Since time immemorial, governments of all ideological persuasions have regulated harmful forms of speech, including laws addressing fraud, terrorism, child sexual abuse, death threats, rape threats, inciting racist violence, and inciting sexual assault.

The myriad laws on Australian statute books addressing these serious harms do not elicit shouty cries of “free speech”.

Yet a misconceived claim of censorship is the hill that One Nation and the Coalition are choosing to die on in opposing the Albanese’s government’s plan for a new legislated digital duty of care – a law that would apply to those same harms.

Pauline Hanson set out her opposition, posting: “Australia should be moving away from government censorship, not building the Orwellian machinery for it”.

Hanson’s post came just days after she demanded enhanced security because she has received violent threats. Presumably Hanson doesn’t regard those threats as a form of free speech.

A YouGov poll of more than 1000 Australians also shows that the conservative parties’ opposition to regulating Big Tech is deeply unpopular with the electorate. A staggering 93 per cent of Australians agree that online platforms should be required to provide a safe online environment that prevents illegal and harmful content.

You may remember, after the Bondi terrorist attack, One Nation and the Coalition excoriated the federal government over its “weak leadership” on extremism and antisemitism. One Nation’s website carries media clips of Hanson condemning “rising antisemitism” and government inaction on “hate speech” by “hate preachers”. At the Royal Commission into........

© The New Daily