The problem with freedom of speech is that some people broadcast to a willing constituency, and others are effectively silenced. Syndicated columnists have the ear of millions. Unpopular minorities preach to the small ranks of the converted.
The ideal remedy for targets of vilification and incitement to hatred is, surely, to give them the resources, support and opportunities to counter and contradict and 'speak back' to the vilifier, in a way that validates their experience and increases their confidence, competence and conversational presence in the community.
This should counteract the disabling, silencing, marginalising and disempowering effect of vilification. It puts the objectively determined facts — not a vilifier's claimed 'fact' — into the public domain. It demonstrates a public value on refusing to tolerate or embrace discrimination. It begins a different conversation that other listeners may hear and decide is valid. It maintains the conversation.
How might it work? The key element is that the target participates in the response. A few years ago NSW academic Katharine Gelber suggested a range of approaches to reach the same audience as had been affected by the original vilification, such as a local newsletter or the workplace, if that's where it happened, or a regular TV 'talkback' such as the ABC's Media Watch.
All of these approaches would require an independent statutory office to monitor and determine the seriousness of the vilification, and invite targets to respond.
Only those who could demonstrate that they had been 'silenced' by opponents could invoke this remedy: those who could point out that their opponents were more numerous, articulate, better financed, and more easily able to use the media than they were, could claim it.
Gelber says these should be people who inhabited 'an objective world characterised by inequality, and to norms and values which enact and support discrimination'.
This would rule out bullish campaign groups and overuse by an oversensitive 'insulted' person. It need not require the cooperation of the respondent, would involve no punishment, and would encourage more, not less, discussion and debate.
It would be expensive, but the idea of the targets of religious or racial vilification having a prompt and immediate remedy through an independent third party to contradict racial or religious vilification would let victims challenge any 'silencing