Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Freedom of speech can't be unlimited
We must define the boundaries of what is acceptable on the internet
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Libertarians and free expression campaigners were jubilant last week. An obscenity case was due to be heard against Darryn Walker, a 35-year-old civil servant who had posted an essay on a website, titled Girls (scream) Aloud, imagining the sexual torture and mutilation of the each of the women who make up the pop group.
In his fantasy, they are slashed and dismembered and, according to Don Grubin a consultant psychiatrist, the singers "are sexually aroused in spite of and, indeed, because of the humiliation, pain and domination". This apparently modern erotica known as "popslash". Cool, man.
The case was dropped and is celebrated as another important knock-back for censorship. Sadly I felt unable to join in with the good cheer. Something is deeply troubling about the validation given to Walker and those who think they have the right to say whatever they wish and excitedly share with others the thrills of extreme violence against women.
The formidable Geoffrey Robertson QC (who rose to fame fighting the case brought against Oz) is very pleased indeed. Jo Glanville, editor of Index Against Censorship (an organisation I support but not blindly) righteously asserts: "The prosecution should not have been brought in the first place. Since the landmark obscenity cases of the 1960s and 1970s, writers have been protected so they can explore the extremes of human behaviour. This case posed a serious threat to that freedom."
Hmmm. Is that so? So If Walker had written, say, the same fantasy but on the sexual torture of Anne Frank, would Index have backed him? Or if a wannabe Muslim fiction writer had done the same, would he have the right to "explore the extremes of human behaviour"? I hope the answer to both these hypothetical questions is No.
Freedom of speech is a precious right, fought for in Europe over many centuries, and still denied to billions of humans – as we have just witnessed in Iran and know to be true of China, African and Arab nations, Burma, and so on. Granted that in countries where the state oppresses and totally controls its populations, the people must find ways to subvert the controllers and criticise their oppressors.
Whistleblowers in institutions must also grab that freedom, so too family members thwarted by their own. But it is never an absolute entitlement, not unless you believe it is worth the resulting social discord and terrible individual wreckage.
We all exercise judgements on what we say or don't say in public. You stop yourself because you don't want to hurt people, or to instigate a street brawl. There are laws that sacrifice freedom of speech for a greater good- harmony between races, public safety, social gentility and so on. We accept libel and defamation laws (hated by hacks of course), national security injunctions and establishment secrets (loved by politicians) and underpinning all that is a general understanding of what would be inappropriate and hateful if expressed in public.
Not everybody agrees on where the lines should be, but most know there are lines. These restraints belong to a pre-internet era and cannot contain or temper the limitlessness of the web. And yet we must, over the next few years, define the boundaries of what is acceptable in this brazen new world.
It is all very well for Mr Walker to feel like a champion of human rights but what about the women in Girls Aloud, who are real, not imagined, and whose slow death can be enjoyed by pervs and killers? They have families, mums, perhaps, lovers, who too will be feeling caught in a web of horrors. The legal state is unsettled. Meanwhile the internet is exploding and explosive, having a real impact on real lives.
Last week I found myself being tailed through town by a weird bloke, who kept stopping me, once or twice seizing my elbow. Why, he demanded, did I want, British soldiers killed and hurt? This question has been coming at me via email for a few months. I couldn't understand why.
Someone told me my Wikipedia entry had quoted the NeoCon Doug Murray, who had attacked me in a book for writing: "There have been times when I have wanted more chaos, more shocks, more disorder to teach our side a lesson". To put this in context, what I actually wrote was: "The past months have been disquieting and challenging for many of us in the antiwar camp. I know and am ashamed to admit this that there have been times when I have wanted more chaos, more shocks, more disorder to teach our side a lesson ... The decent people of Iraq need optimism now not my distasteful ill-wishes for the only hope they have for the future." If this attack has stayed in Murray's book it would have passed but bloggers recently picked it up and it has been hell since.
Peter Tatchell tells me that lies are circulated about him and he receives constant threats. Polly Toynbee and others are subjected to mob fury for no good reason. Are we just supposed to put up with this behaviour because the web must be free?
Internet libel law is building up and internet service providers are put under pressure to remove sites where material is defamatory. Chatrooms and blogs are increasingly expected to be moderated. The defence of "innocent dissemination" may not survive.
In 2006, Ukip's Michael Keith won damages after joining a chatroom where anonymous postings smeared his character and in 2008 a CEO of a housing business got a large payout after a rival company carried out a malicious personal smear campaign against him. As the internet is transnational, awareness is growing that extraordinary care is needed to prevent legal action. Corporate liability, third party culpability are encouraging mechanisms for self-regulation. In my view some of this is necessary.
We don't yet have a really effective way of restraining material promoting racism, sexism, violence (except against children), homophobia, and other group hatreds. It must come if we are to make the best use of this amazing technology and not let it pull us down to a barbarism posing as freedom. That, I fear, is what has happened with Mr Walker and his spurious victory.
y.alibhaibrown@independent.co.uk
More from Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Yes if something incites violence of prejudiced hatred, it can be banned and if something is oscene it can be banned, and its worth noting that it hasn't been recognised that the islamic attack on anne frank wasn't considered enough to incite hatred, so a piece of fiction designed to titilate as it involved torture that the character of the victim then enjoys, is hardly going to incit rape, unless that person is emotionally disturbed ast its not going to make them think its legitamate to have fantasies of that kind. do you really consider people who enjoy reding torture and S&m fiction as pervs, perversions don't have to be of a sexual nature
Your basic misunderstanding of the necessity of free speech is apparent when you say 'underpinning all that [legislation] is a general understanding of what would be inappropriate and hateful if expressed in public'. What general understanding? I'm sure it isn't news to anyone reading this that there are people who willingly go around taking offense, e.g. the commonly encountered 'you've offended my religious belief, you shouldn't be allowed to do that'. These are basic conflicts which should not be resolved by criminalising someone who has happened to offend - what right dos anyone have anyway to go around taking offense, telling people, with the force of the law on their side, to shut up?
Your argument doesn't begin to address this. it boils down to a series of unbacked assertions like '[Free speech] is never an absolute entitlement, not unless you believe it is worth the resulting social discord and terrible individual wreckage. ' Usually people will elaborate when using emotive language like 'terrible individual wreckage' - otherwise it just looks like hyperbole (which it is).
And, if you are concerned about some bloke grabbing your elbow we have harassment legislation - what's this got to do with Murray's book? - the bloke read it?
You start out with a gratuitously unpleasant example, Girl's Aloud, but then move on to your real agenda which is political censorship
Polly Toynbee is a regime toady, she is deservedly howled down on Guardian CIF, if this causes her distress it is well deserved
"Chatrooms and blogs are increasingly expected to be moderated."
Censored
Only the BNP has pledged to abolish all restriction of traditional free speech, AND to restore freedom of association in every sphere:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/web
That's not enough, in my view, to end the MultiCult and demographic replacement, but it's a good start.
I know that but the politicians do not know this. You saw Sarah Palin fumbling with French?
I thank you
Firoali A.Mulla
As all the other posters have noted, you are not really concerned about the Girls Aloud issue, which I agree is appalling. Your article and major concern is that people are no longer paying respect, reading or listening to left wing biased journos like you, Polly Toynbee etc. The tired, underpaid, out of work people of this country really have more important concerns than your delicate sensibilities.
I think you will find the parade and carnival has moved on and you are as they say '..so yesterday'
... What this suggests is that Jews are more protected, and that Muslims are less protected. While the first assertion might or might not be true (though memories of Holocaust might explain, if not necessarily justify, that the said assertion might be true), the second is definitely false. Muslims can get away with a lot, and their supposed sensitivities are taken into account much, much more than Christian sensitivities.
A poisonous article by a ruthlessly militant Muslim woman posing as a commentator.
Confidence is important I suppose, if one believes in oneself then others might follow.
The idea that "limits" can be set on free speech is an amazing concept! What wise and fair individual will set such limits? And police them.
It does all fall down there.
The major exception seems to be in the Opinion columns of this newspaper with its readers publishing material offensive and beyond EU and UK guidelines. Even the so-called moderator and the editors do little to prevent publication. Thus it was that I have registered a complaint about the Independent with the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). I cannot complain about the opinions, but I can complain about the paper's failure to moderate and act responsibly.
Who is "we"? Acceptable to whom? What boundaries? Haven't pink Communists like YAB done enough social damage already? Who is claiming the moral (+ legal) right to regulate everything about human conduct? Sanctimonious drivel?
"Brazen new world" ... what? A world where the public has free access to alternative source of information, other than that provided by the West's now corrupt intelligentsia & academe? Do I see a dummy being spit out to argue for NEW LAWS to curtail that freedom?
YAB: "Ukip's Michael Keith won damages after joining a chatroom [ ... ] and a CEO [ ... ] got a large payout after a [ ... ] a malicious personal smear campaign ..."
Presumably they both used existing libel laws to win their damages. Therefore, there is no requirement for additional laws to curtail the Internet. Existing libel laws (+ public decency laws) are already adequate.
YAB: "Peter Tatchell tells me that lies are circulated about him and he receives constant threats."
I must presume this is because he is generally perceived as a political extremist and campaigner who has dedicated his life to perverting not only British society, but several other societies too (such as his recent campaigning in Moscow). Peter Tatchell refuses to accept that most people have already rejected his central message. Despite this, the British media keeps quoting him and giving him a public platform with amplified distribution ... just as they keep doing for the hard-core Communist outfit, 'Searchlight.'
So, perhaps Begum Ali-Baba should justify her rather contrived arguments? Meaning ... why does she feign surprise & indignation when this type of extremist behaviour attracts a violent response from some quarters? Perhaps Tatchell wants to be a martyr?
And of this spurious example---Darryn Walker, a 35-year-old civil servant---that she has used to try and justify her reasoning? Why is it necessary to get all worked up about the non-influence of such a nutter? What has YAB to say about organizations in London who rent out young boys to members of our political 'elite' so our so-called political & economic 'leaders' may practise perversities upon them? What peculiar medical problems are these young men going to suffer when they reach middle age? Where are YAB's calls for "defining the boundaries of what is acceptable" in such cases?
The Internet = a very large market-place. As with all large markets, some mental defectives, crooks, & charlatans will be found trading. But, 95% of all adults already have sufficient maturity to identify such people and give them a wide berth. YAB's hysteria isn't really necessary for our protection ... it is there to justify her own existence.
YAB: "We don't yet have a really effective way of restraining material promoting racism, sexism, violence [ ... ] homophobia, and other group hatreds. It must come if we are to make the best use of this amazing technology and not let it pull us down to a barbarism posing as freedom."
Barbarism posing as freedom?*!? Begum Ali-Baba needs to turn down her volume; her writing is too full of horn & alarm blowing. The barbarism she & her kind sees (translated) is really the fear of their own public demise: opinion formers being rendered redundant.
Furthermore, I would add that most intemperate writers like YAB do subscribe to a form of extremist Socialism, or communism with a small 'c', that in reality is nothing more than Fascism. Fascism has always been a phenomenon of the left ... as Jonah Goldberg so elegantly demonstrates in his book: "Liberal Fascism."
Incidentally ... What in God's name has Anne Frank got to do with anyone's ideas for expanding censorship of the Internet? Was 'Anne Frank' inserted so YAB could grovel at the feet of a certain ideology, or was it deployed as an attack symbol to intimidate readers with unnecessary Holocaust iconography?
YAB's logical path:
a-priori: I believe white men are evil >> German men are white >> Anne Frank was Jewish >> a German killed Anne Frank >> Jews were persecuted by Germans >> German men are white >> White men say things on the Internet I and my friends don't like >> I believe white men are evil >> WE MUST CENSOR THE INTERNET!
There are those pushing for internet censorship who do not want the truth told about them. The same group is behind "hate crime legislation". We should resist this pressure and allow people the freedom to express their opinion. We do not have to like their opinions and we do not have to read them.
There is already enough censorship in our society, in history books, Wikepedia and the Mainstream Media.
Furthermore, senior members of the Britannica board are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). You can't get more "New World Order" than that.
These are the real bunny rabbits calling for Internet censorship.
As regards books ... most or all revisionist books are censored by the publishing companies (again all the big publishing companies are owned by the same tribe) when manuscripts are submitted for review and potential publication. That way, it is difficult to obtain statistics.
University faculties (Humanities mainly) get censored because the same people will tell the Professors, "say or find something that pleases or benefits us or we shall withdraw funding." Or words to that effect.
In other words, censorship is already everywhere, and it is serving only one agenda: that determined by the folks running New York City, Washington DC, and the Federal Reserve.
But, you need to take a step further to fully understand. Our politicians are not actually governing. They only do that for the benefit of the Media. Their strings are actually being pulled by persons who sit in the shadows. We never see the true power holders. Stop pretending that the British cabinet can actually (or are allowed to) make democratically arrived at decisions. That illusion should have ended for you when Thatcher came to power. The real political agenda is being set by the independent sovereign territory known as the City of London (or Square Mile) and by organizations such as the Council of Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group meetings, and such like.
By the way. The Iranian election 'crisis' was staged by the CIA and Mossad; just as the so-called coloured revolutions of Georgia and the Ukraine were. It's all subterfuge brother. Time for you to wake up.
Hope all this counter-intuitive information doesn't push you into cognitive-dissonance. Enjoy a cuppa and dwell on it all, then do some research of your own. Copy anything of real interest onto your hard-disk or a DVD-CD disk for archive, because the Internet may be interfered with in future years.
Conspiracies. Mmmm. Can think of many worse things to be than a Conspiracy Theorist. Such as Journalist? Problem is, you have to begin with a theory in order to target & focus research. Only later, when enough facts are in, then analysed, can that theory + data be turned into case solved.
In principle, Conspiracy Theory research is no different from Investigative Journalism or Senior Detective work. You have to formulate a premise before you can marshal your resources. Those who use the label "conspiracy theorist" as a form of rhetorical attack don't usually have the mental acuity to handle the work load and they probably voted for Tony Blair twice, which means they already have Alzheimer's Disease. Learn to laaarff at 'em. They deserve your pity not your or my attention.
And may I say it took me just 3 days to establish without a shadow of a doubt, that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their NeoCon entourage are the real deal when it comes to genuine conspiracy theorists!!
Get hold of an empty can of beer & crush it in your hand. Now realize the material the can is made from is (not identical) but very similar to the aluminium alloy used to construct passenger aircraft (such as the outer skin + most wing surfaces). Other lightweight alloys are used to construct the ribbing (frame) of such aircraft. Get another beer can (uncrushed this time) and throw it hard at some steel object (no suggestions). See which one ends up being bent the most: the steel object or the aluminium can? Write down your answer.
Now look up melting point of steel. Next, look up gravitational acceleration to work out how both towers could have collapsed at free-fall speed (about 10 secs for each tower) when the steel core was designed to actually supportv 10 x the weight of each tower. Now research thermograms to determine the temperature of fires by evaluating the colour of the flames (special IR cameras are used to do this, and with great accuracy). Visit YouTube: watch some movies of the fires in both WTC towers. Look at the fires as filmed at both impact holes & see if you can see lots white-hot flames burning away like an inferno for almost an hour, or just lots and lots of billowing black smoke? Wikipedia might tell you what temperatures those two colours actually mean. Compare these figures with the melting point of steel you found earlier.
Next, ask yourself how a passport belong to Mohammed Atta could have survived the initial fireball of his plane hitting the WTC tower before floating down safely, over 1 hour later, to land gently on the rubble of the collapsed tower so it could be handed in to the authorities; ready for CNN the next day. Next, ponder how in heavens name the Bush Administration were able to announce the names and nationalities of all 19 alleged hijackers within 48 hours of the WTC collapse. Duh? I thought the average Yank was a dunce, didn't you?
Finally, understand that Building 7 collapsed late that same afternoon, having not been hit by any aircraft and having suffered only slight damage to one corner of its structure from the rubble of the nearest collapsing tower. Next, try to accept that prior to its collapse (again at free-fall speed, as buildings do when they are being deliberately demolished using explosive charges) Building 7 held a CIA office, and numerous investigative offices connected with the ongoing investigations into irregularities and fraud that had been going on in Wall Street and elsewhere in New York for decades (including all the Enron case files). All these were (conveniently) destroyed when Building 7 was "pulled."
When you have worked all of that out, and come to the only correct conclusions available to any sane human being; then you will have earned your spurs, and graduated as a western media contrived, Conspiracy Theorist! Just like me. But I must warn you; you'll have to grow some thick skin if you do graduate. There are lots of unemployed psychology graduates out there in Independent Readership La-la Land who also like to celebrate Karl Marx's birthday & who beg to take the Rothschild's gold sovereign.
As regards your latest contribution, the best I can say is to wish you luck then ... though I fear (and I don't desire to insult you) that anyone on the receiving end of your critique might feel they are being savaged by a sheep.
An enlargement of the Freedom of Information Act is a red-herring. Unless it has the teeth to FORCE "people in high place" to disclose information, then you will just end up wasting people's time with your "ever so nice arguments."
Furthermore, having more information means little of itself. Everything depends on what people do with that additional information. In the past 15 hours, you, yourself, have just demonstrated the futility of an expansion of the Freedom of Information Act by rejecting outright my detailed sample of how to determine (for yourself) that 9-11 was a criminal act of genocide by a corrupt Washington Administration upon the American people.
If you can't see the bleedin' obvious, and react as though you actually do have some sap running through your veins, then why waste your and other people's time by posting here at the Independent, or anywhere else for that matter?
I don't believe in Utopian expectations and I pity those who stubbornly do, despite history's many lessons.
Intellectuals like you could, after fully analysing controversial issues like 9-11 and 7/7 (oceans of source material are out there) inaugurate discussion groups in your home area. You could also enrol yourself on one of several revisionist conferences that get held around the country from time to time. Having a properly constituted group, you could then approach your local MP and insist that he/she listens to the evidence and narrative you would, as a group, be then able to provide.
A few lawyers might also be interested to hear well-researched and properly compiled analysis of these events. Some young journalists wishing to make a name for themselves could also be recruited to assist.
All you need to do is begin with the basic premise: our governments have lied to us and all the official incident reports that have been published to date contain conclusions that show there has been, and continues to be, a conspiracy.
Was it Sherlock Holmes, or his Assistant who Conan Doyle attributed to saying (something like): you strip out all the impossibilities, and what you are left with, however improbable, must be true.
The truth (I contend) is that our societies and culture have been deliberately violated by a cold-blooded conspiracy to murder innocents in order to further the agenda of international bankers, military cliques, oil-men, and the State of Israel. Our anti-terrorism laws (which in turn have led to calls for ID Cards and unified databases) have all come about directly from this evil conspiracy. To call that a coincidence would be naive beyond irresponsibility.
All the mainstream newspapers have been warned off these topics. But, some will be obliged to revisit and fully address both 9-11 and 7/7 (there exist many peculiar similarities between both events) in their entirety if the public can just push these issues passed a tipping point.
If you don't mind, I shall close out on this topic now as I am rather busy; but I have enjoyed conversing with you on this thread, despite your cheap gibe at the end ... "benign dictator." I believe you can do better than stoop to the British disease of writing affronts.
Many innocent people died horrible deaths on 9-11 and 7/7 largely because ordinary people stopped being responsible citizens during the 1960s and 70s. The real murderers, who are NOT Arabs or Pakistani Muslims, have so far been allowed to get away with their dastardly deeds and outrages. Kindly remember that next time you feel the urge to sarcastically crown someone who has just devoted three lengthy comments to helping you, a dictator.
Regards,
Errol Flynn.
It seems to me the only purpose they serve now is to attract commentators to newspaper online pages to up the hit count.
What, now? Are there not anarchist, Marxist, and republican blogs, pamphleteers, book writers (and in the case of the latter) University employees broadcasting - or narrowcasting - in favour of the destruction of the Crown ( at least) and the government ( at most).
Yes, Yasmin clearly went onto political Crime Thought pretty quick here. I was fairly sympathetic to the original complaint - and I think there could be extension of existing laws ( e.g. privacy laws) since the people involved are real people.
The time to not ban stuff is when the opinions are political.
In the case of the stalker, as others have mentioned, there are laws to deal with that. Though interestingly, it was not someone else's uncensored words but your own which seems to have brought about the harm. But there's no accounting for nutters. If it wasn't you it would be Toynbee or Tatchell or someone else whose opinions he didn't agree with. You can't censor everything just in case some nutter uses it as justification for some illegal act.
Where have our great thinkers gone? And why aren't they cutting dimwits like "Yasmin" over here down to size?
This piece is so feebly argued and incoherent that I find the very thought of the Guardianista brigade, nodding along whilst sipping chardonnay in Fair Trade wine glasses, loathsome and disturbing in equal measures.
If I were a religious man I'd be praying for Brown to just resign tomorrow, taking this pathetic, spiteful, bullying Leftist rabble with him.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/t
Here, i also have a link to free manuals that deal with the application of freedom of speech:
http://www.bullies2buddies.com/resource
Hardly, its just one man's opinion and Izzy Kalman is a world expert whose name trips off everyone's tongue!
There shouldn't be any kind of censorship except that of child pornography. Whilst it's horrible that real people are being attacked in such a gross manner, would you even consider banning video games for violent content? Today it's websites, and eventually the race towards censorship will proceed to even erase our right to information. It would even lead to (or has already) corruption in the political circle. Restricting freedom of speech makes for hooligans and perverts. And due to the lack of freedom, it's harder to catch these perverts.
I reckon you have a problem with defamation. Why censore it, Yasmin? It's true that there are gits out there who will defame a people, a person or an ideology out of ignorance- Educated them. If the defamation is out of hatred, then resolve the problem. People have the right to an opinion and it is this right that toughens the social fabric of a country. It promotes dialogue. If someone has a problem and is being grossly vocal about it, then you have to behave like the better-bred one and resolve the issue. Over time people will stop behaving like lunatics and voice their issues with decency. If the person still hates your opinion, your religion, your political ideology, your dressing-sense, your hair or your "skills" as a journalist, then it's going to be a difference of opinion you share. Why can't you end things on a healthy note allowing each other to maintain your differences with respect like a dignified human-being would? Whatever happened to "ladies and gentlemen"?
The Danish cartoons: They wanted to promote a certain image, and the fools in ME gave them that by retaliating like barbarians. If they would have simply said: "Narrow-minded, immature, silly, but whatever!" This lack of freedom has made Arabs behave like hooligans when someone insults them, their leaders, religion or culture. They're not exposed to free speech, hence go mad easily. In fact, they can't even tolerate the "good kind" of speech. UAE-based writer wrote a manual for sex-habits based on Islamic spirituality, health, practices and use of aphrodisiacs according to Prophetic traditions and got bombarded with fatwas instead. Shocking, since the use of condoms and aphrodisiacs is "Islamic". West Asian countries, including Israel, are weirdo nations where it's sinful to criticise them, but they're free to indulge in biased, propagandistic, intolerant and narrow-minded diatribes.
That some believe the tripe written in Wikipedia says more about them than it does about you. There is a price to pay to receive information- It's your responsibility to check its authenticity. You should promote better use of technology!
Racism, homophobia, sexism, violence & etc. should be tolerated on websites unless the site is owned by someone who wants to discourage such content like News Websites. If someone wishes to express a racist opinion, he should be allowed to, stating his reasons. And you can use any number of ideologies and sciences to tell them why they have an IQ of a sclerotic mule instead of banning- ME's fav hobby. Meaningless tripe is always deleted in many websites. As far as personal websites, online journals, social networking sites, online groups, fan sites and hate sites are concerned, I am sorry, but you don't get to dictate who is allowed to say what. Most of us don't believe the garbage online. It's hard enough that journalists write so much gibberish with over-the-top use of vocabulary to fool us into thinking we have a retarded thinking capacity and worship them instead, now we have people like you who want to go get legal rights to sew peoples mouths close.