In the Sunday Age today, Chris Berg looks at the Tasmanian anti-discrimination case against Archbishop Porteous, and the chilling effect of such laws on free speech:
[The Tasmanian anti-discrimination laws are] symptomatic of the spread of no-go areas in Australian public discourse. Governments increasingly believe that protecting us from being offended – on whatever spurious grounds – is more important than allowing us to speak our mind.
[There] is no caveat in the Tasmanian act that even purports to protect free expression… In a parliamentary debate in 2013, the Attorney-General dismissed concerns by insisting the bill “does not impinge on free speech; it provides protection from bullying”. All words are cheap. The words of politicians – even when they’re interpreting their own legislation – are junk.Both supporters and opponents of gay marriage should be very unhappy with the Tasmanian case. Even if the Catholic Church successfully defends against the anti-discrimination complaint, damage has been done. Free-speech theorists talk about the “chilling effect” when the cost of defending oneself against baseless claims hampers the open expression of views.