Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has been wading into the media. In a speech given yesterday at Lambeth Palace he attacks the modern media; accusing it of being “lethally damaging” and contributing to “an embarrassingly low level of trust”. He has a point. Indeed, for the most part while reading the transcript, I found myself nodding in agreement.
“We need to deflate some of the rhetoric about the media as guardians and nurturers of democracy simply by virtue of the constant exposure of ‘information’ and we need to be cautious about a use of ‘public interest’ language that ignores the complexity and, often, artificiality of our ideas of ‘the public’. “
A fair comment. So, too is this about web publishing:
“Ian Hargreaves, in his excellent Journalism: Truth or Dare, gives a sharp account of the difference made by these developments; surely this is the context in which genuinely unpalatable truths can still be told, ‘unsullied by the preoccupations of the mainstream media’ (p.259)?
Yes and no. Unwelcome truth and necessary and prompt rebuttal are characteristic of the web-based media. So are paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry. The atmosphere is close to that of unpoliced conversation…”
Except…
Except that unpoliced conversation is exactly what it is and rightly so. You can’t have “unwelcome truth and necessary and prompt rebuttal” without the unpalatable flipside of “paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry”. Free speech encompasses both.
Certainly some of the blogs I’ve looked at fall into the latter category. But and it’s a huge in-your-face-ignore-it-at-your-peril but, this is what free speech is all about. Doubtless there are those who consider my open criticism of religion as dangerous bigotry – it is, after all, a matter of perception. There are those who will look at my essays decrying ID cards and accuse me of paranoia (it’s already happened). Again, perception colours our take on the words we read. But (there it is again) that is what free speech is all about; the right to speak freely even if it is bigoted, paranoid fantasy.
A the risk of over quoting Voltaire’s Candide:
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,”
Sometimes, you just have to keep saying it. Rowan Williams may have some well founded criticism of the fourth estate – and I am inclined to agree with much of that criticism. However, if his comments are a veiled attack on the freedom of speech, then we part company.
Freedom of Speech is one thing, freedom to insult is another. Sometimes I fear that we can’t tell the difference.
Freedom of Speech, to me anyway, recognises that we also have obligations – to keep our speech ‘civilised’, for example, and not to deliberately antagonise or inflame our opponents.
So, making valid and substantiated criticism of the church and religion is fine by me, but saying (or rather, writing) ‘all moslems are terrorists’, or ‘all catholics are wankers’ is not really a valid contribution to society. Of course, in the pub you’d expect this, but in print it’s clearly not acceptable – be it a blog or the Radio Times.
Or have I missed the point again?
”'{Longrider replies} Possibly. I detest hate speech. Look up any of the white supremacist sites on the web and you’ll find plenty of that. Should we try to have it banned? No, absolutely not. Hate speech in the open is clear for everyone to see and judge accordingly. Driving it underground is not the answer.”’
”’Blogs are not the same as the printed media – although the laws of libel still apply. And so they should. So, providing what is said is either factually true, fair comment or opinion without falling foul of the laws regarding defamation, then people should be free to say what they please and their words judged accordingly.”’
”’As a facetious side note – saying “all catholics are wankers” is likely to be literally true – although that isn’t what you meant, I presume…”’
Now this is where I disagree. I feel strongly that ‘hate-speech’, as you call it, should be banned. It leads the gullible into all sorts of weird ways (Brixton bomber, etc), and merely by being present actually validates the ideas it supports. If it’s tolerated, it must be OK, or so many ‘innocents’ will think. (And surely it is the job of a civilised society to protect the weak, innocent, and such?)
Result? More violence, more hate, a less attractive society to live in. We could even argue, perhaps, that by choosing to ignore such language and behaviour, we are doing our society an injustice. My attitude, anyway.
As for all catholics being onanists, well, that’s true of all of us, I s’pose – even us humanists!
BTW, don’t you have a job to go to…?!
”'{Longrider replies} Ah, well, this is always a contentious matter. Do we ban hate speech or allow it to be aired in the open? I will always opt for the latter. Driving it underground where it will fester out of sight adds an exciting edge for those who will be taken in by it – and there’s the rub, some always will be taken in by it and will see the banning as validation in itself. The logic being; if it’s banned, there must be something in it.”’
”’Once you start banning hate speech, you have to start defining it – then you get into all sorts of difficulty. I deeply offended a Moslem earlier this year during a theological discussion. I won’t go into details here because it would take too long, but while I would regard my comments as fair comment, Moslems might regard them as hate speech and insulting God. I’ve commented on the Religious Hatred Bill previously – and why I am opposed. My experience in this instance confirmed my opposition.”’
”’Free speech brings with it responsibility and I try to be responsible. However, not everyone will agree and once we start banning where do we stop? Different people will have different boundaries of what they will accept and what they define as hate speech.”’
”’I am currently self-employed. The summer months tend to be slack work wise. Come the autumn, I’ll be working like fits…”’
Ah, that’s what I was trying to tease out of you. Do you believe that there should be no boundaries at all (absolute freedom, liberation, from social bonds/ties, etc…), or that it’s merely a question of where to put the boundaries? If so, it’s just a matter of seeking consensus.
And what’s the problem of defining something? What’s so wrong with being ‘judgemental’, if we have developed human critical faculties? Never had a problem with judging things or people myself…
Actually, I live in the UAE now. Here some websites are blocked – you get a nifty little box coming up in Arabic and English telling you that the site ‘contravenes the social, moral and cultural norms of the UAE’.
However, there’s an address for you to correspond with if you feel they’re mistaken. So, some sort of dialogue does go on, then, but within the quasi-totalitarian restraints of a society run by a few Sheikhs and their extended families!
Do you think they’d go for that in Islington?
”'{Longrider replies} The problem with defining something is that it depends on who is doing it… Your UAE example is a classic example. China is currently in the news regarding censorship – for them it is anything that may criticise their regime and undermine its grip on power.”’
”’Should the Christian right gain power in the USA, for example, would we be happy with atheist comment being blocked? Is advocating abortion rights as a matter of individual conscience hate speech? Not to me – but to those eagerly awaiting the rapture, it sure is.”’
”’The unpleasant aspect of free speech is a price I’m willing to pay. Out in the open we can challenge, debate and expose its vileness for what it is. And do so freely.”’
”’Your comment about Islington may be semi-facetious, but some of the people who gained that reputation in the eighties are now in Westminster, the people who are becoming increasingly authoritarian.”’
With reference to John B ‘s comment:
“Freedom of Speech is one thing, freedom to insult is another. Sometimes I fear that we can’t tell the difference.”
Unless I am not mistaken, I believe they ARE one and the same. Freedom of speech is just that. You cannot draw a line around it, it encompasses all – be it compliment or insult. It’s the right to speak your mind, just as you have the right to speak yours and comment here on this very board.
”'{Longrider replies} The interesting thing about freedom of speech is that it is not always as free as we believe. For instance, this is a privately owned site. I am bound by the host’s terms and conditions and they may decide that certain comments (racist for example) breach those terms and conditions. They are fully entitled to shut me down in that event. Equally, I can moderate comments. If I don’t like what you say I can delete your comments with impunity. Certainly if people indulged in defamatory, racist or insulting language, I would exercise that right. Some people will delete comments because they don’t like people disagreeing with them. You won’t find me doing that – I like people disagreeing with me.”’
”’Funny old thing, freedom of speech…”’
Kathryn, I fear you are mistaken! Maybe it’s a case of “can’t see the wood for the trees”, but there is a qualitative difference between indulging in reasonable debate, about abortion, for example, and slagging somebody off with rude language for their opinions.
As you said, we have the right to “speak our minds”, and I agree; whereas insults are not a product of the mind, of rational thought, but of our basest emotions.
Trading insults will at worst lead to an escalation into violence, which again is not a product of our minds. Holding rational and inspired debate leads to further thought and reflection.
Which sort of society would you prefer to live in? One controlled by the mind, or by our emotions?
If your neighbour’s getting on your nerves, what’s the best thing to do? Go round and call him a twat, or ask him to change his behaviour?
”'{Longrider replies} Agreed…but how do you legislate for it? I don’t believe that you can. Nor, for that matter do I believe that it is desirable.”’
Legislation could take us some of the way there – a good deal of the way, I reckon, as it’s quite simple to put down a written definition of what is acceptable/desirable, and what isn’t.
The rest, we can leave to the judges and the juries.
”'{Longrider replies} Like I said – who is going to do the defining? Going back to your “all Moslems are terrorists” example, according to the British Moslem Council, it is unacceptable to say that any Moslem is a terrorist (because they aren’t really a Moslem). On the matter of judicial precedent; this could create a nightmare scenario as it will be the result of interpretation with the potential for long term detrimental impact.”’
”’On the face of it, reasonable people will be able to recognise unacceptable speech fairly easily – but putting it into a legal definition that does not stifle reasoned debate is another matter entirely. That’s why there is so much dissent over the Religious Hatred Bill – dissent with which I concur.”’
OK, which of the following would you see as not being admissable in a society where ‘freedom of speech’ is a cherished notion?
Yob at bus-stop: “F*ck off back home, you smelly n*gg*r!”
BNP voter: All black people are lazy and should be denied benefits, even sent home.
Politician: We need to re-examine our country’s policy towards immigrants who do not work.
Kathryn W would have us believe that all should be accepted under the ‘freedom of speech’ tag. But if we can tease out a difference between them, we might be able to go some towards agreeing that certain things are permissible, others not.
Or am I labouring the obvious?
”'{Longrider replies} I find all three disturbing to a greater or lesser degree – which I presume was your intent. There are of course subtle differences. Direct insult in the street as with your first example isn’t really a free speech issue anyway – it would be threatening behaviour or breach of the peace and of course blatant racism. There is existing legislation to deal with all of these. Stifling freedom of speech is therefore unnecessary.”’
”’The other two examples are better dealt with in the open with reasoned debate. People may then make up their own minds. Attitudes do change (albeit sometimes slowly) in the face of open discussion. Let the second two examples have their say – and let them be rebutted in free open debate.”’