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

Last Thursday, an innocent Researcher made a posting asking: 'What's the BNP?' Several of us provided robust descriptions of the extreme-right British National Party. I used the Smiley rather than any explicit expletives. However, I did also use two strong four-letter words to describe the BNP. One begins with 'e' and is an anagram of 'vile', and the other begins with 'N' and relates to a political movement popular in Germany in the 1930s.

The following day, I was surprised to receive an e-mail telling me that my posting had been hidden, as it might offend some readers. I queried the decision by e-mail. I couldn't see how anyone other than BNP supporters could be offended by what I'd written. Was it, I asked, BBC policy to censor anything that might offend the far right?

I haven't had an answer to that, but I have had an e-mail in which I was informed: 'A member of the Community drew our attention to this Posting, and we upheld that complaint.'

Which tells us two things:

1) Somewhere amongst us, there lurks a Researcher who is sufficiently sympathetic to the BNP to make a formal complaint when they're being lambasted; and

2) The Italics are willing to support such a complaint on behalf of the poor, cruelly maligned fascists.

I have to say that I find both those thoughts deeply disturbing.

Playing the devils advocate, do not the supporters of that party deserve the same treatment by the Towers as do the supporters of other parties? Mind you am I woefully ignorant of Brittish politics and know nothing of the issues at hand.

Good to see you about however. And please don't look at my comment as inflamitory. I mean you no disrespect by it. I do however believe in equality completely. Even for my enemies.

Hi Ormie,

How are you doing? You're on my friends list, which is why I saw your journal entry...

I get involved with editorial policy quite a lot these days, which may or may not be a good thing!

I think that these decisions are make out of a perceived need to give - how would they put it - a fair, and balanced opinion of all political parties - ie it isn't fair to put down one party, because maybe, just maybe, they aren't representative of the views of the party or it's members.

If any party were *allowed* to be publicly disparaged, the BBC could be seen to be bias. Which for some parties that could be seen to be reasonable behaviour - but where does that end?

Could and should the BBC be allowed to judge who are and who aren't the *good* parties?

Ormy, Peta said exactly what I meant. And as I said, I am ignorant of the party involved. Just playing devils advocate.

It is an issue that I run into in my own country. Those who's views I find evil and obscene still should be granted the same rights as me.

Hi Ormondroyd,
I found myself in the same situation, and like you I find the whole thing worrying on a number of levels. Any ideas if a hidden posting stays on any kind of disciplinary record? I don't want a minor indiscretion to get me in any kind of strife.
sbe

Particularly with the current round of local elections going on, I think you'll find there are some fairly strict rules about what the BBC can and can't say about political parties, and we all know how twitchy them upstairs (not DNA staff) get about commenst made by Researchers being confused for comments made by the BBC...

Hi summerbayexile,

Don't be concerned at all, there's no tally sheet, particularly when people quite evidently aren't deliberately posting in contradiction of the rules. We don't expect people to always know if something is okay to post or not - for instance its really quite easy to post up something that is potentially defamatory, without realising it. That's no problem at all.

When people do start causing problems they are normally doing it fairly deliberately; and we always contact people by email to find out what is going on, so there's no risk of *accidentally* finding yourself in the Editors' black book.

Does that mean I'm not in your little black book, Peta?

On the serious side, the debate on whether or not to give the extreme wings right to express themselves have been up a few times in Denmark (the right seems to be more discussed although imho extremes are problematic no matter which side).

I am not fully up-to-date but I _think_ that currently a neo-nazi (-like) group actually operates a small and very little listened-to radio station on the reasons of free speech in the constitution.

I also believe that it has caused a wee bit of international concern that Denmark, an otherwise sensible country that even have had first-hand experience of Nazi rule, would allow such a thing.

It's not a matter, I think, that you can measure in black and white - I tend to be on the consitutional side and allow "everybody" free speech as long as they stay within the laws of using it. Even though personally I most certainly detest what these people have to say...

Thank you all for your feedback. I'm particularly grateful to Peta for clarifying the official position, especially as the e-mails I got from the Towers did seem a bit curt and dismissive. (I know they're busy, but... )

Let me try to explain the context of all this, especially for those like Marv who are blissfully ignorant of the BNP. They are an extreme right-wing party who used to advocate the forced removal of immigrant and ethnic minorities from the UK. They now say that, if they won power, such 'repatriation' would be 'voluntary'. However, they also advocate the repeal of all UK laws forbidding racial discrimination and incitement to racial hatred. (Many of their leading members have fallen foul of the incitement laws).

Where the BNP campaign most vigorously, there tends to be racial conflict. This is not to say that the BNP necessarily cause that conflict themselves, but their biggest campaigns and electoral successes have come in towns with a history of racial violence. The last time they held a rally in my home city, Bradford, it sparked some of the worst rioting ever seen in mainland Britain. The riot actually passed down the street where I live, leaving few windows intact; so it's hard for me to see this as an academic question about intellectual liberty.

That said, I certainly support other people's right to express views I find abhorrent. Many people urge a legal ban on the BNP. I'm not one of them. You can't remove hatred by law, and a ban would only give the BNP a chance to portray themselves as martyrs - something they've often done before. And then they'd reappear under another name.

At the same time, h2g2's House Rules imply that some opinions are beyond the pale. Racist postings are explicitly and rightly banned. As I said in one of my e-mails to the Towers: if that which might cause offence to the far right is unacceptable on h2g2, then is that rule against racist postings going to be revoked? A BNP supporter might well find it restrictive and annoying. There is a classic liberal dilemma here: to what extent do you support the freedoms of those who, given the chance, would deny such freedoms to others? I certainly don't have an answer.

Although the local elections were the subject of the conversation to which summerbayexile and I contributed our controversial postings, there was no special ban on political discussion in place for those elections. In any case, our postings were removed after the elections were over, in response to a complaint. It's the fact that someone made that complaint that disturbs me most.

I don't feel particularly angry towards the BBC or the Italics over this. I do appreciate their dilemma, so eloquently explained by Peta. What has really shaken me is the realisation that someone amongst us is willing to use the 'yikes' button to defend the ultra-right from attack.

Suddenly, this place doesn't feel quite so safe any more.

Hello there,

Thanks to Peta for explaining that - however, I would like to point out that it is not h2g2 policy to discuss individual moderation decisions on site. The system we have provides everyone with the recourse to complain back, via email. The (wider DNA) policy is outlined here on the Hub: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/hub/A792821#7

Thanks very much,

Natalie

It may not be h2g2 policy to discuss moderation decisions on site, but just to add my , I think that in the circumstances, Ormondroyd had every right and every reason to speculate and discuss with us the possible reasons behind the decision, and the moral and political implications implied by it.

Myself, I find it very worrying - and also I find it offensive that someone complained about such a post.

Hello there,

I fully agree - Ormondroyd had every right to mention an issue that he felt strongly about. However, I just wanted to reiterate the policy of not discussing moderation issues on the site in case our not seeming fully engaged in debates of this sort was seen as a lack of interest. This is definitely not the case - we are always happy to comment on moderation policy in general.

However, should a Researcher disagree with a moderation decision and require feedback from an Italic then the best way to get this (due to the policy) is by replying to the moderation email. We will then do our best to respond in a way that will fully explain exactly why the post was failed. Our intention is to be helpful rather than dismissive - we're sorry if it seemed this way and have borne your comments in mind.

Hope that helps!

Natalie

Well, well. It seems I've been upsetting our friends in the pointy hoods again... 8-) http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F112791?thread=323381