Platform for free speech ... or hate?
I found this article interesting because it touches on something that a lot of people seem to find very diificult - namely, how do you deal with comments or articles posted on your site that you don't agree with personally? From the Guardian Platform for free speech ... or hate? Set up as a means for readers to publish their opinions, sites such as My Telegraph raise questions at the heart of the online debate Sean Dodson The Guardian, Monday May 19 2008 Imagine that you are the editor of a national newspaper. After launching a new service on your website, a minority of your journalists start submitting copy that is clearly distasteful. None of the content is libellous or in breach of hate laws, but it would be considered as offensive by large sections of the public. What do you do? You could advise your journalists to desist, order a rewrite or spike the offensive content. Beyond that, the only choice for many editors is to fire them. But what if the questionable content is coming from your readers? Do you treat it any differently? Would you likewise censor the offensive content, even though it's not quite breaking the law? Read it all: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/may/19/pressandpublishing.telegraphmediagroup

In an ideal World, Sir P, it would be great to have free speech that was really free. With an audience of grown ups enjoying significant and expected thick skin and discernment, the OTT comments would soon evoke a raft of complaints and reports. (I do believe a "Report" button on fora are a good idea, all provided one has sufficient mods). The core problems today, I feel, are two. First, this cyberworld is increasingly inhabited by nutters, conspiracy believers and those who are mentally retarded: hence the plethora of utter crap which litters the web. Difficult if not impossible to filter out these on sign up. Second and of course, we live in a spavined age of PC madness and whilst a reasonable comment might be perceived as OK by the majority, it can easily (far too easily!) cause a chain of events under current statute. Really free speech I fear is increasingly threatened by these realities and can increasingly now only take place between "Consenting Adults", entre nous. Sad, really.

The first requirement of truly free speech is a balanced situation where offence is not deliberately given and none unjustifiably taken. Debate from opposing positions can only produce a result if all parties are prepared to move from their current position if a more positive one presents itself. Debate, as demonstrated in the Israel/Palestinian situation, is pointless if each party makes demands that the others are knowingly going to find untenable. At the point where people are going to defend their OPINIONS offence is going to be taken, as that 'defence' will at some point include the denigration of the other parties' OPINIONS. Where two people claim ownership of anything at all conflict will arise until one changes or revises its position. Without the willingness to move, free speech is dead in the water. It is also dependent upon all parties being capable of both reasonable and rational thought and deed. Sadly that would exclude the majority of the world's population.

The fault lies with the spread of political correctness. Finland is the la-*test*-('") to be infected. http://www.civilliberty.org.uk/newsdetail.php?newsid=380

As for the Guardian article: isn't it funny how the Guardianistas always get on their high horse when views that have been suppressed or repressed by the mainstream media are finally given an airing thanks to the internet? They tie themselves in knots trying to justify censorship, usually on the grounds of 'hate' or causing 'offence'. Moreover, would the same people get upset over people who advocate unfettered immigration, miscegenation or, even, an Islamic republic for this country? I doubt it, since people like that would probably get a job working for the Guardian newspaper.

As I've commented before, Jack, your favourite paper ought to be titled the Daily Do-Gooder Ivory Tower Dwelling Liberal Pinko. :D

That's why I love it so much!

Some years back, there recruitment pages were chock full of ads for faceless bureacrats and they were amongst the first phalanx to emphasise jobs where the employment polices were non-discriminatory. So now we know where all the PC-infested tossers who live in local government came from.

The Guardian seems upset about the Telegraph over this flagrant use of free speech. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/may/28/thefarright.media

The newspaper yesterday defended its decision to host the blog and said it has had no complaints. No doubt the Grauniad is whistling up a few as we write...