The irony and the hypocrisy are obvious but allow me to indulge myself.
People can and frequently do, say all manner of things to and about one another on the internet – not, necessarily because they value “freedom of expression” but because they usually have a false identity, thereby easily avoiding having to face any consequences for their actions. In this way, they are not much different from the sleazy sportsman who wants his abuse of two women kept from his adoring public.
They clamour for identities to be revealed whilst cowering behind an avatar and a stupid name. But they may not be as safe as they might like to think.
I remember, many years ago, as a student, having the difference between the British and American law on press freedom illustrated to me by means of two headlines. In one inch caps, one of them proclaimed, “POLICE SHOOTING: MAN HELD”, the other, “AXE MURDERER CAPTURED!” I can safely leave it up to you to decide which was which.
So, it may be difficult for American friends to appreciate the furore that has erupted in the U.K. this week, over the naming on Twitter of a footballer, whom the Courts had decreed could not be named in the British press in connection with anything other than his profession. Briefly, the facts appear to be these:
1. Footballer has sex with minor “celebrity” whose “talent” appears to be that she is young and pretty.
2. Minor ”celebrity” convinces herself that footballer will leave wife and children and take up with her.
3. Footballer, apparently, has no intention of doing so.
4. Hell hath no fury like a woman done up like a kipper and so minor “celebrity” decides that she can get revenge and make a bob or two into the bargain by selling the story of the encounter to a “News” paper.
5. Footballer pays out approx £250,000 to secure a “super injunction” forbidding the press not only from reporting the affair but even that an injunction had been sought in the first place!
6. Naturally, everyone close to the pair knows about it and, pretty soon, by the miracle of Twitter, so do several thousand other people.
7. Press feigns righteous indignation that it cannot report on something that scores of thousands of people already know about – when, in reality, they see an opportunity to stick it to the legislature.
8. This muddles along for a few days until, at last, an MP (of whom no-one has heard until now), uses Parliamentary Privilege to name the footballer.
9. World comes to an end
So what does this have to do with… well, anything, really?
Well, it’s all about freedom, isn’t it? Freedom of Expression; Freedom of The Press; Freedom of Speech, for God’s sake! Who could be against such things?
Well, er…me, actually. Sometimes.
Most right-thinking people, I think, really should be finding it quite difficult to decide whose side they are on in this matter. At first sight, the case for “freedom” seems a powerful one. Let me outline some of the reasons why I would support such a case…
a) It’s certainly seems extremely distasteful that an act designed to protect the weak and powerless from the worst excesses of totalitarian government should be used by the wealthy in order to keep their seedy life-choices from the public and, in this particular case, to ensure that the footballer’s “commercial value” was not compromised.
b) And should not those who use the press to increase their public profile, not be subject to its wrath and indignation when public morals are outraged?
c) The net of this law seems to be made of very fine mesh, allowing only the slipperiest of eels to slither out of it. The rich and the powerful are frequently those responsible for matters that are in the public interest (as opposed to those that the public is interested in) That they could be protected from investigation by super injunctions, with a strong possibility that their actions could go unreported and deeds unpunished, sits very uneasily indeed with most people.
d) Also, the internet being what it is, is it sensible to champion a law whose conditions can so easily be breached?
e) And should not someone who aspires to be called an author be championing his right to put into words for public consumption anything he wishes?
Mmm…
O.K. Let’s have a look at the reasons why I might oppose it.
a) I support the Human Rights Act. One of its terms protects the individual's right to privacy. We all do things, which, were they to be in the public domain, might prove embarrassing to us and to those who care for us and so, one might think we would be in support of at least limited privacy laws where no public interest is served by revealing the truth. Why should the mere fact that something is true be reason enough to reveal it?
b) I sort of support the libel laws, which aim to prevent newspapers from printing untruths. I'd like to be able to trust the veracity of what I read.
c) I find the public clamour for so-called “super injunctions” to be abolished a little disturbing. The “interest” of the public in this case is merely prurient and, of course, whipped up by our holier-than-thou press whose goal is not to right some tremendous wrong but to sell more papers.
d) I believe that the affairs of a footballer and his paramour are of no concern to anyone but those close to each party? Do we not, as a nation, demean ourselves by wishing to learn more about such things?
Yes, I’m sounding pompous. But that’s what happens when one puts on the fell boots and stomps off towards the moral high ground.
I don't think it's for self-seeking MPs to flout the law for their own ends and, more seriously, I remain concerned that those who think that the law will need to bend in order to accommodate the internet may be deluding themselves. It isn’t difficult to pass laws in the U.K. and any time it has felt threatened, the Establishment has acted to diminish that threat and has not baulked at diminishing our freedoms in order to do so. The case of the super injunctions may well result in changes to our laws but they may well not be the changes that the majority of people will be expecting. The internet is a wonder that we must never take for granted and which we abuse at our peril.
People can and frequently do, say all manner of things to and about one another on the internet – not, necessarily because they value “freedom of expression” but because they usually have a false identity, thereby easily avoiding having to face any consequences for their actions. In this way, they are not much different from the sleazy sportsman who wants his abuse of two women kept from his adoring public.
They clamour for identities to be revealed whilst cowering behind an avatar and a stupid name. But they may not be as safe as they might like to think.
I remember, many years ago, as a student, having the difference between the British and American law on press freedom illustrated to me by means of two headlines. In one inch caps, one of them proclaimed, “POLICE SHOOTING: MAN HELD”, the other, “AXE MURDERER CAPTURED!” I can safely leave it up to you to decide which was which.
So, it may be difficult for American friends to appreciate the furore that has erupted in the U.K. this week, over the naming on Twitter of a footballer, whom the Courts had decreed could not be named in the British press in connection with anything other than his profession. Briefly, the facts appear to be these:
1. Footballer has sex with minor “celebrity” whose “talent” appears to be that she is young and pretty.
2. Minor ”celebrity” convinces herself that footballer will leave wife and children and take up with her.
3. Footballer, apparently, has no intention of doing so.
4. Hell hath no fury like a woman done up like a kipper and so minor “celebrity” decides that she can get revenge and make a bob or two into the bargain by selling the story of the encounter to a “News” paper.
5. Footballer pays out approx £250,000 to secure a “super injunction” forbidding the press not only from reporting the affair but even that an injunction had been sought in the first place!
6. Naturally, everyone close to the pair knows about it and, pretty soon, by the miracle of Twitter, so do several thousand other people.
7. Press feigns righteous indignation that it cannot report on something that scores of thousands of people already know about – when, in reality, they see an opportunity to stick it to the legislature.
8. This muddles along for a few days until, at last, an MP (of whom no-one has heard until now), uses Parliamentary Privilege to name the footballer.
9. World comes to an end
So what does this have to do with… well, anything, really?
Well, it’s all about freedom, isn’t it? Freedom of Expression; Freedom of The Press; Freedom of Speech, for God’s sake! Who could be against such things?
Well, er…me, actually. Sometimes.
Most right-thinking people, I think, really should be finding it quite difficult to decide whose side they are on in this matter. At first sight, the case for “freedom” seems a powerful one. Let me outline some of the reasons why I would support such a case…
a) It’s certainly seems extremely distasteful that an act designed to protect the weak and powerless from the worst excesses of totalitarian government should be used by the wealthy in order to keep their seedy life-choices from the public and, in this particular case, to ensure that the footballer’s “commercial value” was not compromised.
b) And should not those who use the press to increase their public profile, not be subject to its wrath and indignation when public morals are outraged?
c) The net of this law seems to be made of very fine mesh, allowing only the slipperiest of eels to slither out of it. The rich and the powerful are frequently those responsible for matters that are in the public interest (as opposed to those that the public is interested in) That they could be protected from investigation by super injunctions, with a strong possibility that their actions could go unreported and deeds unpunished, sits very uneasily indeed with most people.
d) Also, the internet being what it is, is it sensible to champion a law whose conditions can so easily be breached?
e) And should not someone who aspires to be called an author be championing his right to put into words for public consumption anything he wishes?
Mmm…
O.K. Let’s have a look at the reasons why I might oppose it.
a) I support the Human Rights Act. One of its terms protects the individual's right to privacy. We all do things, which, were they to be in the public domain, might prove embarrassing to us and to those who care for us and so, one might think we would be in support of at least limited privacy laws where no public interest is served by revealing the truth. Why should the mere fact that something is true be reason enough to reveal it?
b) I sort of support the libel laws, which aim to prevent newspapers from printing untruths. I'd like to be able to trust the veracity of what I read.
c) I find the public clamour for so-called “super injunctions” to be abolished a little disturbing. The “interest” of the public in this case is merely prurient and, of course, whipped up by our holier-than-thou press whose goal is not to right some tremendous wrong but to sell more papers.
d) I believe that the affairs of a footballer and his paramour are of no concern to anyone but those close to each party? Do we not, as a nation, demean ourselves by wishing to learn more about such things?
Yes, I’m sounding pompous. But that’s what happens when one puts on the fell boots and stomps off towards the moral high ground.
I don't think it's for self-seeking MPs to flout the law for their own ends and, more seriously, I remain concerned that those who think that the law will need to bend in order to accommodate the internet may be deluding themselves. It isn’t difficult to pass laws in the U.K. and any time it has felt threatened, the Establishment has acted to diminish that threat and has not baulked at diminishing our freedoms in order to do so. The case of the super injunctions may well result in changes to our laws but they may well not be the changes that the majority of people will be expecting. The internet is a wonder that we must never take for granted and which we abuse at our peril.
RSS Feed
