The problem with banning self-expression in any way is that it's viral. The chilling effect is an infection in human society, which soon spreads into every aspect of life. The law is an ass, and a well-ordered society is only ever an ill-considered law or a populist outrage from a police state. Yet in Australian political debate, far too often what is "bad" is treated as one with what should be "banned".

Consider, for example, the Rudd government's planned internet filter. First, pre-censorship of child pornography, which of course no reasonable person will oppose. Then it's bestiality, then rape porn, then all "refused classification" pornography, which includes many harmless fetishes. Then it's mainstream shopping sites whose wares don't fall neatly into our classification system, then discussion of political topics deemed illegal under Australian law, such as safe drug use and euthanasia. Then when the glaring technical inadequacies of the filter emerge, talking about that becomes a crime, too.

Illustration: Andrew Dyson

Finally, the list of restricted sites is made secret – so there can be no review and no appeal. Banning one thing all too quickly becomes banning everything.

When Elizabeth Farrelly dives into the debate about banning the burqa, she thinks she can simply argue that it's a sexist symbol of oppression. Well, I happen to agree. However, the jump between not liking something and wanting it banned by the force of law is ignored. How would such a law be enforced? Is it acceptable for women of a culture that already faces significant discrimination to either be arrested, or stripped in the streets of clothing they view as protecting their modesty?