Zoo Magazine: the latest victim of nanny-state naysayers

When it comes to the balance between causing offence and the free exchange of ideas and opinions, Australia has traditionally favoured the former over the latter. This rests on the belief that the benefit to society from allowing people to do and say things which may be construed as offensive outweighs the detriment to those who may be offended by such actions. This stance is optimistic in the sense that it assumes we don't need to censor acts or words capable of causing emotional unrest. The alternative view is that individuals can't be trusted in the free exchange of ideas to make sound conclusions without the mediation of more enlightened arbiters of the common good.

To be sure, those who despise Zoo certainly have a right to express that opinion. But that is very different to using the tyranny of moral outrage to impose their values onto the lawful actions of others.

Guardians of public morality, seemingly anointed by nothing more than the grace of their good intentions have had more than their fare share of recent success. High-minded busybodies recently bullied Target into removing the perfectly legal video game Grand Theft Auto video game from its shelves in the name of protecting the fragile minds and consciences of the nations young. They also successfully lobbied for the visiting visas of American rapper Tyler the Creator and self-styled pick up artist Julien Blanc to be denied. Making a living off gangster rap can now join pedophilia and being a member of ISIS as disqualifying grounds for visiting the Commonwealth of Australia.

While the professionally outraged have no formal authority to impose their moral compasses upon the rest of us, the not-so-soft power of the social media lynch mob is enough to leave many thinking acquiescence is the easier path. However, for those who think freedom of conscience is too important to be laid to waste by nanny-state naysayers, the challenge is not just to ignore moral authoritarianism. It deserves to be called out for what it is, and resisted at every turn.

Despite their insistences, as the professionally outraged have no former power to dictate ones private predilections, neither can the rest of us expect some higher authority to protect individual freedom from the meddlesome ways of moral guardians.