All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility

John Stuart Mill.

There's a lot of confusion about freedom of speech. Is it a right? Is it a privilege? Is it unconditional? If not, under what circumstances can it be revoked or over-ridden? Should those who wish to curtail the freedom of speech of others be curtailed themselves?

This thought occurs to me with particular relevance to h2g2, after observing (and participating) in a number of conversations about freedom of speech, particularly with reference to foreign language postings, moderation in general, and the existence of certain more or less vocal researchers with less than tolerant views towards certain other groups. If anything, it's surprising that there are so *few* intolerant people around on h2g2, given the sheer number of nutters, fundamentalists, and malcontents scattered throughout the world who drag their derangements online to inflict them on other people.

I'm not going to go on about the usual justifications for free speech - you all know them all. If you're really interested, put 'John Stuart Mill' into a search engine and you'll find Mill's classic arguments for free speech in an age where censorship was the norm, and free speech was generally considered to be dangerous, generally on the grounds that people couldn't be trusted. No, I assume that, in general terms, we're all in agreement about the general desirability of free speech.

What I'm interested in is free speech on this site. The internet is a new kind of medium that crosses national boundaries, removes many of the barriers to free speech (though not illiteracy or poverty), and is already the most important medium for the exchange of opinions and ideas. It is anarchic, and many people like it that way. They use the internet precisely because they like this kind of intellectual and cultural freedom that it provides. But this site is a special instance of the internet - owned, managed, and paid for by the BBC (and by extension, UK TV license payers). It is not part of the great un-owned space of the internet.

Freedom of Speech and the Political State

Most arguments about freedom of speech are about freedom of speech in a nation, and it is the language of politics, the state, and the citizen that are invoked in such arguments. Many researchers talk of freedom of speech as a right, and indeed freedom of speech is enshrined in the constitutions of many countries, subject to a greater or lesser degree of restriction.

Now, assuming that there is a right to freedom of speech, what does this amount to? What kind of right is it? Is it a natural right or is it a political right? That is, do we have a right to freedom of speech because of something in nature, perhaps because of our innate dignity or worth as human beings, as choosing moral agents with free will? Or do we have the right because it is part of the political constitution, as something that we must have in order to be citizens in a democracy? Intrinsic natural right, instrumental political necessity, or some combination of both?

Where must we have free speech to guarantee our liberties and our interests? In the national media, in public meetings, and in private discussions. There must be freedom of speech in standing for election on whatever platform you wish, to write to your representative expressing your views, and to protest about current policies without fear. It makes sense to talk about freedom of speech in those kinds of forums as 'rights' - as political rights stemming from being a citizen.

h2g2 is like a state in that it has hierarchies, rules, leaders (paid and unpaid, official and unofficial), internal politics and disputes. There are good reasons for thinking that freedom of speech about the internal working and operations of the site would be vital for its development and growth.

However, h2g2 is not like a state in a key respect: it does not control any aspect of our lives. This may be news to some of the more addicted researchers, but it's true. What's decided here will have absolutely no bearing on any of the key political issues that are important to you in your country. None of your fundamental interests are at risk here, so denying or restricting freedom of speech on h2g2 is most definitely not on par with doing the same in a political state. h2g2 is a sub-state organisation - that is, it operates at a level below the state. Freedom of speech has a different meaning and is subject to different restrictions at a sub-state level. Any right to freedom of speech on h2g2 cannot be regarded as political - it isn't a state, and is not a vital channel of communication or forum for debate for any country.

Freedom of Speech and Sub-state Organisations

Should sub-state organisations be required to guarantee freedom of speech? My answer is no. Why? Because being able to form sub-state organisations in which members can set their own rules is an important part of freedom, and an important part of having political rights. If someone sets up a Bible discussion group for fellow Christians to discuss their favourite passages, it seems clear that the group ought to have the right not to admit an atheist whose sole contribution is to tell them that they're deluded. A chess club ought not to have to admit people intent on playing rock music and ruining their concentration. I would be very annoyed indeed if the local cinema did not throw out the local Mobile Phone Ringtone Appreciation Society, who wished to exercise their freedom of speech during my favourite film.

The right to free speech at a political level does not translate to the right to say whatever we like, whenever we like, regardless of what is going on around us. This is obvious in cases of incitement to violence in times of social unrest, but is even more obviously true in more common sub-state situations. You don't have a right to sing during a minute's silence at a sporting event, you don't have the right to sing Christian hymns in a Mosque, and you don't have the right to swear in front of small children.

Now, all these denials of free speech seem to me to be justified, and, more importantly, consistent with a wider and more general commitment to freedom of speech and to other rights (eg freedom of religion). Rights are a package, and cannot be understood in isolation from each other. Rights are give and take: we all give so that others can have. Your right to your TV restricts my freedom to take it (even if it is widescreen), and my right to enjoy 'Ghostbusters' restricts the rights of the mobile phone posse.

Not wanting to listen to the atheist in a bible discussion group is not the same as wanting to deny the atheist to form her own groups, to write letters to newspapers, phone radio stations, campaign for greater separation of church and state, and so on. But the social meaning of the groups that I've listed as examples precludes certain kinds of speech and expression. Even unregulated internet groups have a notion of the 'off-topic' - that which is not suitable for the agreed goals of the community or group.

My aim here is to show that we do not have an unrestricted natural right to freedom of speech in sub-state organisations. The examples above are designed to show that we don't have a natural right to freedom of speech wherever and whenever we like. Earlier, I've tried to show that freedom of speech on h2g2 (or any other website) is not of significant political importance in and of itself, unlike (say) the freedom to hold public meetings, or freedom of the press. My suggestion is that the social meaning of sub-state organisations or non-vital forums defines what claims to freedom of speech people have.

The phrase 'there's a time and a place for everything' springs to mind. And moderation on h2g2 should be seen as the owners of the site saying 'now isn't the time and the place [and the manner] to say what you have just said'. This is clearly not the same as a fundamental attack on your political freedoms. The two are very clearly different beasts! People who take offence at moderation need to produce an argument to show why it was the appropriate time and place (and manner) to say what they said, rather than falling back on abstract and frankly irrelevant claims about rights.

Private and Public Spaces

As well as the distinction between state and sub state, there's also a distinction between public and private spaces for discussion. Some spaces belong to everyone, some spaces are owned, and the owners may or may not limit discussion. The best example of this is what a family will allow to be discussed around the dinner table, or what the host of a dinner party feels to be acceptable subjects for conversation. I think that most of us would refrain from expressing views that the host found offensive - not just because of a desire to keep the peace, but also, I think, from a sense that the host has rights as the owner of the space and the provider of the food. The analogy with the BBC is, I think, obvious.

But the BBC is not quite like a host at a dinner party, in that it is not a private citizen. It is funded by the British license payer, and has responsibilities in virtue of the position it holds in UK society, and indeed in the world community as an impartial source of news. It has its charter commitments to uphold, and so cannot act exactly as it wishes. It relies heavily on volunteers, and so owes a duty to them, and to all contributors and researchers. We are also (in some way) the hosts of the dinner party. The BBC supplies the room, and some of the cutlery and crockery, but the researchers bring the food and drink, to extend the metaphor a bit too far. So we all have a role in setting the rules of discussion, and the limits of free speech. But the BBC has rights as the host, and responsibilities to its image and overall role as the British Broadcasting Corporation. Paradoxically, that makes the site private property (as it's owned by the BBC), and public space (as it's the BBC that it's owned by).

Conclusions

So what conclusions do I offer? Well, let us ask about the social meaning of the guide. If a Bible Group justifiably excludes strident atheists, and denies their right to speak within that group, what (if anything) can we exclude?

Part of the social meaning of the guide is set by the initial vision of Douglas Adams, and part has grown up over time. I suggest that there are now two social meanings - the first is the production of the edited guide, the second the formation of a community. We can expect all researchers to participate in one or other of these tasks, or at least not to hinder them. Researchers are expected to read the writing guidelines for Peer Review, and abide by them. Disruption to the community, though personal abuse of other researchers, can lead to suspension or a ban. This is how h2g2 is policed - according to the social meaning of what we do.

Our community has values which most of us share - a form of social liberalism best summed up by the view that people should be allowed to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't harm others. Freedom in self-regarding actions, as Mill put it. This typically means opposition to discrimination (sexism, racism, homophobia, and so on), a commitment to tolerance and to some notion of respect for each other as valuable persons, and so on. There will be disagreement about the details of this, which is to be expected. But should we tolerate the serially intolerant if they stop just short of breaking the house rules?

So far, I've set up what I see as the issues, and put forward some arguments. Here's my suggestion for a solution. You can agree with what I've written so far, and disagree with what follows!

Suggestions

I suggest that it must depend upon the general profile of the researcher. Are they functioning as a researcher - writing entries and/or commenting in Peer Review? Are they contributing to discussions on a variety of subjects, and not just their controversial subject? If so, they are functioning as part of the community, and working towards the social meaning of the site. However, if all their postings are on one subject or group of subjects, and are offensive to a significant minority of researchers, we must conclude that the researcher is not here to be part of the community of well-rounded individuals, but is only here to push a political/religious view, which is not appropriate here. There are other forums for that. I think we ought to tolerate views that many of us find offensive from other genuine researchers, but not from people who have signed up purely to push that offensive view.

In everyday life, many of us tolerate friends and acquaintances with unpalatable views on certain subjects because of other redeeming features. But we wouldn't put up with people whose only feature, whose only topic of conversation, was what we found offensive. I suggest it should be the same here.

Otto Fisch

25.07.02 Front Page

Back Issue Page