In any newspaper or news site you will read warnings about how freedom of speech and civil discussion is under attack from 'political correctness' and echo chambers. The latest instalment of this faux-debate was kicked off by author Richard Flanagan who, responding to the decision of Brisbane Writers Festival to drop Germaine Greer and Bob Carr as invited guests, wrote about the disappearing courage to listen to different ideas.
Engaging in good-faith discussions with those who hold different views is important, and we need more spaces for it. Yet there is a growing idealisation of a mythical bygone era of pluralistic, open, civil debate between truly different viewpoints, that never really existed. Literary festivals and media have only ever had a narrow selection of different viewpoints because of financial incentives and their audiences. Rarely have they ventured into truly boundary pushing territory.
Though there are some instances where individuals have genuinely been silenced, it is rare. In this digital age, gatekeeping can be avoided, and many have thrived by nurturing perceived exclusion. Whereas broadcasts from public figures and journalists were once one-directional, critical responses from audiences can now be immediate and amplified through social media. Many have conflated being criticised with being silenced.
While the debate about Flanagan's contribution has continued on social media, for most Australians such debates are esoteric. Regardless of the actual reason behind the program change, whether Carr or Greer participates has no real impact on their ability to speak out and be heard. The real threat to the freedom of expression for most people comes not from programming decisions at literary festivals but rather to the public through their employers.
The shallowness of this panic about freedom of expression became obvious when news broke of Angela Williamson's sacking by Cricket Australia for tweeting about abortion in a personal capacity, despite it having nothing to do with the work she was doing. While some have framed it as being about the right to choose or discrimination based on political opinion, at its heart it is fundamentally about how employers can quash free expression.
As the noted feminist philosopher Elizabeth Anderson pointed out in her Tanner Lectures, workplaces are dictatorial, private governments. She noted that 'those dictatorships have the legal authority to regulate workers' off-hour lives as well ... Because most employers exercise this off-hours authority irregularly, arbitrarily, and without warning, most workers are unaware of how sweeping it is.' It is 'market pressures, social norms, lack of interest, and simple decency [that] keep most employers from exercising the full scope of their authority'.
We have seen these dictatorships in action over the past few years, most prominently through the use of social media policies. As social media usage has increased, with 79 per cent of Australians now using social media, there has been an increased blurring of work and the personal. Workplace policies with broad clauses such as 'organisational disrepute' have meant the regulation of private conduct on social media can occur at management's discretion.
"From the use of social media policies to discipline workers, to attempts to ban the Eureka flag and slogans on hardhats on construction sites, individual freedoms have been under constant attack in the workplace."
There was the 2015 sacking of SBS sports commentator Scott McIntyre for tweets about Anzac Day that were found to be in breach of the SBS social media policy and the SBS code of conduct. In 2017, the Australian Public Service Commission released new guidance on social media policies stating that public servants could be in breach of the APS code of conduct for liking or sharing posts on Facebook that are critical of the government.
Similarly, during the Streets Ice Cream dispute of 2017, workers risked disciplinary action if they posted angry emojis on social media in protest at Unilever's attempt to cut their pay.
These examples are only the tip of the iceberg and show that the protection of civil liberties must be considered a workplace issue as much as wages and conditions or work health and safety. From the use of social media policies to discipline workers, to attempts to ban the Eureka flag and slogans on hardhats on construction sites, to the coercive powers of the Australian Building and Construction Commission that remove the right to silence, to preventing picketing or even saying the word 'scab', individual freedoms have been under constant attack in the workplace.
These confected debates about 'political correctness' and 'freedom of expression' mistake an inability to receive criticism from others with free speech being silenced, and distract us from real and growing attacks on the individual freedoms of everyday people who do not have a megaphone in the media.
Osmond Chiu is Secretary of the NSW Fabians. He tweets @redrabbleroz