Free speech in Adelaide
By Jo Ellis and Melanie Sjoberg
ADELAIDE — Freedom of speech and expression is acknowledged as a fundamental aspect of democracy. People are less able to participate fully in their community, workplace or campus without access to a range of viewpoints from which they may make informed decisions and contribute effectively. For those of us active in campaigns aimed at changing society, the ability to reach out with our ideas and information is essential.
The issue of freedom of speech usually centres on censorship and regulations that allow or prohibit the publication of certain prescribed material. In reality, however, freedom of speech is influenced by a range of factors, one of the most important being access to the media and economics.
Currently, those with economic power have greater influence over the expression of ideas and views. True freedom of speech cannot exist without everyone having equal access to media that are unconstrained in their ability to publish various perspectives and then distribute them widely.
The Australian media have one of the most heavily concentrated ownership patterns in the world. During the carve-up of the late 1980s, this was even more accentuated.
In Adelaide there is only one daily newspaper, owned by Rupert Murdoch. The campaign to defend the right of Green Left Weekly to be distributed in the streets and markets of the city is, therefore, a core free speech issue.
It has been suggested by some in the broad left that it is merely a refusal on the part of GLW to fulfill the necessary regulations and pay appropriate fees that is the problem, rather than a genuine freedom of speech matter. This implies that there is some sort of level playing field whereby all papers should simply comply with the ground rules and compete equally to be heard.
The recent attack on GLW in Adelaide is a political attack masked by bureaucratic regulations. The council claims that all newspapers should pay the same fee, and that distributors should wear a uniform and have an appropriate display stand.
A council officer has even suggested that this is for the protection of GLW, claiming that it prevents unscrupulous people from selling GLW and keeping the money for their personal gain. Rather than protecting the rights of GLW, this regulation results in a limiting of public discussion.
Is Green Left Weekly the same as the Advertiser? Green Left Weekly is distributed by volunteers committed to the political message and conveying it to people in the streets.
GLW does not make money, but rather returns any income to the production of future issues. In actual fact GLW organises fundraising to further ensure the ongoing production of this valuable alternative point of view. GLW also promotes a wide range of progressive campaigns and benefits and encourages contributions from activists.
The Advertiser is distributed for profit and is largely composed of advertising for that purpose. Establishment newspapers accrue on average 60% of their revenue from paid advertising. Media magnates, such as Murdoch, often control the distribution outlets, therefore ensuring a monopoly through newsagents as well.
Articles are usually contributed by journalist employees. Any message conveyed through the Advertiser will be controlled by editorial privilege or. at best, a price.
The attack on GLW also exposes an ideological opposition to the ideas within the paper. GLW distributors are sometimes subjected to verbal abuse and harassment, especially in the case of young women.
It is not generally accepted that women would or should want to stand out in public expressing their point of view. During the 1970s when campaigns to sell political newspapers were being conducted, this was highlighted by the fact that the licence was available only to men. The licence today still identifies "newsboys".
Recently, this ideological opposition was more widely exposed by the security guards who described GLW supporters crudely as "scum" who needed to "get a job".
The distribution of GLW and other political material and the right to speak out in public are challenged by these supposedly neutral regulations.
Having access to public space for these activities cannot be taken for granted. Private business interests already have a monopoly on many forms of communication.
The streets, markets and public places are the property of the majority of people and we need to defend our right to use them in political ways, not merely for leisure. The city mall and markets cannot be relinquished for the sole function of consumerism.
GLW and other progressive organisations distribute information and hold rallies and speak-outs in the streets because this is the only way to reach out to broad layers of people. It is the only way to challenge the economic constraints imposed by narrow media ownership and control. It is the only way to confront and expose the need to change society.