Politicians say a lot of things in public, and so it’s only natural that occasionally they will use words incorrectly. Lampooning sometimes follows, and in most cases the mistakes should be quickly forgotten and forgiven. (The exception being gaffes, where an inadvertent truth is revealed, but we can talk about that another time – I’m sure it won’t be long until we have an excuse.)

Sometimes, however, our political leaders use a word incorrectly, and deserve to be called out on it. One such case occurred last night.

Malcolm Turnbull was asked about Tony Abbott’s decision to speak to a conservative Christian group in the United States.

Now, to be clear, this isn’t just any conservative Christian group. It is a group with several million dollars on hand, and which uses those millions to fight to preserve laws which are anti-abortion and anti-gay.

I’m not just talking about anti-gay marriage, either – after all, we knew Abbott was against that. This is a group which has actively fought against anti-sodomy laws, both in the United States and overseas. It is not just against gay marriage: it wants homosexuality itself to be illegal.

That is offensive in America. In countries like Belize, where the Alliance Defending Freedom has worked to preserve criminalisation (the offence carries a ten-year gaol sentence) it is dangerous. As the Southern Poverty Law Center puts it: “What American groups like the ADF are doing amounts to pouring fuel on an exceedingly volatile fire. They are aiding and abetting anti-LGBT forces in countries where anti-gay violence is endemic.” 

Now, of course our MPs, and anyone else for that matter, are allowed to speak to whomever they like. No one is questioning Abbott’s right to talk to the group. After all, he hasn’t said he is joining them, or donating money to their appalling legal battles.

But defending Abbott’s right to speak – as several Liberal MPs have by now, including the prime minister, who we’ll get to in a second – is facile and naïve. The question isn’t is he allowed to speak to them (he’s not a five-year-old), it’s should he speak to them.

And that’s when you remember that this isn’t just some Liberal backbencher. This is a recent prime minister of our country.

When a politician of Abbott’s stature – and this goes for John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, or Bill Shorten – decides to speak to a group like this, they are almost always, to some extent, sending a message of tacit approval of that group’s activities.

The exception comes when a politician uses that forum mainly to express disapproval of the group and its aims, but that happens rarely.

Malcolm Turnbull, Julie Bishop, and Scott Morrison – the three most senior members of the Liberal Party – all refused to express the slightest concern about Abbott’s decision. Bishop said, "He's a member of Parliament, he can make those decisions.” Well, yes, he can, pretty bloody obviously, but as usual it pays to consider what a politician has chosen not to say, which in this case is far more important.

That is a pretty awful absence of leadership from three ostensible leaders of the party.

To get back to Turnbull specifically, and his misuse of language. Asked how he felt about Abbott’s decision to speak to the Alliance, Turnbull said “he’s entitled to speak to such audiences as he wishes”. Well, yes, again, thanks for stating the obvious, PM.

When Waleed Aly pointed out that Turnbull’s failure to say anything of substance about Abbott flew in the face of his statements about the importance of diversity he said, “Well, you see, what you are asking me to do is to censor Tony Abbott.”

And this is where Turnbull deserves to be pulled up – and Aly did, saying that wasn’t at all what he was asking him to do.

This is an important point, because the word “censor” is so often used wrongly in debates precisely like this one, and it is an enormous pity our prime minister perpetuated that misuse.

Suggesting that someone should not be speaking in a particular forum is not the same as stopping them from doing so.

Not liking what somebody is saying is not the same as censoring them.

You would think that people who spend half their lives bleating about the importance of free speech – and I am talking about commentators here, not the PM – would have some investment in the importance of using that speech correctly.

For instance, I think Triple M are being idiotic and irresponsible by giving Mark Latham a forum to air his offensive views on domestic violence and language. I don’t think they should be stopped by law from giving him a spot; I just wish they had more sense.

Similarly, nobody is asking Turnbull to censor Tony Abbott. And Turnbull – who should have known the question was coming – made a deliberate decision, in using that word, to simplify the debate. It was a calculated attempt to cast his critics as anti-free speech, when that was not the case at all.

Of course, in the world of practical politics, Turnbull was also making a calculated choice not to do anything else to fire up the volatile state of affairs in the Liberal Party, which seems to be increasing in intensity every day. He was looking for a way to avoid attacking Abbott, which would have made his life infinitely more difficult.

But I think it is fair to expect more from a man who is a former journalist, lawyer, and communications minister, a man who should have some investment in the importance of words. Debates about free speech, and how speech is used, are complex and important, and the PM yesterday did us no favours by trying to pretend otherwise. 

I do not think that word means what you think it means