The problem is double standards.

Every power you're willing to give the state to silence your opponent is a power you're giving it to silence you.

It’s easy to believe in freedom when you’re the one exercising it. It’s easy to defend speech you agree with, protests you support, causes you think are righteous, and people you respect.

The real test is when it’s someone you fundamentally disagree with. Will you defend their rights too?

It’s a simple test of whether someone genuinely believes in civil liberties: Will you defend the rights of your opponent?

Too often, what passes for a defence of civil liberties is really just a defence of our own side.

We defend expression when our side is speaking, but smirk when our opponents are silenced. We condemn offensive behaviour when it targets people we sympathise with, then suddenly discover nuance when the target is someone we dislike. We object when institutions use their power against “our side”, but go silent when that same power is turned against someone else.

To borrow some inspiration from Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick: the problem is double standards.

You see it everywhere. In what our media condemns and what it excuses. In which organisations receive state support and which groups get charitable status. In which protests are celebrated and which are condemned. In which speakers are platformed and which are cancelled.

And, of course, you see it constantly with free speech. So allow me to run a quick refresher.

When it comes to freedom of speech, there are four guarantees.

You have the right to speak, and the right not to speak.

You have the right to listen, and the right to walk away.

What you don't have is the right to never be offended.

NEWS FLASH: offensive speech is still free speech. "Hate speech" is entirely subjective. Words aren't violence.

That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate limits. Incitement to violence is an obvious example. But those limits are and need to be narrow and principled.

Why? Because you can't guarantee the people enforcing them tomorrow will share your values today. 

That's the danger of double standards. Every power you're willing to give the state to silence your opponent is a power you're giving it to silence you.

Every principle you're willing to abandon because you don't like the person standing in front of you is a principle that can't protect you when the roles are reversed. And eventually, the roles always reverse.

We live in a country full of people with radically different beliefs, values, religions, cultures, politics and priorities. We're not going to solve that by making everyone agree. Nor should we try.

A unified nation doesn't require uniformity.

It requires something much harder. Shared principles we're willing to uphold even when they protect people we disagree with. Even when they protect people we don't like. Even when they protect speech we find offensive. That's the test.

Don't tell me how strongly you believe in your own rights.

Show me how willing you are to defend the rights of your opponent.