The 'heckler's veto': When mob rule silences the newsroom

In the lexicon of free speech, there is a dangerous phenomenon known as the “heckler’s veto”.

The term, coined by University of Chicago law professor Harry Kalven Jr, describes what happens when a speaker is silenced – not because his or her words are illegal, but because their opponents shout loudly enough to make the speaker’s existence a ‘liability’ for their employer.

Whilst this trend is becoming rampant in Malaysia, a recent landmark ruling from the Australian Federal Court provides a vital legal check against such institutional cowardice.

The Australian case

In Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) (2025), the Federal Court of Australia found that the ABC unlawfully terminated journalist Antoinette Lattouf for expressing a protected political opinion.

The facts mirror a global struggle.

In December 2023, journalist Antoinette Lattouf shared a Human Rights Watch post on her personal Instagram reporting that starvation was being used as a weapon of war in Gaza.

Despite the post being fact-based and consistent with the ABC’s own reporting, a coordinated campaign of complaints from pro-Israel lobbyists pressured the national broadcaster into dismissing her after only three days of a five-day contract.

In June 2025, Justice Darryl Rangiah delivered a victory for principle. The court found that the ABC unlawfully terminated Lattouf for reasons including that she held and expressed a political opinion.

The judge noted that the ABC’s primary motivation was to “appease” lobbyists and avoid criticism, effectively “abjectly surrendering” the rights of an employee to a vocal group.

The ABC was ordered to pay $70,000 in compensation for non-economic loss. A subsequent ruling in September 2025 imposed an additional $150,000 pecuniary penalty for the broadcaster’s failure to maintain its independence and integrity. The total external costs alone incurred by the ABC could amount to $2.5m.

Social media paradox

Social media today is a profound democratic paradox.

It is, undeniably, a terrific boon to democratic participation when it is not censored by the state. It dismantles old gatekeepers and allows journalists, academics and ordinary people to bypass state censorship to share truths in real-time.

Yet, this same connectivity has evolved into a structural threat to the democratic process. The platform that facilitates participation also facilitates communal vigilantism, where ‘offence’ is weaponised to silence dissent.

When a digital crowd replaces reasoned debate with a campaign for professional assassination, social media ceases to be a tool for engagement and becomes a mechanism for a new, decentralised authoritarianism, as we are now witnessing in the US and other Western nations.

The Malaysian context

In Malaysia, we see this “heckler’s veto” manifest with alarming frequency.

The targeting of Youth and Sports Minister Hannah Yeoh over her autobiography, Becoming Hannah, is a classic example.

As of early 2025, 182 police reports had been lodged against the book by various NGOs, with some calling for it to be banned on the grounds of ‘national security’. These groups alleged the book was a threat to Islam, despite courts eventually finding these allegations unfounded.

The greater danger lies in the symbiotic relationship between populist governments and these digital mobs.

Governments may both trigger and respond to the views of those who seek to control free speech. By signalling that certain topics are ‘sensitive’, populists incite a section of the public to act as informal censors. When that group reacts with outrage, the government ‘responds’ to that manufactured outcry by suppressing the speech.

In this scenario, the ‘new democracy’ is nothing more than a facade where governments manipulate sections of the public to justify silencing fair criticism.

Constitutional protection

For any journalist or author in Malaysia, the Lattouf case is a reminder that the law must protect people from their employer’s fear.

Article 10(1)(a) of Malaysia’s Federal Constitution guarantees everyone the right to freedom of speech and expression.

This right does not vanish upon the signing of an employment contract. Under the Industrial Relations Act 1967, a dismissal must be for “just cause or excuse”.

The Australian ruling clarifies that “brand management” and “appeasing lobbyists” are not just causes.

If we allow “just cause” to be determined by the subjective feelings of a manipulated mob or the “consternation” of senior managers in a “state of panic”, we allow the heckler’s veto to become our de facto editor-in-chief.

Towards protected media

The Lattouf victory asserts that a journalist’s identity as an individual – with the right to hold and express views – is not a commodity owned by her employer.

For Malaysia to progress, its institutions must find the courage to stand by their staff when they exercise their constitutional rights.

We must ensure that the limits of what can be said are defined by the sober interpretation of the Federal Constitution, not by the shifting winds of whoever happens to be shouting the loudest, or whomever the government has encouraged to shout.

Freedom of speech is the mother of all liberties. If we allow it to be vetoed, we lose the very foundation of Malaysia’s democratic discourse.

...