper - anonymous, of course - I had to have a chuckle.
This wasn’t my first rodeo or hate letter, and I doubt it will be the last. As someone who writes publicly in Australia on a one-man journalist newspaper, I know that expressing an opinion - on politics, identity, climate, or simply the structure of power - can ignite the passions of those who believe dissent should be punished.
Often, people sending such bile invoke “free speech” as their shield, as though our Constitution enshrines a sweeping First Amendment akin to the United States. It doesn’t. And maybe it shouldn’t. But the experience of being targeted by hate, while being told you must simply “take it,” forces a reckoning with what free speech really means in Australia - and what it doesn’t.
Australia has no Bill of Rights, and no explicit constitutional guarantee of free speech. There is, however, a limited implied right to political communication, a fragile doctrine that courts interpret narrowly. It protects citizens from laws that would unreasonably restrict the ability to discuss political matters - but it doesn’t prevent individuals from facing consequences for what they say, nor does it offer much defence when private institutions shut down speech they dislike.
And herein lies the rub: Australians often think they have free speech in the American sense, but in reality, speech is hemmed in by powerful constraints.
Take defamation law. Australia’s defamation standards are among the strictest in the democratic world, placing the burden of proof on the publisher and often favouring plaintiffs, especially those with wealth and influence. Truth is a defence - but not always a sufficient one. Journalists, whistleblowers, and commentators have been dragged through expensive legal battles for publishing information in the public interest, only to be silenced not by the strength of an argument, but by the size of a legal budget.
Then there’s media ownership. A handful of powerful companies own the lion’s share of newspapers, television stations, and radio outlets. When those platforms are privately owned - as they almost always are - speech is not a right, but a privilege granted at the discretion of editors and corporate interests. A piece can be pulled, a journalist fired, a comment deleted. This isn't censorship by the government - but it is a restriction on expression.
So when I receive hate mail from someone claiming I’m violating their free speech by expressing my views in a column, the irony is rich. They confuse disagreement with suppression. They fail to understand that free speech, if it means anything, must include the freedom to disagree with them -m and yes, to do so in public. But in Australia, both sides are laboring under misconceptions: my detractors think they have unfettered rights to speak; I know, all too well, how little protection I have when speech turns hostile.
Free speech, then, is not just about the legal limits imposed by government - it’s about the social and structural realities that shape whose voices get heard, and whose get threatened into silence. I’ll keep writing. Not because I feel safe, but because I believe it’s necessary. The more we understand the true boundaries of speech in this country, the more we can begin to question whose speech is actually free - and at whose expense that freedom comes.
For genuine letters to the editor, please include name, address and contact number and email to - editor@westwyalongadvocate.com.au
Read More: West Wyalong
