Confirmation has appeared here over the past two days, if I needed it, that lots of people do not really believe in free speech.
Richard of Orléans will forgive the thought that he would not be everyone's choice to lecture on the importance of expressing opinions without the least hint of rudeness. No, I have not seen the Irish News article in full. I gave the flavour of it, as best I could from perusal of news reports (using sources I regard as usually dependable), and made it clear that the review contained further criticisms. I do not even know if the article can be viewed on any news databases, given that it led to a libel action and newspaper librarians tend to get jumpy in such circumstances. Added point: you can read more about this in Roy Greenslade's blog at the Guardian Media website. But my argument did not rest on the precise nature of the criticism. I was more concerned with the principle. Take away a critic's right to criticise and you may as well empty whole shelves of public libraries, forbid serious discussion of any artistic, sporting or other human endeavour and ban Simon Cowell from the air. Well, maybe the last reference wasn't my strongest point. The blogosphere seems, at first thought, an odd place for people to be applauding ferocious penalties for those who express views they find unpalatable. But when you study some of the more obscene libel awards made particularly but not always by juries, it is not so surprising after all. Since Britain, I am pleased to say, is still a newspaper reading country, many of the jurors taking part in the exercise are likely themselves to be avid consumers of the press. Bill Taylor refers to critics on major Canadian papers (this is an amended reference; see my comment) making repeat visits before a stridently critical restaurant view appears and this seems eminently sensible and fair. The fact that it would still not be enough for some, more concerned with clipping the wings of journalists, rather supports the opening lines of this post.
Richard of Orléans will forgive the thought that he would not be everyone's choice to lecture on the importance of expressing opinions without the least hint of rudeness. No, I have not seen the Irish News article in full. I gave the flavour of it, as best I could from perusal of news reports (using sources I regard as usually dependable), and made it clear that the review contained further criticisms. I do not even know if the article can be viewed on any news databases, given that it led to a libel action and newspaper librarians tend to get jumpy in such circumstances. Added point: you can read more about this in Roy Greenslade's blog at the Guardian Media website. But my argument did not rest on the precise nature of the criticism. I was more concerned with the principle. Take away a critic's right to criticise and you may as well empty whole shelves of public libraries, forbid serious discussion of any artistic, sporting or other human endeavour and ban Simon Cowell from the air. Well, maybe the last reference wasn't my strongest point. The blogosphere seems, at first thought, an odd place for people to be applauding ferocious penalties for those who express views they find unpalatable. But when you study some of the more obscene libel awards made particularly but not always by juries, it is not so surprising after all. Since Britain, I am pleased to say, is still a newspaper reading country, many of the jurors taking part in the exercise are likely themselves to be avid consumers of the press. Bill Taylor refers to critics on major Canadian papers (this is an amended reference; see my comment) making repeat visits before a stridently critical restaurant view appears and this seems eminently sensible and fair. The fact that it would still not be enough for some, more concerned with clipping the wings of journalists, rather supports the opening lines of this post.
Labels: censorship, critics, free speech, juries, libel, press
Recent Comments