In an age where governments, corporations, and international bodies tighten their grip on human expression, the Free Speech Act (FSA), proposed in 2025 as part of the Restorationist's "Great Repeal" program, emerges as a revolutionary bulwark. This 44-page draft, the third of seven bills, doesn't merely protect speech, it declares it an untouchable natural right, beyond the reach of any authority. Drawing philosophically on John Stuart Mill's uncompromising defence of free expression in On Liberty, the FSA rejects all qualifications, asserting that even the most provocative speech is essential to truth, progress, and human dignity. In Australia, where online censorship and workplace mandates stifle dissent, this Act offers a radical blueprint to reclaim liberty.

Mill's Unyielding Case for Absolute Free Speech

John Stuart Mill argued in 1859 that free speech is the bedrock of a free society, not a privilege to be curtailed by perceived harms. In On Liberty, he posited three reasons why even offensive speech must be protected: (1) it may be true, and silencing it risks suppressing truth; (2) if partly false, it refines truth through debate; and (3) even if wholly false, it strengthens true beliefs by forcing their defence. Mill rejected exceptions, arguing that limiting speech empowers authorities to define truth, stifling progress. The FSA embodies this philosophy, declaring speech a pre-political right that predates government, immune to restriction.

Mill's warning resonates in Australia, where the Online Safety Act 2021 empowers the eSafety Commissioner to remove "harmful" content, often targeting dissent on issues like vaccine mandates or gender ideology. The TGA's approval of mRNA vaccines and Qantas' 2021 mandate for pilots, upheld in court, show how speech restrictions, whether through policy or corporate pressure, silence debate. The FSA's radicalism, inspired by Mill, rejects such controls, banning censorship and compelled speech outright.

The Act's Provisions: A Fortress of Freedom

The FSA's 27 sections construct an impregnable defence of expression, rooted in Mill's principles:

Absolute Right (Sections 1-3): Defines speech as any communication of ideas, a natural right beyond government jurisdiction. Excludes government entities (e.g., Crown, ministers) from protections, ensuring they can't hide behind "free speech" to evade accountability.

Banning Censorship (Section 4): Prohibits all public and private censorship, except parental controls for minors. Essential services (e.g., internet, banking) must serve all speakers, preventing corporate gatekeeping.

Against Compulsion (Section 7): Affirms the right to silence, barring compelled speech (e.g., pronoun mandates, ideological oaths). Mill's emphasis on individual conscience drives this protection against "soft tyranny."

Punishing Violators (Sections 8-9): Imposes up to 10 years' imprisonment for officials and £1,000,000 fines for private entities that restrict speech, ensuring deterrence.

Digital Freedom (Sections 10-13): Treats AI-generated content as user speech and mandates viewpoint-neutral platforms, countering algorithmic suppression seen in Australia's social media crackdowns.

Narrow Exceptions (Section 16): Limits unprotected speech to true threats, fraud, and direct incitement, rejecting "hate speech" as a Soviet-era pretext. Mill would approve, as emotional distress doesn't justify censorship.

Whistleblower Protection (Section 19): Grants immunity to those exposing violations, vital in Australia where pilots fear reporting vaccine-related health issues.

Entrenchment (Section 27): Requires three elections, 75% supermajorities, and a 66% referendum to amend, placing speech above parliamentary sovereignty.

The Act repeals speech-restricting laws like the Public Order Act and Online Safety Act, dissolving bodies like Ofcom. It also excludes hardcore pornography from protection, aligning with Mill's view that liberty doesn't extend to actions harming societal morality (e.g., prostitution).

Countering Objections with Mill's Logic

Critics argue that absolute free speech risks harm, such as racial material could incite hatred, or whistleblowing could endanger security. Mill counters that silencing speech, even if false, prevents truth from emerging. In Australia, where the TGA reported only 2-5 myocarditis cases per 100,000 mRNA vaccine doses, suppressing pilot concerns (as seen in X posts about Qantas firings) buries potential truths. The FSA's narrow exceptions (e.g., specific threats) ensure safety without giving regulators a blank check to censor.

Others fear social discord from offensive speech. Mill argues that robust debate strengthens society, not weakens it. Australia's eSafety Commissioner, fining X $610,500 for non-compliance in 2023, claims to protect "vulnerable" groups, but this assumes citizens can't handle ideas, a paternalism Mill despised. The FSA's ban on "hate speech" as a legal concept reflects Mill's belief that offense is subjective and no basis for restriction.

National security concerns, often cited in Australia's National Security Legislation Amendment Act 2014, are dismissed by Mill as pretexts for control. The FSA allows temporary restrictions only with court orders and 30-day sunsets, ensuring minimal interference. Whistleblower protections align with Mill's call for dissent to challenge orthodoxy, crucial for exposing regulatory failures like CASA's lack of a public incapacitation registry.

Australia's Context: A Call to Break Free

In Australia, free speech faces mounting threats. The Online Safety Act 2021 empowers broad content removal, while workplace mandates pressure conformity. X posts reveal pilots fired or disabled post-vaccination, fearing career ruin if they speak out. CASA's Class 1 medical checks catch some issues, but without transparent data (unlike the FAA's discontinued registry), concerns fester. The TGA's dismissal of vaccine risks as "rare" echoes the "expert guidance" Mill warned against, stifling debate.

The FSA's global vision, demanding free speech treaties with Commonwealth allies, challenges Australia to reject its censorship drift. Its economic provisions, treating internet and banking as public accommodations, could free Australian innovators from corporate deplatforming, boosting prosperity as Mill predicted free discourse would.

The Free Speech Act is a Millian revolution, declaring speech an absolute right, unyielding to government, corporate, or social pressures. It's a call to Australia, where censorship grows, to join Britain in leading the Anglosphere back to liberty. Mill's vision, no exceptions, no compromises, lives in the FSA's ironclad protections. Whether detailing vaccine atrocities, or exposing institutional failures, speech must be free, for only through open debate can truth prevail.

Sure, it is idealistic; but a people without ideas, are enslaved then die out.

https://restorationist.org.uk/the-free-speech-act-the-strongest-speech-protection-ever-legislated/