It’s not a pleasant duty to stand up for the rights of the gambling industry, even if the harm inflicted on society by gambling is the subject of much hype and handwringing. Gambling is, mostly, a voluntary tax on stupidity, one that this writer never feels the urge to pay. My views on one of the primary gambling industries, animal racing, are well known to Crikey readers. And as a now-retired TV viewer whose couch potato habits relate to downloaded content, MASH, and the Big Bash over summer, nor am I particularly irked by gambling ads during televised sporting contests. So, arguably, I come to the issue with the air of a dilettante, or more of one than usual. But supporting free speech is only authentic when you support the speech of those you disagree with, and the leaked proposal to further restrict gambling ads merits strong opposition.

Gambling is already the subject of an extensive nanny state regime in Australia, particularly online, where the Howard government’s Interactive Gambling Act has been a spectacular failure that the current government is keen to prop up despite a series of reviews showing its failure. Now the government, it appears, is hell bent on further restricting sports gambling advertising on television. The main proposal, it appears, is a ban on gambling ads during live match broadcasts — the prime real estate for gambling companies.

Unsurprisingly, the free to air networks are trenchantly opposed — gambling ad revenue is one of the few growth areas in a market where revenue is flatlining. According to media reports, the major sporting codes are also opposed, and understandably: the amount that TV networks can pay for the broadcast rights of their sports depends on ad revenue, and significantly cutting ad revenue means less money for broadcast rights.

Bear in mind, the major sports are already the subject of another nanny state free speech curb — anti-siphoning rules, which prevent subscription TV channels from bidding for the broadcast rights independently from the free-to-air cartel. That anti-competitive mechanism significantly reduces the amount of revenue sports can command for their broadcast rights. Now the government, in an effort to get Australia’s most prominent anti-gambling politician Nick Xenophon to back its media ownership reforms, is proposing more cuts to major sports’ revenue.

As the codes have correctly noted, Australia can legislate all the nanny state nonsense it likes against gambling, but it won’t affect offshore gambling sites one iota. The result is to simply encourage Australian gamblers to go to those sites and not Australian sites, which are better regulated and which pay Australian taxes. Every attack on gambling sites in Australia simply means more money for foreign gambling sites, and less revenue for Australian governments.

If consumers don’t like the ads, then they can boycott the product, stop gambling and stop watching sport until the TV networks respond to the market signal. But Australians gamble — a lot. There’s a gap between stated and revealed preference here — the twenty billion-plus dollars we lose gambling each year belies the visceral objections to gambling ads that so many people seem to have.

And, curiously, the free speech warriors who want to defend racist cartoons and homophobic abuse are as yet nowhere to be seen. Then again, that crowd are highly selective — they only defend speech they agree with.