farmdoc's blog post number 274

It’s strange how once I get a thought in my mind, it somehow sticks there. For a while. Two days ago I wrote of censorship. Today I do it again. Seeing as censorship’s a recurring theme here, looking at a definition’s worthwhile. Here are some [1,2,3,4] which show it involves suppressing, excluding, restraining, inhibiting, and distorting. Thus it has negative, and pejorative, connotations. Twelve days ago, the Age apparently published an op-ed piece by Khalid Meshaal, the official leader of Hamas – which is on the Australian government’s list of terrorist organisations. Therefore should Meshaal be afforded space in a newspaper in a nation that lists Hamas as a terrorist organisation? Yuval Rotem, the Israeli ambassador to Australia, in a piece published last Friday, pointedly in the same newspaper, argues he shouldn’t. I'm less sure. Free speech is important – nay, paramount – in a vibrant, robust democracy. And media censorship, whether self-administered or imposed, clearly limits free speech. Because censorship is negative and pejorative, it’d be nice if it wasn’t needed. My inclination is that the Age was correct in publishing Meshaal's piece, so its readers can judge him for what he is and what he stands for. However this runs counter to my view that terrorists must be denied the media coverage they yearn for. In short, censorship's not an easy issue. And the closer you look, the harder it gets.