Civic discourse on Facebook during the Australian same‐sex marriage postal plebiscite

Abstract

AbstractIn 2017 the Australian Government undertook a national survey to determine public support for the legalisation of same‐sex marriage. This raised concerns the ‘plebiscitary' act may create harms to two groups: LGBTI people and those religious people with strong attachment to heteronormative marriage. Justifying the process, the Government advanced the possibility of civil dialogue generative of understanding. While instances of hate speech in public spaces were reported, this paper examines comparatively private speech during the period. Based on an analysis of posts to relevant Facebook pages, this analysis found opponents to same‐sex marriage were more highly mobilised online, and considerable differences in the character of online debate for and against the proposed changes. Importantly, while uncivil and ‘hate' speech were part of online conversations, the overall quantum of this uncivil discourse was lower than many feared. Additionally, the process did not generate considerable democratic dialogue around policy alternatives and rationales, particularly among ‘Yes' campaign supporters who were more homogenous in their acceptance of dominant campaign framing of the issue than their opponents. Significantly for ongoing public debates about public values like educational access and freedom of expression, opponents to change focused their arguments against same‐sex marriage around a subset of unrelated issues: free speech, religious freedoms, and diversity in public schools.