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

I am very saddened by the storms on the site about the policy regarding Iraq and the war. One of the reasons I have not been posting commentary in the threads on the subject is that I wanted to work out what my reactions are to the policy before posting anything, and it seems pointless to post in the threads themselves.



Expectations are funny things. It is never people who let us down, it is our expectations that let us down. We let ourselves down in fact. We choose to believe certain things about people, and base our emotions on those beliefs.

If you believe that the BBC is independent, and noble, and an advocate of free speech, then you may feel they have let us down. If you believe that they are a government lacky, then you will feel vindicated in that belief. If you feel that you have a right to free speech, (which is a constitutional right in the US, but which is not a constitional right in the UK), then you will feel that your rights have been violated.

My current beliefs about h2g2 are very different from what they have been in the past. They have been drilled into me by the experiences I have had of the BBC before they took over the site, by the changes to the site when they took over, by my experiences with the Zaphodistas, by the long history of the Short Guide to Short Words, by the disruptions and bans which were caused by LeKZ and the reactions to her of various researchers, by being a member of what was called the Small But Vocal Minority, and by the bans on specific subject matter during the 2001 General Election. I have been numbed into submission, or browbeaten into apathy. I don't know which.



In my view the BBC own the site and they have to take the consequences for material published here. They are fully within their rights to do what they are doing, there is nothing legally wrong.

The question is whether or not there is something morally wrong about it. And here we come to the slippery issue of rights, and the even more slippery issue of duties. At a trivial level, my right to freedom of expression conflicts with my neighbours right to be able to sleep at night if I choose to exercise my freedom of expression with a drum kit at 3.00 in the morning. In a civilised society laws and moral codes are ways of balancing the rights and duties of an individual.

The BBC has limited resources, and they have an odd mix of moral duties.

One is a duty of care for those resources, they should not squander money defending avoidable law-suits, and as a web-publisher they have overall responsibility for the content of the site.

Another is a duty of care for the brand. The press in the UK would attack the BBC if it was seen to be publishing material which was racist, or which incited violence, for instance. Such material would damage the BBC brand. (Personally I don't give a tinkers' cuss for the BBC brand, but it is understandable that those who are employed by the BBC should take steps to protect its brand).

Another is the duty to present a balanced view. Personally I think there is no such thing as a balanced view. In classical Athens the balanced view was that slavery was acceptable and only property owning citizens should vote. Similar views were normal less than two centuries ago both in the UK and in the US. However if you posted such things here now they would be moderated away as iciting racial hatred. Balance is entirely contextual, and in fact does not exist.

Finally there is their duty, and indeed our duty, to the nation which is in a state of war. Rights are subsumed to duty at a time like this, and whatever ones personal opinions, this view is enforced and enforcable, both here on h2g2 and in the world at large.

Maybe in some other parallel universe there is a world without war, a world where the right to freedom of speech does not clash with the illegality of child pornography, where all animals are vegetarian, where no-one hunts foxes, where food is organic, and where no-one poisons planets.

But this is the real world we live in, and we must cut our coats to suit the cloth.

So... the BBC is within its legal rights to do what it is doing, and my personal opinion is that the moral case is arguable, though not by any means proven.



Moving on to the Italics' position. I have had many public spats with the Italics, and I still have some issues with some aspects of what they do and how they do it.

However I respect anyone who learns and grows and I have seen the Italics grow into their jobs both as individuals and as a team. I have absolutely no doubt at all that within their office there is a similar spread of concerns and reactions to the rules which they have been told to enforce, however unlike the rest of us the Italics have no right to express those concerns and reactions.

I feel a great deal of respect for the Italics, and a very great deal of sympathy. They are doing difficult jobs defltly and with grace. One of the many reasons I could not work for an organisation like the BBC, or for the Government for that matter, is that I could not reign in my own anarchist tendencies, and I have total respect for people who can.



Moving on to my fellow researchers.

I have observed a variety of reactions here, and I am going to generalise unacceptably.

I observe, and observed in the past, that the people who tend to get most het up about freedom of speech on the site are Americans. Americans are used to the right to the freedom of speech, and find it difficult to come to terms with a website where there is not in fact that right. Unfortunately the BBC is an immovable object, and while it has been possible to make small shifts, such as the move back to peer moderation, no-one will ever change the nature of the beast.

My message to those Americans, and indeed all researchers, who are stuck on the issue of freedom of speech, is to use this as an opportunity to gain an understanding of the reality of how this works, and how it is tempered and balanced by duty in other countries.

Become anthropologists, and seek to understand *why* what is happening is happening. When you understand the reasons you can bring about change far more effectively, or else you may come to accept the reasons.



I observe that a lot of the people who have the clearest moral stance on this are very young. It is easy to see the world in moral absolutes when you are young. Things are either black or white. With age one comes to ask the question 'if that is so, where does that leave the sound of birdsong?' It may be patronsising to say that 'the world is infinitely more complex, more sophisticated, more interesting, and bleaker than that, as you will discover when you are older'. But patronising or not, it is true.

My message to the very young here is to think about what they are seeing, and to start from the assumption that there are good reasons. Question the reasons, and question your own reasoning, but don't leap onto a monochrome high horse. Use this as a chance to gain a little more sophistication, and a greateer understanding of the world.



I also observe that some people whose moral sophistication I respect are deeply troubled. Some have resigned as ACEs or Gurus, others are leaving the site entirely.

My message to you is to ask you to keep posting the complex, contradictory and passionate posts which you are posting. My greatest problem with myself at this moment is the numbness of my own emotional response. Please be passionate, we need your passion.



This is a time of great change in the world at large. In the words of Richard O'Brien on another subject entirely: 'Nothing will ever be the same'. In fact, nothing has been the same for a very very long time, though the first time most of us noticed it was on the morning of September 11th 2001.

My personal fear is that the schism between Christendom and Islam will tear the world apart, but, disempowered and disenfranchised as I am, there is nothing I can do about it.

Change is frightening, and fear makes tyrants of us all. Fear forces us into the unpleasant and dangerous parts of our personalities. Fear makes us kill, it makes us hate, and it makes us hateful. Peace protesters were reported as chanting 'Kill Blair'. A perfect example of fxxking for virginity if ever I saw one.

Fear also numbs and opresses and silences us. It is a dangerous thing.

Fear can bring out the noblest and best in us too. Holding fast to what is good and what is right, and doing it even though it is almost impossible to know what is good and right, and almost impossible to think through the fear, is one of the noblest things that any human can aspire to.

Ours is one of the few generations on the planet which has been largely free from fear, and one of the greatest tests of us as a generation is how we handle it now that we feel it so deeply and so suddenly.



I apologise for the length of this. I have not posted on these subjects, or the subject of this war before, because I have so few opinions. I feel a lot but conclude very little. So I am sorry that I have used so many words to say almost nothing. On the other hand, it has been therapeutic for me to get it all off my chest. If you are still reading this, I probably owe you a drink.



And to bring us all back to the subject, the BBC and the current restrictions, I am going to quote Mark Moxon, who said what has become a mantra for me when things here get too heated:

"It's only a website"

Ben

Well, Indeed.

You'll not be surprised to learn I wasn't surprised by the restrictions when they came, and indeed, as the BBC have provided an alternative place for those voicing an opinion into the slide into chaos, I find it hard to get worked up about it as a matter of freedom of speech. It isn't. For many this appears to be a matter of convenience - the BBC doesn't quite work the way it should, and the new site rrequires us to sign up and use a 'real' name (and I'll forego the paranoia of the rersearcher who uttered the words 'secret police' when complaining about that ).

In order to avoid temptation, I've unsubscribed from those threads that where involved in the discussion (idleness overcomes indignation when it comes to digging out old threads that I've unsubscribed from ).

Life's to short, it's only a website, and dammit, cliche though it is, careless talk *does* cost lives.

Now why the hell couldn't I put it as succinctly as that, Bluesey?

Thanks

Ben

Well, Indeed.

You'll not be surprised to learn I wasn't surprised by the restrictions when they came, and indeed, as the BBC have provided an alternative place for those voicing an opinion into the slide into chaos, I find it hard to get worked up about it as a matter of freedom of speech. It isn't. For many this appears to be a matter of convenience - the BBC doesn't quite work the way it should, and the new site rrequires us to sign up and use a 'real' name (and I'll forego the paranoia of the rersearcher who uttered the words 'secret police' when complaining about that ).

In order to avoid temptation, I've unsubscribed from those threads that where involved in the discussion (idleness overcomes indignation when it comes to digging out old threads that I've unsubscribed from ).

Life's to short, it's only a website, and dammit, cliche though it is, careless talk *does* cost lives.

Wow, Ben, that's quite some statement! Aren't you mature and tolerant, then! I can do little but agree with the vast majority of what you say. However you'll forgive me, I hope, if I seize this opportunity to rant a little? Good.

<'the world is infinitely more complex, more sophisticated, more interesting, and bleaker than that, as you will discover when you are older'. But patronising or not, it is true.>

This is the most annoying truth I ever came across: "you'll understand when you're older"!



"Fear is the mind-killer"



I'm hoping that fundamentalists of both sides are in small enough minorities that the normally silent and quiescent majorities can keep them under control.

The Islamic extremists carry out 'martyr operations'; the Christian extremists welcome the possibility of a third world war, as this (Armageddon) brings the second coming of their Lord, and their ascension to Heaven, closer. A plague on all of them I say!

Thanks for your "few opinions", Ben. I, for one, gained by reading them. You are a wise little b****r you know!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I was very much the youngest in my family, and the phrase 'when you are older' rang thoughout my childhood and on into my adult life.

It is a shame that I am as intolerant of the certainty of youth as I am. Maybe, when I really *am* older and wiser, I will regain my tolerance of even that.

Thanks PC - you are pretty wise yourself. I just wish I had some conclusions and some certainties right now.

B

Okay, it wasn't succinct, but it was cogent and came from the heart. I think it takes an awful lot more courage to stand up and say that one holds a morally ambivalent position than it does to adopt a Manichean attitude about something like the coming war.

Of course, if I wanted *real* moral clarity I could go to my local town centre where the 'Socialist Workers' (with *beautifully* soft hands) unleash tirades against Blair and his supporters. But when you always see the world through deep-red tinted spectacles, other shades of opinion become indistinguishable. h2g2 doesn't deserve to be made part of this kind of crass stereotyping.

Hey Ben - you owe me a drink

I agree with you! But then a balanced and sane (if slightly anarchistic) view is just what I would expect from you

Well I agree with all of you as well. Where is this website where we can use our real names?

I would join you for a drink - but fear has just about driven me away from drink - I s'pose you could say that that is a good outcome! I tell a lie, it hasn't stopped me from going to the pub.

I expect you've guessed by now I don't always write very much, but the sentiments are there all the same.

I was also the youngest, a girl amongst two boys who were like chalk and cheese. I agreed with both of them

That is probably why you always see me talking to boys - there are only one or two girls I can talk to.

ChiKi

Well said, Ben. I wish I could express myself half as well as you do.

I'll have a .

I think you owe me a drink anyway

Well said Ben, thanks a lot for posting some sanity hear. I have tried to argue with these people, the naievaty of youth I supose, (my naitivy), but I found it imppossible to argue, with hte phrase, "this sucks big time,"

Nice to hear a reasoned voice.

Oh yeah, mine's an

Drinks all round then - that'll cost me more than

Ben

I'll chip in as well, for some reason I wish it was called

Do you think I could put the slogan "freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of publication" in my user name as well?

I'll chip in as well, for some reason I wish it was called

Do you think I could put the slogan "freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of publication" in my user name as well?

Please do - I nicked it from a comment by Amy the Ant, so it isn't my idea. But when she said it, I realised that it did summarise my view that the debates about freedom of speech were missing the point, so as I said, I nicked it.

B

personally I favor the covert response. If I want to talk about the arway and ushbay and addamsay ussienhay and stuff like that I can because I am smarter than the program that scans this moderated newsgroup

Backspeak, eh?

'You'll understand when you're older"? I cal also remember my parents saying this. Trouble is, that lots of people don't understand that much more when they're older. Some stay stuck in the same mind-set for generations (often the same mind-set as their parents and grandparents).

Sometimes, the older we get, the more we realise how much there is we *don't *understand.

I'll split the drinks with you, too, Ben. I enjoyed reading your synopsis.

I tend to agree with all of you, although I don't have enough to stand a round.
(Ben, you still get yours in August!)

It's their field and their ball, so they can tell us when to play. Although they are the media, our little corner of it isn't. Unfortunately it could be represented as such by a third party. The Beeb seems a funny old cow, but a good milker.

I take issue with * the schism between Christendom and Islam will tear the world apart* since I have heard it so many times before (insert *the West and Communism*, *Egypt and Israel*, etc.). It may be that I am so unflustered because I too was the youngest, although I am not sure if that was because my sisters gave me a sense of resignation or that they fought and now are friends. This too shall pass.

In any case, I may age but they can't make me grow up. So like some of those young people you talk about, I will retain an optimism and ideal, but unlike them I will make a side-bet.