Freedom of speech is an undoubted benefit of liberal democracy and calls to curtail it are rightly viewed with suspicion. However, the simplistic rhetoric of freedom - of choice, markets, and speech - is invoked here in a particularly cynical and obviously self-interested manner. The report Lefroy critiques does not propose curtailing interaction between private individuals. The suggestion that advertising is merely “communication” masks the industry’s raison d’être: to persuade people to buy things they don’t want or need.
Historically, freedom of speech has come to mean the ability to discuss and debate policy, to criticise one’s government without fear: to be a citizen rather than a subject. The kind of freedom the advertising industry cares about is the freedom to consume.
There are broader questions here: could not liberty include liberation from advertisements and freedom of choice embrace the choice not to be advertised to? The governments, who make the laws, are freely elected; no one votes for an advertising company. One could also note (albeit rather tritely) that advertising is self-evidently not free speech - it is bought and paid for.
Advertisement
Compass intends its report to “spark a long overdue debate about an industry that in recent years has changed dramatically, and ask whether regulation needs to catch up”. The time is equally ripe for such a debate in Australia.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
31 posts so far.