Freedom of speech deserves defence

Freedom of speech seems more newsworthy now than any time since the Cold War, with new laws controlling what must and must not be said being called for - overwhelmingly by those on the political left.

In politicised debates, we tend to support the case our political leaders are arguing, rather than arguing the intricacies and values of the problem at hand. That is seldom healthy, but with something as fundamentally vital to democracy as freedom of speech, we simply must do better.

The Act Party's recent decision to tack freedom of speech on to its branding will do little to improve that situation - it is a marginal party espousing policies often considered unpalatable by the majority. That in itself could help cement the narrative freedom of speech campaigners are all right-wing bigots wanting their right to derogatory and abusive language preserved.

That narrative is simplistic and inaccurate. Freedom of speech rights have traditionally spanned the political divide and should still do so. But things seem to be changing. The internet's power means causes and concerns once deemed marginal are gaining more coverage than ever before. In particular, younger voters are better connected to each other, to politicians, activists and causes they see as important.

Having freedom of speech restrictions - especially restrictions concerning hateful, hurtful and insensitive words - is one of the calls being made by many young voters at the moment, though the calls are by no means restricted to this group.

But the clamouring for such restrictions shouldn't mean we ignore the concerns - albeit delivered in a quieter manner - of many middle-ground voters. These are voters who were, just a decade or so ago, their own generations' firebrands, who wanted revolution, who fought for it then had children, got mortgages, moved up a few rungs at work and now want some stability to pervade in politics while they get down to the business of setting themselves and their children up for the future.

Do these voters want freedom of speech restricted? And if not, why not? It's easy to throw ''right wing'', ''privileged'', ''elite'' and a slew of other ad hominem attacks at these people, but it isn't healthy.

It is noteworthy a key free speech advocate is respected and experienced left-wing political pundit Chris Trotter. But even his opinions on free speech are derided by many who call out his age, skin colour and gender as ''proof'' his defence of free speech is not to be trusted.

We can do better than this. We must. And we should attempt to do better as individuals, rather than leaving it in the hands of politicians. Freedom of speech matters to all of us; those on the left, in the centre and on the right.

It matters to the young who will live long lives and may not always agree with their current ideals. It matters to the old, it matters to future generations, and it matters to the health of our democracy - the tool that delivers us our freedoms.

It may seem simply humane to clamp down on hate speech, on insults, on speech that makes people feel marginalised, hurt and unsafe.

But if, in doing so, we damage the key tool which has given us the chance to live as well and freely as we do - are we prepared for that? When the government of the day - no matter its stripe - is able to dictate what can and can't be said, are we safer? Or are we in grave danger?

We should make more effort to support those hurt by the words of our fellow New Zealanders. We should work harder at building resilience and self-worth in ourselves and in our children - limiting the effect hurtful words can have.

But we should not let an erosion of free speech occur under our watch.