This article examines how freedom of speech is framed in the media controversy surrounding the Australian rugby player Israel Folau’s April 2019 Instagram post. A content analysis and framing analysis of newspaper reportage reveals that the controversy has been largely discussed in terms of whether or not Folau’s speech was being curtailed and whether this curtailing indicates a broader, ideologically motivated censoriousness. This discussion is problematic in that it says little about the actual substance of Folau’s post. This article argues that debates surrounding freedom of speech such as the one involving Folau could and should be enriched by an engagement with ethical principles. This engagement is premised on a commitment to the free exchange of views, while acknowledging that ‘speech’ is not always inherently beneficial for democracy, nor worth defending.

本文探讨了围绕澳大利亚橄榄球运动员以色列·弗劳（Israel Folau）2019年4月Instagram帖子的媒体争议中言论自由的构想。报纸报道文学的内容分析和框架分析表明，有关该争议的讨论主要是就福劳的讲话是否受到缩减以及这种缩减是否表明了更广泛的，出于意识形态的动机而进行的审查。这个讨论是有问题的，因为它很少谈到福劳职位的实际内容。本文认为，围绕言论自由的辩论（例如涉及Folau的辩论）可以而且应该通过参与道德原则来丰富。这种参与的前提是致力于自由交换意见，同时承认“言论”并不总是固有地对民主有利，