Two of Britain’s leading universities have again found themselves embroiled in free speech debates. The Oxford Union courted controversy last Friday when it allowed banned preacherDr Zakir Naik to address the society via video-link. LSE’s German Society has provoked similar outcry by inviting far right banker Thilo Sarrazin and author Henryk Broder to speak on Monday. Fortunately, free speech has triumphed in each case.
A letter signed by over a hundred UK-based German academics and students objected to the LSE’s choice of panellists. One of their primary concerns is the speakers’ argument that “there exists a pathological unwillingness among minorities in Germany (in particular Muslims) to integrate into society”.
But there is a case for Sarrazin and Broder’s participation. If their opinions are expressed, there will be an opportunity for the other side to provide evidence to the contrary, and so to “correct” this impression. Suppressing this argument could suggest that it is an unpalatable truth to which there is no adequate rebuttal.
The controversy is reminicsent of the Griffin and Irving debate in 2007. The Oxford Union invited BNP chairman Nick Griffin and holocaust denier David Irving to speak. The Union building was overwhelmed by protestors — despite concerns that giving these figures a platform would “give legitimacy and credibility to their views”.
Ignoring these views is not an option. As abhorrent as they may be to many, they are more threatening when they are unknown. Open debate is the only effective way to illuminate the issues. Without such clarification we are poorly placed to combat them.
These are matters of public interest and they should not be concealed, regardless of the sensibilities they may offend. As the LSE Free Speech Group remarked, “the likelihood that offence would be caused was not in itself a reason to prevent the event from going ahead.”
Former UK Prime Minister Harold Macmillan described the Oxford Union as “the last bastion of free speech in the Western world”. The Society was “founded on an ideal of the Freedom of Speech”. It would be insupportable for the Union to compromise this principle, even in the face of such vigorous protest.
Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened in the Chris Langham affair. British comedian Chris Langham had been scheduled to address the Union on his arrest for downloading child pornography. Fearing a reaction on the scale of the Griffin and Irving protests, the Oxford Union cancelled the event.
An appeals court has overturned an 18-year prison sentence handed out to activist Daranee Charnchoengsilapakul. The activist, better known as Da Torpedo, was charged with insulting the monarchy for speeches she made at anti-government rallies in 2008, and tried behind closed doors. She is still in prison pending an application for bail, and could still face a new trial.
Donny Tobolski, a Californian high school student, recently described his teacher at as a “fat ass” and “a douche bag” on Facebook when he was set too much biology homework. The student was suspended for cyberbullying, despite posting the remarks via a home computer used outside school hours. But the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sprung to his defence, pointing out to his school, Mesa Verde High, that because the comments fell short of being threatening or of leading to “substantial or material disruption” they were protected speech under state and federal constitutions as well as the Educational Code. The school backed down and removed the suspension from the student’s records.
A victory for lawyers well-versed in law and precedents, certainly, but was it also a victory for free expression? Yes and no. Yes in that freedom of speech was taken seriously. But surely no in that the case will spawn thousands of abusive Facebook comments about teachers and perhaps encourage the pro-censorship lobby. Is that simply a price worth paying for circumscribing rights to freedom of speech that are at the heart of American democracy? Or is it a sign that the limits to freedom have been set in the wrong place?
At first glance this case seems absurd. From a British perspective, it might even be used as evidence of what is wrong with the far-reaching First Amendment speech-protection enjoyed in the US. Why should young people be licensed to abuse their teachers in a public forum? Does it really matter that the remarks were made from home? How does that serve democracy? It is surely not the kind of speech that the founding fathers would have wanted to protect, anyway. And not all liberals would argue that it should be protected. John Stuart Mill, for example, who defended extensive freedom of speech, believed that paternalism was appropriate towards children: it was only adults that should be free to live and speak as they saw fit, provided they didn’t incite violence or cause harm to others in the process.
Yet perhaps on reflection the ACLU’s position has more to be said for it than at first appears. Tobolski is 15 years old, a transitional age. He should be learning about the importance of being allowed to speak his mind, and the likely consequences of doing so. And schools should be clear about the limits of their jurisdiction over expression. He won’t have gained widespread respect for his comments and is no hero. But surely he and his schoolmates will have reflected deeply on what is at stake here. Those who speak freely and abusively should expect to have their views met with powerful counter-speech, not least from the people they denigrate. As usual, the underlying question is not whether there should be limits to freedom of speech, but the thorny one of precisely where those limits should be drawn.
If chickens are at last coming home to roost in the phone hacking scandal, the people we need to thank most are a bunch of celebs. Sienna Miller, Steve Coogan, Chris Tarrant, Paul Gascoigne and Andy Gray are now heroes of free speech in Britain, as are Lord Prescott, Nicola Phillips (formerly Max Clifford’s assistant), Sky Andrew (football agent), and all the rest of those taking legal action over hacking.
They may be unlikely heroes in some ways and they may be in with a chance of damages, but without them this affair would probably have died months ago. And make no mistake about it, they are brave, because Rupert Murdoch’s News International is a very powerful enemy to make.
Peter Oborne’s Channel 4 documentary Tabloids, Tories and Telephone Hacking reported that the News of the World compiles dossiers on people in public life even when it isn’t planning to publish. Why? Just remember the line attributed to Greg Miskiw, a former news editor at the paper: “This is what we do: we go out and destroy other people’s lives.”
Oborne also found an MP prepared to talk, cautiously, about intimidation — Adam Price. And another MP, Tom Watson, put it as bluntly as could be in the Commons chamber: “We are scared of the power she wields…” He was referring to Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of News International and Christmas drinking chum of David Cameron.
Imagine you were an actor, a television personality or a young PR worker, and think about how much influence Brooks could have on your life. She is already the boss of four national newspapers which all have the power to promote or damage careers. And with her links to Sky, ITV, Five, Shine, Fox TV and in Hollywood 20th Century Fox, her influence goes much, much further. You would need a lot of nerve to take that on and stay the course.
For Brooks and her colleagues the stakes in this scandal are very high. Andy Coulson was one of them, their man in Downing Street, and he is out. Current News International chiefs know they are on record saying lots of things that now look very hard to defend. And the people suing the company threaten to make things much worse by dragging into the open the whole story of wrongdoing at the News of the World.
It so happens that most of those taking legal action are celebrities, but they could have been anyone at the wrong end of the tabloid machine. And for almost every celebrity there are others — secretaries, mothers, boyfriends, whatever — who believe they were collateral damage because they left voicemails that were listened to.
They need courage to keep going and they need support. News International is fighting all the way and the remarks of Miskiw and Watson give us a hint of how nasty that might be.
Brian Cathcart teaches journalism at Kingston University and tweets at @BrianCathcart
