London Telegraph
The global war on free speech
It’s not just China and Russia: editors in Greece and Hungary are being
harassed, while Britain’s straitened press is in danger of being cowed by
powerful interests and excessive regulation
By John Kampfner
9:03PM GMT 01 Nov 2012
Look back at the big events of the past decade and ask yourself: did we
find out too much or too little of what the powerful did in our name? Did we
know too much or too little about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Did
we enquire too much or too little about the cheating of the bankers?
When I posed this question during my testimony to the Leveson Inquiry back
in January, I swear I saw the judge’s eyes roll. I fear Lord Justice
Leveson had been persuaded long before that journalism was a problem for
society,
not part of the solution to its ills. He could have been forgiven for
coming to this instant conclusion, having listened to the heart-rending
testimony of Milly Dowler’s parents, or Kate and Gerry McCann, or of other
victims
of hounding and despicable behaviour.
Even though I have worked in the profession, or trade, for more than two
decades, I hold no candle for the press as an institution. My concern is
broader. Freedom of expression – the bedrock of democracy – is under threat in
Britain, as it is around the globe.
Wherever you look, someone with power, somewhere in the world, is trying to
prevent the truth from getting out. In dictatorships they often resort to
violence. But usually those with power hide behind laws that, while
technically legitimate, are designed to chill free speech.
We think such measures are the preserve of places like China and Russia.
And they are. In China the media are severely censored. Dissidents are
routinely jailed. Western media are blocked online when they become
inconvenient,
as the New York Times was recently after revealing details of premier Wen
Jiabao’s family wealth.
In Russia, investigative journalists are killed when they find out too
much. The internet is now severely restricted. Members of the punk band Pussy
Riot languish in penal colonies for protesting in church.
But dangers also lurk in so-called democracies. In Greece, a magazine
editor yesterday went on trial for having the temerity to publish details of
the
tax avoidance schemes of the super-rich, as ordinary people suffer greatly
from austerity. If normal ethical standards were applied, Costas Vaxevanis
would have been celebrated for his intrepid reporting. But shooting the
messenger has become the norm for politicians and business leaders, as a
means of diverting attention from their crimes and misdemeanours – and
frightening whistleblowers and journalists. In France, presidents and
ministers
have for years hidden behind privacy clauses to keep their dodgy financial
affairs secret. Hungary’s recent press law, requiring media outlets to be
licensed, has led to a spate of overly critical editors being sacked and radio
stations taken off air.
What is so dispiriting is that we in Britain appear now to be leaning in
this direction. We increasingly regard free speech as a danger.
There are a number of reasons: some of it is the result of bad law; some of
it is economic. Politicians, lawyers and the public are struggling to come
to terms with rapid technological changes. The internet was supposed to be
the vehicle that broke down old rules and hierarchies. We suddenly
acquired a voice through emails, blogs and social networking. We could bear
witness to events through sound recording and cameras on our mobile phones.
The power relationship shifted. Gone were the days when a mere citizen
would have to send a letter to their MP, who would occasionally deign to
reply.
Mostly they didn’t, seeing engagement or accountability as an intrusion on
their valuable time.
That has changed, thank goodness, and cannot be reversed. The moment George
Osborne’s assistant queried, possibly innocently, his standard-class train
ticket, that episode was in the public domain.
Yet at the same time we struggle with Twitter and Facebook and the freedoms
they afford. Online, the extremely poor joke and the offensive remark have
now become matters not for peer groups to sort out, but for the
authorities. So the hapless young man who tweets in frustration about blowing
up an
airport is arrested; a stupid boy who insults the Olympic diver Tom Daley is
visited by the police; and the equally pathetic young man who makes an
ill-judged “joke” about the disappeared Welsh schoolgirl April Jones is taken
in, too.
I am as angered by these remarks as anyone, but is it the state’s job to
arbitrate matters of taste and decency? When Nick Griffin, the BNP leader,
was invited on to the BBC’s Question Time a couple of years ago, to howls of
outrage, I saw it as important to defend his right to appear – and to make
a fool of himself, which he duly did. To misquote Voltaire, the only free
speech worth defending is that of the person whose views you find most
obnoxious.
Everywhere around the world, it seems, the right to take offence has been
elevated into a human right. Usually, but not always, this “right” is
exercised through religious belief. Most cases are seen through the prism of “
insults” to Islam. But this “right” now seems to be exercised by whoever
wants it.
What does all this have to do with our press? The best word I can find is “
raucous”. A raucous, argumentative society is a healthy society. Of course
we need laws to protect people – from child pornography to incitement to
violence. We need state secrets. But the Official Secrets Act has often been
used for the wrongful purpose of protecting the reputations of ministers
and officials. We need anti-terrorism measures, but not the outrageous
Communications Data Bill currently being discussed in Parliament, that would
give
not just the security services but dozens of lesser public bodies the
right to demand emails and social media traffic from any citizen in the land.
These plans are dangerous; they are also manna from heaven for the Russians
and Chinese, who love to point to the West’s double standards when their
records are held up to scrutiny.
We need libel laws, but not those that for years have indulged sheikhs,
oligarchs and other super-rich figures, preventing anyone from writing about
them. These laws are being changed, but I fear the end result will fall far
short of the improvements the libel reform campaign I helped to lead has
sought.
Throw in the economics: many newspapers have closed or been pared to the
bone, particularly in the regions. Whose interests are served when local
councils know that planning decisions and other dodgy dealings will go
unreported? The same goes on a national scale, not just about politicians, but
sports stars and their agents and businesses on the take. Investigative
journalism takes time, requires patience and indulgence from editors, and costs
money. That is the area that is being cut back most of all – to everyone’s
detriment.
So how come a general view has been allowed to take hold that our press is
out of control? The terrible acts of a few, hacking the phones of the
vulnerable with no possible public interest, have handed the moral ground and
political power to those who want journalists to be more “respectful”.
I have attended a number of press conferences over the years involving
prime ministers and US presidents. When the two leaders marched into the room,
the Americans would stand to attention; the Brits would sit sullenly. I
know which I prefer.
Nobody sensible will defend the old-style boys’-club regulation of
newspapers. Of course, something more vigorous must emerge from the Leveson
Inquiry. But I have worked in many countries – not just under authoritarian
regimes – where journalists are seduced by the offer of a seat at the top
table,
or are persuaded not to ask that extra question. “Go easy, we don’t want
trouble” could all too easily become the mantra here. Would, I ask myself,
this newspaper have had the courage to break the story about MPs’ expenses
in the post-Leveson world? I would like to think so, but I’m not sure.
We all want to strike the right balance. But perfection is elusive. Forced
to choose, I would rather have a public space that goes too far than one
that – like so many countries around the world – is pliant in the face of
power.
John Kampfner is a former editor of 'The New Statesman’ and former chief
executive of Index on Censorship
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
