What's the point of free speech? How does a philosophical principle rooted in ancient Athenian democracy relate to the way we live and work in 2019? And what are the limits we should place on free speech?

In the latest instalment of Hairy Questions, ABC Life's series exploring thorny, everyday moral dilemmas, Dr Matt Beard answers these questions and more.

Let's get into it!

What are the limits to free speech?

Dear Matt,

In the coming years, there are likely to be lots of people within society, like people of faith, who are going to want to educate their children however they see fit, even if that's not totally in line with social trends and norms.

For example, those who believe in "traditional" marriage will still pass these beliefs on to their children, no matter what the social consensus is.

So, my Hairy Question is less of personal dilemma and more of a social one: what are the limits of the right to free speech? Can some people lose their rights to it if they don't toe the line, socially speaking?

— Anonymous

This question has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Dr Beard's response

Dr Matt Beard is a husband, dad, pop culture nerd, moral philosopher and ethicist. ( Supplied )

There are a couple of really interesting things in your dilemma. First up, there's a complex issue regarding how kids are raised in a society, and how much we should protect and respect the way parents want to raise their kids. You've described that as an issue of free speech, but I think we should consider whether there's a more useful way to think about this particular problem.

The second issue is one that we're asking more and more today: how far does the right to free speech go?

Let's start with the second issue, because it'll help me explain why your first question isn't just a question of free speech.

Re-thinking freedom of speech

I want to start by getting something clear: free speech is a really unhelpful term to describe the bunch of issues and questions it addresses.

That's because it frames the issue as though speech is inherently free until some draconian force reigns it in — that is, it primes us to think more liberally about what kinds of speech we should accept, because we've made it seem like restraining speech is an attack on freedom.

Listen to Short and Curly Hear more from the fast-paced fun-filled ethics podcast for kids and their parents with questions and ideas to really get you thinking. Read more Read more

The framing of "free speech" debates — as if speech is naturally free — suggests there is some intrinsic value to speech. This doesn't really gel with our experience, though.

Most of the stuff we say, and hear, is meaningless chop, stale banter and empty small talk. Saying there's something inherently important about this seems misleading.

What's more likely is that the value of speech depends on other concepts and ideas — like whether the view being put forward is true, ethically acceptable or constructive. If you take this view, it means you need to get past the general question of free speech and get into the nitty gritty details of what is being said.

What does 'free' actually mean?

The other reason free speech is unhelpful is that it's not clear what "free" means.

Does it mean you should be able to say whatever you want and face no potential consequences? In that case, we couldn't shame, ostracise or punish any act of free expression.

Defamation, incitements to violence and outright lies would be fair game, which would probably end up with the whole world looking like a 4chan thread.

But many people have made the point that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism — it just means freedom from consequences.

Maybe free speech means that you shouldn't face formal consequences for what you say, like losing your job or being locked up in prison. That's also a bit problematic, though. If a barista decides to call everyone the n-word as they order their morning coffees and can't be sacked for it, our moral concepts aren't doing the work we want them to do.

The point is this: free speech isn't about protecting all speech from certain kinds of consequences. It's about protecting some speech from some kinds of consequences and ensuring those consequences are reasonable.

That means free speech is bundled up with a whole lot of other moral concepts that are often overlooked when we reduce a debate to an issue of "free speech".

Thinking about free speech as an action, not a right

That's why I prefer not to think about speech as a right.

It makes speech seem like a special little snowflake when it's probably not. I prefer to think of it as an action like any other, an action which we have a responsibility to perform carefully, wisely and responsibly. That means we take consideration of the effects of our action on other people, the importance of what we have to say and the context in which we're saying it.

To put it bluntly, thinking about speech as a right means you're going to have to go into bat for a lot of dickheads saying awful things.

Former attorney-general George Brandis found this out the hard way, as Hansard has now recorded him for posterity defending people's "right to be a bigot".

Thinking about speech as an action just like any other gives us more range to think about a host of different possible restraints and responses to harmful, hurtful or incorrect speech.

It also helps us think more about the responsibilities of the speaker to express themselves responsibly instead of continually insisting that people listening get thicker skin.

So what about parenting?

Now, let's come back to the question of families and parenting. Hopefully you're starting to see why I don't think we should think of this as a free speech issue.

By making it about free expression, we lose important questions about the obligations of parents, the intellectual vulnerability of children and to what extent the state can meddle in the parent-child relationship.

I think your question actually has less to do with free speech and more to do with what it means to be a parent. Here's my take on that, especially when it comes to passing on religious or moral beliefs.

One of the central tasks of a parent is to move their children from a state of relative dependence and "heteronomy" (being controlled by outside influences) to a state of relative independence and autonomy. We want to raise children into people who can think and act for themselves and take responsibility for those actions.

Another of the central tasks for parents is to raise their kids to be happy and good people. But it can be hard to fulfil both these tasks at the same time.

Raising my son to be autonomous enables allowing him to make choices for himself — even if I think they're unethical. Raising him to be good might require me to intervene in those choices. Do I place more value on autonomy or goodness?

ABC Life in your inbox Get our newsletter for the best of ABC Life each week Your information is handled in accordance with the ABC Privacy Collection Statement Email address Subscribe

Should parents be allowed to pass on their beliefs to children?

To some extent, how you answer that question will determine the extent to which you're comfortable with parents passing on their beliefs to their children.

More importantly, it'll help determine how parents pass on beliefs to their kids. Do we have good reasons for why we believe what we're teaching to our kids? Do parents pass on those beliefs in a way that encourages autonomy — giving all the relevant information and creating an environment where children will be accepted whether or not they accept those claims? Or are these beliefs presented as absolute and unable to be questioned?

But let's also zoom out for a second. The extent to which a society tolerates families passing on their beliefs — even when they're out of step with society — mirrors this parental dilemma. Do we prefer people who are free and independent enough to make mistakes, or do we prefer that everyone fits with the social agenda, even if it means we stymie their ability to think and act for themselves? Do we provide enough information as to why the prevailing social norms are good ones, or do we rely on power and authority to enforce the status quo?

Ultimately, whether parents should be free to pass on their beliefs to children depends on whether those beliefs have some value or not.

The challenge, as always, is who gets to decide where that value comes from. But one thing's for sure — we'll have to look past free speech to work that out.

Dr Matt Beard is a husband, dad, pop culture nerd, moral philosopher, ethicist, author, presenter of the ABC's Short & Curly and a Fellow at The Ethics Centre.