Free Speech Limitations !

One of the most desired jobs sought by articulate young people is to be appointed as spokesperson for an industry or a sport.  Such a position has that person constantly in the news and it is generally accepted that they become a " personality ".  They receive invitations to A list events and their face is familiar whenever the enter a restaurant.  It is generally accepted that they maintain a silence on all forms of controversy and only speak in support of their employer.

When that clashes with our cherished right of free speech it generally results in the matter being put before a court to decide.  Such is the situation when Cricket Australia dismissed the woman they employed as their government relations manager in Tasmania when she publicly criticised the Tasmanian government over the cessation of abortion facilities in that state.

Of course abortion has absolutely nothing to do with cricket, but the fact that the person criticising is the person who usually speaks for the cricket industry will draw a close association in the minds of many people.  The fact that she is expressing her own opinion would not be clear when her usual public personae is the Cricket Australia spokesperson.

This looks to be heading for a hearing in the Federal Court of Australia where it will be claimed that the sacking breached the Fair Work act.   The claimant has rejected an offer by Cricket Australia for her to return to work and many will see this as " activist engagement " in trying to create a legal shibboleth of free speech under all circumstances.   This same Federal Court this week struck down the long standing right of industry to engage workers in a " casual " capacity - which does not provide holiday pay - when the work is consistent and long term and identical to that performed by permanent employees.

The right to abortion is a big issue in the feminist movement and this claimant will probably get widespread support.  Cricket Australia is put in an impossible position if the person they pay to maintain good sociable relations with a state government which provides facilities for the game is at the same time openly deriding government ministers over her view that their policies are resulting in the closure of abortion clinics.  The two issues are intermingled in the publics mind.

Until now, avoiding public comment on matters that fall outside their sphere of employment has been an unwritten rule for spokespersons.  They clearly have a need to keep their social life clear of controversy and even traffic infringements can make their employers nervous.  How the Federal court deals with this may have a profound effect on how the public relations industry sees the future.

If the court finds that free speech at all times is paramount it could bring the end of " personalities "  fronting the public and a reliance of press releases to fill that gap.  The risk factor that creating an image of a person associated with a sport or business is just too great if that person can on a whim speak out on other matters and bring the public relations message into disrepute.  Many an Australian boardroom will await that ruling with more than passing interest.