7 Jun 2010 | Uncategorized
In Bangladesh a pro-opposition Bengali-language newspaper Amar Desh has been closed down, allegedly because of publishing irregularities. Reports suggest that more than 200 police stormed the paper’s offices. You don’t have to be a cynic to suspect that the content and stance of the newspaper might have been what is at issue here.
Meanwhile, in Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, who is Italy’s largest media owner, is backing a draft bill that could imprison or impose heavy fines on journalists who report public interest stories that involve wire taps before the final phase of prosecution. Given the length of many trials, this is a serious block on some kinds of reporting.
Curbing the powers of journalists to report information in the public interest either by direct or indirect means is a significant assault on free speech and on the values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Remove their power to criticise government policy or to expose some types of corruption, and journalists risk becoming organs of propaganda for the ruling party.
If Machiavelli were writing his guidelines for conscienceless princes today, then he would no doubt advocate scaring journalists into cowering submission, making them terrified to publish anything critical of the ruler. Luckily, however, journalism attracts some extraordinarily brave people Anna Politkovskaya, who relentlessly exposed corruption in Putin’s Russia, and was murdered for this, is just one humbling example.
One side effect of the Internet’s invention is that today what is suppressed in one place often reappears somewhere else. In fact the more forceful the attempt to clamp down on what is published, the more likely it is that the views being suppressed will be spread widely. Would-be censors take note. You may be sowing dragon’s teeth.
28 May 2010 | Uncategorized
Steve Jobs wants the iPad, which goes on sale in the UK today, porn free. He’s said so. And unlike most people, he can make this sort of thing happen. Approval for Apple’s App store involves passing the censor — and the threshold is quite high: Germany’s Stern magazine recently failed because it runs topless photographs.
It’s not clear whether this just applies to visual porn — nor how this is defined. Are the works of the Marquis de Sade pornography? Will there be an iPad app for Last Exit to Brooklyn?
Well, no one has to buy the iPad or any other Apple product. So this seems to be fair enough. There are plenty of alternatives at the moment. Google, for example, in contrast to Apple seems committed to openness. But what if Apple grew and completely dominated the market? What if just about every e-book or e-magazine publisher chose to do exclusive deals with them? Suppose Apple decides on a whim that it’s not just porn they want to control but anything that might be deemed “offensive”? We’d end up with Steve Jobs or his successor as a de facto online censor, and self-censorship being the route to e-publication readable on the device everyone is using. Is this the future we want? Are we happy that Jobs is controlling iPad content so carefully already?
28 May 2010 | News and features
A campaign for a BNP teacher ban smacks of the thought police; people should not be punished for their private thoughts, however repugnant, argues Brendan O’Neill
One of the central pillars of a free, democratic society is that people should never be penalised or discriminated against on the basis of their beliefs. The state and society have the right to demand that all of us obey the law and perform our public duties to a high standard, but they have no right to tell us what to think; they have no right to invade our minds or to exclude us from the public realm on the basis that we have the “wrong beliefs”.
Yet today, trade union officials and apparently liberal commentators seem determined to demolish this pillar of democracy. They want members of the British National Party to be denied the right to teach in schools, not because they are professionally unfit, or lack the right qualifications, or have been recorded making racist speeches to their pupils, but because their private thoughts, their personal belief systems, are deemed to be unacceptable. This is a new kind of McCarthyism, aimed at the far right rather than the far left.
On Tuesday, the General Teaching Council cleared Adam Walker, a former teacher and BNP activist, of racial and religious intolerance. While he was a teacher in Sunderland in 2007, Walker had used a school laptop to post vile comments in an online forum. He described immigrants as “savage animals” and said Britain had become a “dumping ground for the filth of the third world”. It was nasty stuff, yet the GTC said its main concern is the fact that Walker had used school property during school times for personal reasons — which it has every right to be concerned about — rather than the idea that he is unfit to teach because he is racially intolerant.
Some commentators are outraged. Joseph Harker at the Guardian scoffs at the idea that “it is okay to have BNP members teaching our kids” and hopes that our new prime minister, David Cameron, will sort this problem out. After all, Cameron once said: “Any good headteacher would not have a member of the BNP within a hundred miles of a school. They should be able to fire someone for that reason.” This echoes last year’s claim by a group of GTC members that “it is not possible, in our view, for a BNP member to be a registered teacher”.
The extraordinary intolerance and illiberalism of these arguments seems to have passed people by. Discriminating against individuals on the basis of their beliefs is no better than discriminating against them on the basis of their religion or sexuality. Commentators are calling for “BNP teachers” to be banned from teaching in schools not on the basis that they are failing to stick to the curriculum or have attempted to indoctrinate students with racist thinking —which would indeed call into question their professional capabilities — but simply because, in everyday life, outside of the classroom, they adhere to a political belief system that many of us find obnoxious.
Bizarrely, many of the anti-“BNP teacher” campaigners justify their arguments in the language of “rights” and “diversity”. Harker says every parent has the “fundamental right” to know that their child is not being taught by a racist, while some GTC members justify their opposition to “BNP teachers” on the basis that their presence in schools is “fundamentally inconsistent with the ethos [of diversity]”.
This is a warped and Orwellian use of language. In the name of “parents’ rights”, the real rights of adults to believe what they want and to not be punished for it by the state is being undermined. For all their talk about “celebrating diversity”, teaching officials are sending the clear message that there are limits to diversity— it cannot possibly include, for example, allowing individuals whose views are judged to be beyond the pale to work in the education sector.
However much these commentators and activists try to hide behind the language of rights and tolerance, there’s no disguising the fact that they are explicitly arguing for the policing of people’s thoughts and the state-enforced exclusion of people from the public sector if their thoughts are deemed unpalatable. Treating individuals as sub-citizens simply because they support a certain political party is far more anti-democratic than anything the BNP has yet come up with.
Brendan O’Neill is editor of Spiked Online
27 May 2010 | News and features, United Kingdom
Response from the Libel Reform Campaign to Lord Lester of Herne Hill’s Private Members Defamation Bill
READ LORD LESTER’S DEFAMATION BILL HERE
Read the Libel Reform Campaign’s report Free Speech Is Not For Sale here
Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill is the first attempt in over a century to redraft libel laws that are unfair, internationally criticised and against the public interest. Our libel laws are unnecessarily complicated and unduly costly, defences are uncertain and narrow and the laws haven’t kept up with the information age. They are damaging freedom of expression and the open exchange of information worldwide.
The libel laws have been exposed as unjust
English PEN and Index on Censorship’s Free Speech is not For Sale report made 10 recommendations for fairer laws; the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee report on Press Standards Privacy and Libel called for far reaching reforms; a Ministry of Justice report said the law needs reforming in the public interest.
There is a public outcry about the chill on free speech
Over 500 commentators, comedians, poets and authors have spoken out and over 52,000 people have signed the libel reform campaign petition. Fifty organisations including Royal Medical Colleges, human rights NGOs, medical and science bodies, authors, bloggers, publishers and media and law organisations have called for reform. Hundreds of people have reported threats of libel action leading them to remove articles, blogs, reviews, academic papers, reports and books. Vital issues of public interest are affected including drug safety, human rights abuses and corporate behaviour.
There is widespread Parliamentary support for reform. The majority of eligible MPs signed up to an EDM supporting libel law reform.6
There were general election manifesto commitments to reform the libel laws from the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour…
There is a coalition Government promise to reform the libel laws.
Now it’s time to change the law!
In light of Lord Lester’s Bill, the Libel Reform Campaign is asking: will the Government now make clear its plans for reform? Will it support, adopt or develop this Bill?
Jonathan Heawood Director, English PEN said: “The current libel laws give international bullies licence to silence criticism. Until we have a clear public interest defence human rights activists, NGOs, authors, publishers, scientists and bloggers will continue to be threatened and sued.”
John Kampfner Chief Executive, Index on Censorship said: “There have been piecemeal reforms to our libel laws before but the big problems have not been resolved. The Duke of Brunswick ruling predates the lightbulb, but is still in use today to silence online debate. That is why we welcome this attempt to modernise the libel laws for the internet age.”
Tracey Brown Managing Director, Sense About Science said: With every week that passes, we are contacted by yet more writers and researchers who have been threatened with libel action. In the face of high costs and weak defences, they withdraw their articles, hold back their material from public discussion and, in the end, stop asking vital questions of public interest. Lord Lester’s Bill should be considered urgently by the Government.
Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat former MP who chaired the cross-party group for manifesto commitments for libel reform said: “Libel law reform is needed to prevent the chilling of comment which is in the public interest. It is therefore essential for scientists and academics and giving their opinion in good faith and responsibly, and their publishers, to know at the time of publication that they will have an effective defence against an unjustified libel plaintiff. Lord Lester’s skilfully crafted bill is one way of doing that and also offers the Government a vehicle for legislation following their review.”
