h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

As you say, if freedom of speech is restricted in a state, that's a bad thing, for a bunch of reasons. Whereas a bible group restricting free speech to an atheist *within the group* is probably a good thing.

But suppose 99.9% of all communication is done via Virtual Telepathy(tm), a product owned by MegaCorp. And suppose that MegaCorp forbade the main Left-wing party from communicating using its product, so instead they had to laboriously drive around and meet people face to face (telephones being obsolete in this hypothetical world). Clearly this would be an unacceptable assault on freedom of political speech, regardless of whether Virtual Telepathy is a 'private space' or a 'public space' or whatever.

The key difference, I think, is size. We can tolerate the bible group because it is small, and because there are plenty of alternatives, and because discussion groups are easy to set up. We can't tolerate MegaCorp because it is huge, and there are no real alternatives, and because it's essentially imporssible to create a serious competitor to Virtual Telepathy(tm), not least because of patent and copyright law.

Now let's look at the BBC. Firstly, it's big. It's not as big as MegaCorp, but it is the number one website used by people in the UK, according to the BBC's own statistics. There certainly are online alternatives, but most of them suffer drawbacks not present for material on the BBC: IE, they cost money, or contain adverts. Finally, where it would be easy to set up a new discussion group, and pretty easy to host a new dinner party, creating a competitor to the BBC would take huge amounts of money. Millions, perhaps billions.

So it's just not true to say that freedom of speech concerns don't apply to the BBC. Quite rightly there would be a massive outcry if the BBC suddenly decided it wasn't going to allow Tories to use its site. It *is* true to say that restrictions on freedom of speech on BBC Online are not as concerning as the sort of complete restrictions you find in places like China.

What do you think?

Hi Lucinda,

Thanks for your comments. I think you're right about MegaCorp - something that large and important would become a vital part of the political process (in terms of discussion and debate) and so free speech through that forum / medium would be of politial importance.

My article was more about h2g2 generally than BBCi, but I think a lot of the points still apply.

"So it's just not true to say that freedom of speech concerns don't apply to the BBC."

I think this is right, but I don't think that I suggested otherwise. The BBC is clearly an important part of the political process for all kinds of reasons, and the online content is also important for all of the reasons that you state. But I don't see h2g2 as being an integral part of that BBC political role any more than the Gardener's World messageboard (if there is such a thing). They're both niche communities, though this one has a much broader remit (and I suspect is a lot more fun). They're both part of the BBC, but it isn't *the* BBC, and I don't think that this site should have to take on the challenge of fulfilling the corporation's entire mandate, any more than any one programme or channel. This site can censor bad language for the same reason that kids's TV programmes with phone-ins can be censored.

I still think that h2g2 should offer the widest possible freedom of speech - I'm not sure I made this clear enough - because this is important to the social meaning of the site and the values of its community, and also to the social meaning and values of the BBC. So I certainly don't advocate a *reduction* in the amount of free speech on this site. I wanted to write something to defend the status quo (or something like it) from the "rights" brigade.

(I should say that I don't number you or "et al" incarnations among that number - from memory, all of your posts that I've read on free speech on this site are argued from what I've called the social meaning of the site, not from an abstract and (IMO) mistaken view of rights. I did have a few researchers in mind when I wrote this, but not you!)

I think the key point that you rightly make is about size. It is very possible that h2g2 will grow rapidly (I'd be interested to know from those who've been around longer than me if it is growing...) as the internet grows. In time, the site might become of political importance through sheer numbers. It's possible that sub-ed, ace, and scout roles will be performed by paid staff as the site grows. In time, the site might grow to such an extent that it would be impossible for anyone to follow Ask the h2g2 community in its entirity, or even to follow a single conversation. If this happens, the social meaning of the site within the BBC and within the UK, EU, and the world will change, and a review of moderation policy would definitely be needed.

Best wishes

Otto.

Then I think we're roughly in agreement

I talked about the BBC (or rather BBCi) because by and large the same rules apply across the BBC, so it seems right to deal with it as a single 'block' of moderation/censorship.

A lot of the rules don't deal with *what* you can say, but rather *how* you can say it. So, don't use certain swear-words, but you can write the same message in a different manner. Don't use graphic sexual language, but the actual content can normally be got across in more child-friendly terms. All of that I'm happy with in principle. In practice I'd prefer it be done reactively rather than proactively, but that's because of the consequences and (as a license-fee payer) the cost.

However, some stuff does deal with what you can say. I don't include the political debate restrictions on h2g2 during the last election, because there were specialist message boards available. I *do* include the moderation of those message boards, though. I was recently informed that a Researcher posting "hi, i'm a 26yo woman in Hampshire looking for no-strings sex" to their homespace would be moderated on the BBC. It was deemed unacceptable to mention the name of the inflammable liquid that goes into petrol bombs. All these things are genuine restrictions on free speech and are restricted across the *entire* BBCi.

Another potentially dangerous restriction is the BBC's approach to posts advocating illegal behaviour. It's long been a recognised part of politics that the people have no duty to obey an unjust law. Some argue quite the reverse: that if a government passes an unjust law you have a *duty* to disobey it, as to obey the law is to be complicit in that injustice. Hence the refusal to pay the poll tax, hence some trade union actions, and so on.

Another problem is the libel law. It's dangerous law already, and 'publishers' like the BBC err significantly on the side of caution, with the result that it is essentially impossible for me to write an entry on Nestle. They've given me one chance: write a well-balanced, libel-free, fully provable entry - if there's anything wrong with it then that's the chance gone, and I get no retries. Oh, and don't link to any website that I can't *prove* is free of libellous material.

And I'm getting off-topic with specific examples. The point is that BBCi does restrict certain types of discussion, and BBCi is certainly large enough for there to be free speech implications of that. Whether you can justify the restrictions on free speech is, of course, a seperate question. I don't believe in any kind of absolute 'right' to free speech, but equally I don't think you can ignore free speech just because any individual part of the BBC is comparatively small.

Gosh, that was over-long
-Martin

The contradiction I find in this debate is that the point seems to be that someone has the right to speak via a media like television or the internet in a manner different to the way they might to someone's face.

If a person were to air their anti-American views on, say, the issues surrounding September 11 at a pub in New York, they would almost certainly expect a beating - and the law might even be against them as it could be seen as provocation. But if someone speaks to a wider audience through, say, BBCi, they feel that because no-one can get to them directly that gives them the right to impunity.

If the audience increases, that means it's the individual's responsibility to be aware of the potential in whatever they say or write. because of the anonymity that the internet provides, many seem to forget that their faceless comments can still cause just as much offence as - if not more than - saying them to someone's face.

I'd say that there is no such thing as true 'freedom of speech' - and rightly so. Speech is a valuable communication tool, but it comes with a responsibility that comes with maturity. You simply cannot expect to say whatever you like and then refuse to accept the consequences. And that is the issue at heart with this debate. Many of the people who cry the loudest about their 'right' to free speech are the same people who refuse to accept that they need to consider the rights of others. admittedly, censorship can be misused to restrict opposition, but that doesn't mean that all censorship is bad; restricting sexual or violent content to protect children or people incapable of differentiating between reality and fiction is surely a good, well-intentioned action?


Jimster

> "and the law might even be against them as it could be seen as provocation"

Keyword: might.

So, you're saying that people are scared to exercise their freedom of speech face-to-face, because they might get beaten up. So when people are using a website, a telephone, a TV channel, radio, whatever - and they're not scared of exercising their freedom of speech - that this is a problem.

I'd argue the reverse: threats of physical violence are the problem, not the solution. Back in the days, saying that blacks and whites should be equal could get you beaten up in a large proportion of the country. Are you saying that those who fought, and passionately, for equal rights were in the wrong?

> "refuse to accept that they need to consider the rights of others"

Like what? Are you proposing some global right not to be offended? There's a Researcher on h2g2 who finds it offensive if I write 'God' and 'Buddha' in the same sentence. Should I self-censor appropriately? If we were face to face in some back street, and sie was a dangerous-looking person, I might well self-censor out of self-preservation. Does that mean that I should still self-censor if the same person approaches me on-line, or if I'm speaking to hir face-to-face just outside a police station, or if I'm broadcasting to an audience of millions that might happen to include hir?

There *are* recipient rights that are important. And the most important of all, standing head and shoulders above all others - is the right NOT to receive. The right to press the off-button. The right to leave the pub with the nasty anti-American. The right to walk on by the street preacher without listening. And those who advocate censorship sometimes forget that if they don't want to read something, they should STOP READING!

> "You simply cannot expect to say whatever you like and then refuse to accept the consequences."

Obviously people should be aware of the consequences of what they write. Someone wanting to air anti-USA views will no doubt be aware of the hostility and anger this can provoke - but they might also hope that by talking about these difficult issues, they can help influence American foreign policy into a more healthy direction. There are always both good and bad consequences to all our actions, and the wise person considers both, without elevating one above all others.

And obviously there are social consequences of speech, both good and bad. The *real* question is whether there should be *legal* consequences. Whether calling Jeffrey Archer a liar, back when he was unconvicted, should have resulted in the million-pound damages that it did. What do you think?

> "restricting sexual or violent content to protect children or people incapable of differentiating between reality and fiction is surely a good, well-intentioned action?"

Certainly. To quote myself:

> "I don't believe in any kind of absolute 'right' to free speech"

It's a question of amounts and boundaries - as it so often is in reality. Censoring "hi, i'm a 26yo woman in Hampshire looking for no-strings sex" is too much - it protects nobody, and it hurts as badly as every other free speech restriction.

-Martin