I know the name of the person against whom a sexual harassment charge was made that resulted last week in the ACT Liberal Party getting an injunction against media organisations to prevent the publication of the name or of any details of the case. I also know the name of the person who made the allegations. So, too, do at least 10 of my media colleagues, nearly all members of the House of Assembly and their staffers and several lawyers in town. And I have little doubt that many of them have told many of their professional colleagues. The reason we know and you don’t is because journalists, politicians and lawyers _ through their training and life experience _ are more responsible, non-judgmental and fair than people in the community at large. Why should the public have the same information? Bus drivers, electricians, welders, accountants and dentists, for example, are less well-educated or have narrower educations, and clearly could not be trusted with the same range of information that journalists, politicians and lawyers have access to. The electricians and dentists are far more likely to jump to prejudicial conclusions than the rightly privileged select few journalists, politicians and lawyers who are in the know.
It is important therefore that strong measures are in force to stop the information from getting into the wrong hands, or wrong heads. It is important that the information should be denied the mass of the ill-educated, narrow, ignorant and stupid people who make up the occupations bus driver, electrician, social-welfare recipient or house carer, for example. Notice that Liberal and Labor MLAs are at one on this; so it must be right. If anything, its seems the $5000 maximum fine under the ACT Discrimination Act for imparting the dangerous information is too light. It is only at a similar rate as the far less dangerous crimes of negligent driving and speeding. I suppose the basic problem with giving this information to the masses is that they are incapable of drawing a distinction between mere allegations and proof.
They are so suspicious and quick to draw conclusions. Where there’s smoke there’s fire, is the general philosophy of the masses. They make too much of hearsay evidence and untested allegations. The accused has no chance of a fair go _ especially in Australia where there is no ethos of fairness among the masses. It might be all right in America where people are much more capable of dealing with the free flow of information and where people generally are less narrow-minded than in Australia.
The position of the masses is different from the position of the Discrimination Commissioner. Because sexual harassment is such a major problem in society, the commissioner is allowed to listen to hearsay evidence. The commissioner, however, being of that higher class of humans _ lawyers, journalists and politicians _ will be able to give appropriate weight to the various classes of information and evidence. Mere allegation, hearsay and corroborated evidence are very different in ways that only the people in the select classes can discern. The other point is that when this sort of jumble of information goes to the masses, they tend to chatter among themselves and pass on untested information as if it were true, thereby reinforcing their prejudices in a way you would never see lawyers, journalists or politicians doing. The most pleasing thing about the law preventing information spreading to the masses is that it properly recognises there are two classes of human beings, much like the class system in England last century.
Downstairs is full of gossip and prejudice. Upstairs there is decorum and care. The real challenge for the law on contempt, libel and natural-security is to ensure that new technologies do not defeat the information class system. At present the dissemination to the masses can largely be prevented by controlling just one or two media organisations (a task made easier in recent years and ownership concentrates). But the law may not be able to prevent individuals sending electronic messaging from computers down the phone lines to thousands of “”downstairs” recipients. I shudder to think what will happen to our democracy.