Censorship and the
Web: On February 8, 2005, The
Irish Times published an article referring to single mothers as “mothers of
bastards”.
Most of the editorial defended publication saying the paper was committed to, “free speech and the promotion of robust debate”.
Censorship is oft-misunderstood but it was surprising that someone of Kennedy’s experience was so confused.The Myers article should never have been published by The Times – on grounds of taste and decency. This would not have been censorship. Refusing to disseminate information is not the same as curtailing freedom of expression, which is censorship.
Declining to publish, would not have interfered with Myers’ right to freedom of speech. It would simply have been the paper saying it did not want to be associated with his views and therefore would not abet their dissemination. If Myers wanted his opinion known he could have bawled it from a soap box in downtown Dublin or hired a plane to trail a banner across the skies among numerous possibilities. This would have been none of his employers business.
A new front
Harmonising and harnessing these competing forces in the public interest inevitably boils down to values; who – or more correctly what forces – get to determine them. Governments and commercial interests dominate the forces that want to determine the values that frame regulation for political and financial reasons.
Counties like China, Russia and Middle Eastern states are forcing Search Engines and Social Media to block material for political and security reasons. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are also under pressure from this quarter and from commercial interests who are particularly concerned about protecting intellectual property.
 |
| Kevin Myers: Cooking up a storm |
It sparked a public outcry and led to death threats against the author, Kevin Myers, that were taken seriously enough for the Garda to provide him with round-the-clock protection for a time.
Deploying his usual Victoriana sarcasm in his Irishman’s Diary column, Myers posed the question: “how many girls consciously embark upon a career of mothering bastards because it seems a good way of getting money and accommodation from the State?”
Myers went on to coin the acronym MoB (Mothers of Bastards), accusing single mothers of having, "no career to speak of, other than - that is - from cash-crop whelping".
Recognising that publication of the article was indefensible, the newspaper’s editor at the time Geraldine Kennedy ordered Myers to pen an apology, which was published two days later. Kennedy, who had passed the article for publication, also wrote an editorial, though the nearest she got to contrition was in the last line, “The Irish Times regrets the offence caused”.
Deploying his usual Victoriana sarcasm in his Irishman’s Diary column, Myers posed the question: “how many girls consciously embark upon a career of mothering bastards because it seems a good way of getting money and accommodation from the State?”
Myers went on to coin the acronym MoB (Mothers of Bastards), accusing single mothers of having, "no career to speak of, other than - that is - from cash-crop whelping".
Recognising that publication of the article was indefensible, the newspaper’s editor at the time Geraldine Kennedy ordered Myers to pen an apology, which was published two days later. Kennedy, who had passed the article for publication, also wrote an editorial, though the nearest she got to contrition was in the last line, “The Irish Times regrets the offence caused”.
 |
| Geraldine Kennedy: smells a faint stink |
“The whole editorial process,” it continued, “tries to avoid undue interference in the opinions of columnists, except on factual and legal grounds. And when it does occur, the newspaper, more than any other, is criticised for censorship.”
Censorship is oft-misunderstood but it was surprising that someone of Kennedy’s experience was so confused.The Myers article should never have been published by The Times – on grounds of taste and decency. This would not have been censorship. Refusing to disseminate information is not the same as curtailing freedom of expression, which is censorship.
Declining to publish, would not have interfered with Myers’ right to freedom of speech. It would simply have been the paper saying it did not want to be associated with his views and therefore would not abet their dissemination. If Myers wanted his opinion known he could have bawled it from a soap box in downtown Dublin or hired a plane to trail a banner across the skies among numerous possibilities. This would have been none of his employers business.
Contrast this, with actual examples of censorship which dates back
to early civilisation and usually involve laws regulating religious, political and sexual expression.
A new front
Throughout history and
throughout the world – from poetry bans in Ancient Greek civilisation to the current ban on Nazi symbols in much of
Europe – censorship has been vigorously imposed on every imaginable channel of
expression from arts to radio, newspapers and TV. (Perhaps the commandment, "thou
shall not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain" is the earliest
known example.)
With the advent of the web, a new front has
been opened in the battle between freedom of expression and censorship. And unfortunately
misunderstanding of the concept is even more pronounced because so much is at stake
– for three particular reasons.
- The web is easily accessed, therefore pervasive and consequently more
powerful than any other media heretofore.
- The web has enhanced democracy, creating much greater levels of information
wealth among the general population. This is vigorously defended by freedom-of-speech
advocates.
- The web has led to the unregulated circulation of information and communication which is often inaccurate, defamatory, inciteful and dangerous. This is damaging to security, social cohesion and undermines information wealth.
 |
| Sinn Féin Vice President? |
Counties like China, Russia and Middle Eastern states are forcing Search Engines and Social Media to block material for political and security reasons. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are also under pressure from this quarter and from commercial interests who are particularly concerned about protecting intellectual property.
Social advocates have more
disparate interests ranging from libertarians who want unfettered access to
information to, for instance, children’s advocates who support the use of the Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) to filter out content of concern to
parents and educationalists.
Addressing these concerns requires
a proper understanding of what constitutes censorship and what constitutes
legitimate values of taste and decency – not to mention commercial rights and
security.
As the example of The Irish Times shows, that understanding
is in short supply.
Incidentally, in the same article, Myers referred to the then Member of the European Parliament Mary-Lou McDonald as, “super-sized MEP, Big Mac”. It passed unremarked. Offensive? Yes. Fit for publication? Also, yes.
No comments:
Post a Comment