The funeral of Margaret Thatcher will take place tomorrow. In her lifetime, as Prime Minister, she managed to divide the country. People with firm opinions and uncompromising stances usually do encourage strong views one way or the other. Since she won three consecutive elections and is still Britain's longest serving Prime Minister for over 100 years, those divisions clearly did not split the country into two equal parts, but the minority that opposed her of course became the most vociferous and violent.
The same will no doubt be the case during her funeral tomorrow. There are those who still hate her and will go out of their way to show it tomorrow. But those that make the loudest noise, as ever, will not necessarily be right. Maybe they are incapable of rational argument or perhaps after all this time (Thatcher resigned in 1990) their ineffectual resentment has still not evaporated or maybe they are just hateful, but demonstrating at a funeral will not endear them to anyone, nor elicit support for their views. Any violence will no doubt be condemned by all political parties. So such protesters will simply be dismissed as outside normal society.
But a separate debate has arisen which is much more interesting, and important, than whether you still like or dislike Thatcher. The police have said that, in policing the funeral, they are determined not to prevent freedom of speech. In this country, I'm pleased to say, dissent is allowed, even in public. But what is the limit of that dissent? To what extent is freedom of speech, or freedom of expression, or freedom of movement, restricted by public order legislation?
I am quite firm that freedom of speech should be permitted unconditionally. At any time, in any place. If someone wishes to stand up in church and say that religion is poppycock, that's fine by me. If they want to shout tomorrow that Thatcher was an evil woman, that's OK too. But they can't expect that theirs will be the only view expressed. And this is where demonstrations can run into legal difficulties. Holding up a banner is fine. Chanting what's on the banner is also fine. But when have you seen two opposing groups of demonstrators simply standing together chanting their opposing views? When one group seems to be chanting louder, insults will be bandied, jostling will begin and one group will no doubt soon physically attack the other. So where does the public order offence begin - when the chanting starts? When the chanting takes on an aggressive tone? When physical contact occurs? When the fighting starts? And which group committed the public order offence?
We can easily accept that a public order offence may have occurred when we hear a Muslim cleric preaching against the West. But what of a group dishonouring Margaret Thatcher and preaching against her? At what stage does freedom of speech spill over into an illegal act? A public order offence may well have occurred if a milk bottle is thrown at her coffin. But what if just the milk is thrown? Or what about holding up a placard covered in hate filled words and chanting hatred against her? Is this incitement to violence? Or maybe it's libel, legally punishable defamation? But at what stage would you be inhibiting a person's freedom of speech - when you take away their placard or when you move them along or when you arrest them?
There have been attempts to quantify freedom of speech for the purposes of demonstrating tomorrow. As usual it all sounds silly. It's a bit like a contract for behaviour on a date. This is OK, but that isn't. In the end, it will depend on the personal judgement of one police officer. And I suspect it will not be placards or chanting or turning one's back or singing, 'Ding dong - the Queen is dead' or even throwing milk that leads to arrest.
I sincerely hope violence doesn't arise. And, on the other hand, I hope too that the police will get it right. If many are arrested, far from turning in her grave, I suspect that Thatcher will be smiling. She had no time for trouble makers then and would certainly not have now.
So, even in death she arouses strong views. But, in the debate over freedoms in British society and the rights of the individual, I think I know where she would have drawn her uncompromising line.
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Tuesday, 16 April 2013
Sunday, 2 December 2012
PRESS FOR FREEDOM
Let's try and make some sense of the Levenson debate. Can you call it a debate? I will have to simplify things a bit, but, basically, Levenson wants better ethics in the press with some legislative back-up which he says wouldn't be control of the press. The press don't want the legislation, although they admit they got carried away and became too intrusive before. They want stricter self-regulation. The Labour party want all Levenson's recommendations implemented regardless. The Lib Dem part of the Coalition want them implemented too, including legislation. But the Conservative part of the Government doesn't want legislation, which it sees as press control. Meanwhile, those who had their phones hacked ('personalities' on the whole) want the press curbed. And the active section of the public seems to be moving against press freedom too; some 100,000 have signed the petition calling for legislation.
I find all this a bit odd.
I can see why Levenson recommended tougher oversight of the press. For a start, he had to, given his brief. No one, not even the press, would have accepted a recommendation from him to do nothing. The activities of reporters over the last few years had become totally unacceptable. The argument at the time, from the offending press, was that public interest was being served. And here we have a slight problem - is public interest served by publishing tittle-tattle about celebrities or are we just naturally avid gossipers and happy to read tittle-tattle? Of course, if criminal activity or even simply hypocrisy is uncovered, I guess you could argue that such activities as phone hacking might be justified. And, frankly, all that dramatic bleating by celebrities to Levenson (and interestingly to the press) about privacy didn't convince me at all. Of course celebrities would like to be in the newspapers for what might be called good publicity only. But that's not how it works. The latest broadside from Hugh Grant, who assumes we have forgotten the press articles revealing his assignation in a car with a prostitute, is a case in point. The more he blusters with affronted innocence, the more I remember how the fiction of his clean image was made known, and the less I am convinced that a watchdog backed up by legislation would have kept his seedy nightlife out of the news. OK, so there is a limit to the amount of celebrity news we really want to read in even the mass circulation newspapers. But surely it's legitimate to expose and show up a so-called clean-living film star. Shouldn't it also be right to investigate other blustering innocents in the interests of finding the truth?
Of course we have some difficulties if the press insist on publishing innuendos, despite failing to find evidence. This is where libel laws and a watchdog with teeth are an essential requirement. It is also where legislative provisions would not help.
Having said that, I am not at all interested in pics of the Duchess of Cambridge's breasts or Prince Harry's bottom. That doesn't mean that there should be no pictures of celebrities doing what they don't want us to see. But I don't need to know private addresses nor details of their children. I think I would be able to draw a line beyond which there is no real public interest.
But what exactly does Levenson mean by legislation that doesn't amount to control of the press? He suggested that the legislation should be written in such a way as to show that it wasn't a curb on press freedom. As The Telegraph succinctly put it - why does it need to be written in that way if there is in fact no curb on press freedom? And I should here define my terms. By 'press' I do mean TV and radio too - wherever reporters are out ferreting for information. I don't use the word 'media' because I am excluding 'the new media'. Even Levenson decided that the Internet was impossible to regulate. He described it as an 'ethical vaccuum' and suggested that we all knew it wasn't reliable. I'm not sure that's true. But anyway half the recent press intrusion problems arose from the speed and coverage of the Internet. A report or a picture in one news outlet is almost immediately available worldwide online. So I exclude the Internet for the purposes of these comments, but the fact remains that a curb on the press, whilst leaving online media completely free is an anomaly in the inquiry's findings. Levenson wrote 2,000 pages on press activities and measures to rein them in, but only one page on the whole Internet, which seems to me to leave rather a gap in the inquiry.
As far as public opinion is concerned, I fear we must, as we seem to need to increasingly these days, discount it. There is such a knee-jerk reaction to the pronouncements and actions of authority these days, especially where the political parties are involved, that little thought is given to the implications of what people are asking for. Having our legislators curb press activities is the last thing we really want. We actually want journalists poking around in the affairs of state. I am proud to live in a country where the press is unfettered. Yes, it leads occasionally to excesses, but, as this time, we then do something about it. And I don't see any problem in reporters pursuing celebrities either, especially those that make use of the press for their own purposes. Should we accept without question the statements and views of those who appear in our newspapers or on our TV screens? Where such activities are concerned, I think the press has a duty to expose hypocrisy. Oddly, even the anti-phone hacking campaign Hacked-Off has said that phone-hacking could serve a public interest where a crime might be uncovered. Does this sound like a fudge to you? Not clear to me where they are drawing the line. It only serves to underline the difficult of regulating press activity.
And of course where a crime is committed the whole matter becomes simpler; you don't need more legislation, existing provisions are strong enough - just take the culprits to court, journalists, editors, newspaper owners or whoever. The same applies to intrusive publication of private information. And we have another problem here. How did the phone-hacking affair come to light in the first place? It wasn't the police; they decided not to pursue the phone-hacking evidence. It certainly wasn't the Government; they were much too cosy with the editors. No, it was the Guardian newspaper that revealed all. Now that's a blow for press freedom. And maybe even for self -regulation.
So what of the political parties? I am rather surprised that the Labour party and, more particularly, the Lib Dems, seem to be in favour of legislation to back up press regulation. I thought this might seem an illiberal proposal to them. But of course it's an easy position to call for implementation of the Levenson proposals without actually commenting on anything but the government's cold feet. And the Government's hesitation is indeed a bit of a shot in the foot, since they set the inquiry up.
But let's see what the press come up with on Tuesday. Sometimes, where civil liberties are concerned, arrangements have to be a little messy. We have to put up with some things we don't like in other words. I saw an episode of the TV programme The Hour the other day in which a black man was interviewed on a programme where a racist had just stated his views. The black man said, 'this is the country I want to live in, where a racist that no one likes and very few agree with, can freely state his views in public, where the right of such a man to speak his views is respected and where he is not prevented from speaking'. Amen. Many other countries restrict their journalists (or pop singer protesters) in various ways or punish them afterwards. I want us to criticise those countries and reform them, not teach them how to restrict freedoms in an acceptable way.
I find all this a bit odd.
I can see why Levenson recommended tougher oversight of the press. For a start, he had to, given his brief. No one, not even the press, would have accepted a recommendation from him to do nothing. The activities of reporters over the last few years had become totally unacceptable. The argument at the time, from the offending press, was that public interest was being served. And here we have a slight problem - is public interest served by publishing tittle-tattle about celebrities or are we just naturally avid gossipers and happy to read tittle-tattle? Of course, if criminal activity or even simply hypocrisy is uncovered, I guess you could argue that such activities as phone hacking might be justified. And, frankly, all that dramatic bleating by celebrities to Levenson (and interestingly to the press) about privacy didn't convince me at all. Of course celebrities would like to be in the newspapers for what might be called good publicity only. But that's not how it works. The latest broadside from Hugh Grant, who assumes we have forgotten the press articles revealing his assignation in a car with a prostitute, is a case in point. The more he blusters with affronted innocence, the more I remember how the fiction of his clean image was made known, and the less I am convinced that a watchdog backed up by legislation would have kept his seedy nightlife out of the news. OK, so there is a limit to the amount of celebrity news we really want to read in even the mass circulation newspapers. But surely it's legitimate to expose and show up a so-called clean-living film star. Shouldn't it also be right to investigate other blustering innocents in the interests of finding the truth?
Of course we have some difficulties if the press insist on publishing innuendos, despite failing to find evidence. This is where libel laws and a watchdog with teeth are an essential requirement. It is also where legislative provisions would not help.
Having said that, I am not at all interested in pics of the Duchess of Cambridge's breasts or Prince Harry's bottom. That doesn't mean that there should be no pictures of celebrities doing what they don't want us to see. But I don't need to know private addresses nor details of their children. I think I would be able to draw a line beyond which there is no real public interest.
But what exactly does Levenson mean by legislation that doesn't amount to control of the press? He suggested that the legislation should be written in such a way as to show that it wasn't a curb on press freedom. As The Telegraph succinctly put it - why does it need to be written in that way if there is in fact no curb on press freedom? And I should here define my terms. By 'press' I do mean TV and radio too - wherever reporters are out ferreting for information. I don't use the word 'media' because I am excluding 'the new media'. Even Levenson decided that the Internet was impossible to regulate. He described it as an 'ethical vaccuum' and suggested that we all knew it wasn't reliable. I'm not sure that's true. But anyway half the recent press intrusion problems arose from the speed and coverage of the Internet. A report or a picture in one news outlet is almost immediately available worldwide online. So I exclude the Internet for the purposes of these comments, but the fact remains that a curb on the press, whilst leaving online media completely free is an anomaly in the inquiry's findings. Levenson wrote 2,000 pages on press activities and measures to rein them in, but only one page on the whole Internet, which seems to me to leave rather a gap in the inquiry.
As far as public opinion is concerned, I fear we must, as we seem to need to increasingly these days, discount it. There is such a knee-jerk reaction to the pronouncements and actions of authority these days, especially where the political parties are involved, that little thought is given to the implications of what people are asking for. Having our legislators curb press activities is the last thing we really want. We actually want journalists poking around in the affairs of state. I am proud to live in a country where the press is unfettered. Yes, it leads occasionally to excesses, but, as this time, we then do something about it. And I don't see any problem in reporters pursuing celebrities either, especially those that make use of the press for their own purposes. Should we accept without question the statements and views of those who appear in our newspapers or on our TV screens? Where such activities are concerned, I think the press has a duty to expose hypocrisy. Oddly, even the anti-phone hacking campaign Hacked-Off has said that phone-hacking could serve a public interest where a crime might be uncovered. Does this sound like a fudge to you? Not clear to me where they are drawing the line. It only serves to underline the difficult of regulating press activity.
And of course where a crime is committed the whole matter becomes simpler; you don't need more legislation, existing provisions are strong enough - just take the culprits to court, journalists, editors, newspaper owners or whoever. The same applies to intrusive publication of private information. And we have another problem here. How did the phone-hacking affair come to light in the first place? It wasn't the police; they decided not to pursue the phone-hacking evidence. It certainly wasn't the Government; they were much too cosy with the editors. No, it was the Guardian newspaper that revealed all. Now that's a blow for press freedom. And maybe even for self -regulation.
So what of the political parties? I am rather surprised that the Labour party and, more particularly, the Lib Dems, seem to be in favour of legislation to back up press regulation. I thought this might seem an illiberal proposal to them. But of course it's an easy position to call for implementation of the Levenson proposals without actually commenting on anything but the government's cold feet. And the Government's hesitation is indeed a bit of a shot in the foot, since they set the inquiry up.
But let's see what the press come up with on Tuesday. Sometimes, where civil liberties are concerned, arrangements have to be a little messy. We have to put up with some things we don't like in other words. I saw an episode of the TV programme The Hour the other day in which a black man was interviewed on a programme where a racist had just stated his views. The black man said, 'this is the country I want to live in, where a racist that no one likes and very few agree with, can freely state his views in public, where the right of such a man to speak his views is respected and where he is not prevented from speaking'. Amen. Many other countries restrict their journalists (or pop singer protesters) in various ways or punish them afterwards. I want us to criticise those countries and reform them, not teach them how to restrict freedoms in an acceptable way.
Tuesday, 28 August 2012
BARE FACTS
I said I would write something about THOSE pics that appeared on TMZ. I
have only just got round to it. But there are issues here that are
worth discussing.
I think it's fair to say that, outside of Britain, comments were mostly jokey and dismissive. There were some who thought that the #3 to the Throne might behave better, but, frankly, the children of the Heir to Throne (and particularly siblings out of the real running) have traditionally behaved badly. That might partly be because they have nothing to lose; it might partly be because they have lots of money and lots of time; it may be because everybody wants to party with Royalty and there is a good chance they might get to do so with a sibling (as opposed to the better protected Heirs); or it may just be an indolent descent into louche society, since they don't really have a role (once they've risen through the military ranks and done a bit of charity). That's not to excuse Harry necessarily, but it is probably why most people here seemed merely to shrug their shoulders and raise their eyes heavenwards. Even TMZ's capture of the photographs had an oddly jubilent note about it and was not at all judgemental or even salacious. I therefore thought the incident was going to die a death.
Over here, the Palace alerted the Press Complaints Commission to the fact that publication of the photographs here might infringe Harry's privacy. The press were informed of this contact through the normal procedures (not warned off, as some arch liberals asserted) and the press as one decided to publish the story but not the pictures. Again, it seemed as though that would be it. Nobody showed a great deal of interest in the story. But then The Sun newspaper broke ranks and published. They said they had done so, both in the public interest and because, since everyone had by then seen the photographs, there was no point anymore in holding them back. They didn't say so, but the inference was that Harry's privacy had already been infringed and further propagation of the pics could not constitute an infringement by The Sun.
Although no one showed much interest in the affair before this, there have so far been several thousand complaints to the PCC about The Sun's actions. It seems that the British public does feel that publication of private or intimate photographs of celebrities is an infringement of privacy.
I say 'celebrities', even though the term is much misused these days, because the whole point about the Leveson Inquiry is that the media overstepped the mark in trying to obtain and publish private information about famous people with a claim to celebrity. Sometimes such gossip is justified and of public interest, such as when the celebrity's public stance is shown to be a fraud; sometimes it is merely self-serving, such as photographs of celebrities deliberately exposing themselves to gain publicity; and sometimes it is of no real interest at all, such as 'celebrity dumps boy/girlfriend and goes to party with someone else'. Well, I suppose someone somewhere might find that last example really interesting, but the question is whether the newspaper with the biggest circulation in Britain should be bothering with such fluff. Of course it is the accumulation of such fluff that probably sells The Sun, but that's another matter.
The point is that the Harry story became something much more here than a tale of naughty goings-on by a celebrity. The Sun clearly took the view that, post-Leveson (or at least, since the Inquiry hasn't yet reached a conclusion, post-The Sun's evidence to Leveson) the media had to reassert its independence. Not publishing photographs that were freely available, just because a possible infringement of privacy might occur, was clearly a step too far for the free press. Having said that, it was only The Sun (and one assumes the slightly bruised Rupert Murdoch) that took that view. Now we have to see whether the PCC has any teeth post-Leveson in the face of several thousand complaints from the public. But, frankly, I'm not sure it matters either way. The Palace has since not complained and said that the decision to publish is ultimately one for the editors. Quite right. And several thousand complaints is not actually so many from a population of many millions. But none of those complaints has come from the Palace, Harry's legal representatives or anyone connected with the Royals at all. So, bully for The Sun for showing that the press in Britain is still free. But have they really done so in fact?
Do these photographs really shine a light on anything important? We all knew of the story. Many of us had looked in on TMZ's website. The decision smacks rather of Murdoch's continued power games. He more than anyone suffered from the phone hacking and related scandals. He clearly didn't want to remain cowed. Yet publishing something that no one involved complains about seems to me not much of a bold disclosure nor much of a brave revelation by an unbowed campaigner.
But was privacy really an issue here? There are two angles to this - one, should Harry have expected anything happening in his private suite to remain private? Well, yes, he should. And, two, in inviting up to his room a bunch of people he had just picked up in the bar, especially with everyone having a camera in their pocket these days, should he have accepted that he was giving up his right to privacy? Actually, no, I think. It is an unfortunate fact that almost any pic of Harry that night would have fetched a fair price from the gossip press. So, if he insists on cavorting with strangers, he is putting his privacy on the line and must expect it to be infringed. I think it is a sad reflection on today and I feel sorry that he can't really guarantee privacy, but that's the way it is. What the newspapers decide to do about it is another matter. He still has a right to privacy when he is off duty, but it's not a right that can be easily maintained. No other British newspaper felt the need to flex its muscles in the way The Sun understandably did and they all presumably took the view that not publishing showed sympathetic restraint, if not a view that there was a lack of interest or even that publishing was a pointless gesture, once the story was out. Personally, especially since the photographs were such poor quality and so unrevealing, I think they added nothing at all to the story. And since the story was such a non-story, I think it was adequately dealt with on the first day, by referring to TMZ. I'm not aware whether The Sun sold vastly more copies of its newspaper that day, but I suspect not.
Now, another question. Did Harry do anything wrong? Did that over-ride any claim to privacy and justify publishing the photographs? OK, he's a senior Royal and maybe could be more stayed in his behaviour. According to his friends, when the camera appeared, he was in fact gallantly, but probably foolishly, trying to shield the naked girl. The two quickly left the room at that point to avoid further embarrassment. But, whether that's true or not, he's single; he was understandably letting off steam before returning to arduous and dangerous military duty; he certainly wasn't doing anything illegal; I don't even think he let anyone down really. Boris Johnson's Tweet was probably the view of most people here - "The real scandal would be if you went all the way to Las Vegas and you didn't misbehave in some trivial way.' So, again, had there not been a freedom of the press issue, imagined or otherwise, the pics were best kept private and the story hardly ought to have deserved so many pages.
But the final point (at least it is one made by The Sun) is whether the public interest was really served by publishing the photographs. I think we ought to distinguish here between 'the public interest' and 'public interest'. I think these are different things. I don't rush out and buy The Sun when I hear that there is a scandalous pic published in it. But if there is a story (or maybe even a photograph) in the newspaper I buy, which refers to something I didn't know about or which sheds light on something currently being debated publicy, I think it's fair to say that there is public interest in that item. And I guess I am interested in seeing pics of famous people doing silly things, even if I don't rush out to get hold of them (the pics, not the famous people). But the public interest is served only when the newspaper reveals something that has been kept from public knowledge - a revelation about secret or illegal activity, the real reason for a Government policy, a new tax that has an effect not publicly announced, etc. I might actually rush out and buy a newspaper carrying that story. But I don't think a pic of a naked Prince is in that league at all. I don't even think that publishing the pic against requests for privacy is in the public interest. I do think that having the courage to publishing something that has been suppressed, in the face of some sanction or legal action, is a noble and legitimate act. The Sun's action was about something else.
In fact I think it's a great pity the story is still being written about and given airtime. Oh . . .
I think it's fair to say that, outside of Britain, comments were mostly jokey and dismissive. There were some who thought that the #3 to the Throne might behave better, but, frankly, the children of the Heir to Throne (and particularly siblings out of the real running) have traditionally behaved badly. That might partly be because they have nothing to lose; it might partly be because they have lots of money and lots of time; it may be because everybody wants to party with Royalty and there is a good chance they might get to do so with a sibling (as opposed to the better protected Heirs); or it may just be an indolent descent into louche society, since they don't really have a role (once they've risen through the military ranks and done a bit of charity). That's not to excuse Harry necessarily, but it is probably why most people here seemed merely to shrug their shoulders and raise their eyes heavenwards. Even TMZ's capture of the photographs had an oddly jubilent note about it and was not at all judgemental or even salacious. I therefore thought the incident was going to die a death.
Over here, the Palace alerted the Press Complaints Commission to the fact that publication of the photographs here might infringe Harry's privacy. The press were informed of this contact through the normal procedures (not warned off, as some arch liberals asserted) and the press as one decided to publish the story but not the pictures. Again, it seemed as though that would be it. Nobody showed a great deal of interest in the story. But then The Sun newspaper broke ranks and published. They said they had done so, both in the public interest and because, since everyone had by then seen the photographs, there was no point anymore in holding them back. They didn't say so, but the inference was that Harry's privacy had already been infringed and further propagation of the pics could not constitute an infringement by The Sun.
Although no one showed much interest in the affair before this, there have so far been several thousand complaints to the PCC about The Sun's actions. It seems that the British public does feel that publication of private or intimate photographs of celebrities is an infringement of privacy.
I say 'celebrities', even though the term is much misused these days, because the whole point about the Leveson Inquiry is that the media overstepped the mark in trying to obtain and publish private information about famous people with a claim to celebrity. Sometimes such gossip is justified and of public interest, such as when the celebrity's public stance is shown to be a fraud; sometimes it is merely self-serving, such as photographs of celebrities deliberately exposing themselves to gain publicity; and sometimes it is of no real interest at all, such as 'celebrity dumps boy/girlfriend and goes to party with someone else'. Well, I suppose someone somewhere might find that last example really interesting, but the question is whether the newspaper with the biggest circulation in Britain should be bothering with such fluff. Of course it is the accumulation of such fluff that probably sells The Sun, but that's another matter.
The point is that the Harry story became something much more here than a tale of naughty goings-on by a celebrity. The Sun clearly took the view that, post-Leveson (or at least, since the Inquiry hasn't yet reached a conclusion, post-The Sun's evidence to Leveson) the media had to reassert its independence. Not publishing photographs that were freely available, just because a possible infringement of privacy might occur, was clearly a step too far for the free press. Having said that, it was only The Sun (and one assumes the slightly bruised Rupert Murdoch) that took that view. Now we have to see whether the PCC has any teeth post-Leveson in the face of several thousand complaints from the public. But, frankly, I'm not sure it matters either way. The Palace has since not complained and said that the decision to publish is ultimately one for the editors. Quite right. And several thousand complaints is not actually so many from a population of many millions. But none of those complaints has come from the Palace, Harry's legal representatives or anyone connected with the Royals at all. So, bully for The Sun for showing that the press in Britain is still free. But have they really done so in fact?
Do these photographs really shine a light on anything important? We all knew of the story. Many of us had looked in on TMZ's website. The decision smacks rather of Murdoch's continued power games. He more than anyone suffered from the phone hacking and related scandals. He clearly didn't want to remain cowed. Yet publishing something that no one involved complains about seems to me not much of a bold disclosure nor much of a brave revelation by an unbowed campaigner.
But was privacy really an issue here? There are two angles to this - one, should Harry have expected anything happening in his private suite to remain private? Well, yes, he should. And, two, in inviting up to his room a bunch of people he had just picked up in the bar, especially with everyone having a camera in their pocket these days, should he have accepted that he was giving up his right to privacy? Actually, no, I think. It is an unfortunate fact that almost any pic of Harry that night would have fetched a fair price from the gossip press. So, if he insists on cavorting with strangers, he is putting his privacy on the line and must expect it to be infringed. I think it is a sad reflection on today and I feel sorry that he can't really guarantee privacy, but that's the way it is. What the newspapers decide to do about it is another matter. He still has a right to privacy when he is off duty, but it's not a right that can be easily maintained. No other British newspaper felt the need to flex its muscles in the way The Sun understandably did and they all presumably took the view that not publishing showed sympathetic restraint, if not a view that there was a lack of interest or even that publishing was a pointless gesture, once the story was out. Personally, especially since the photographs were such poor quality and so unrevealing, I think they added nothing at all to the story. And since the story was such a non-story, I think it was adequately dealt with on the first day, by referring to TMZ. I'm not aware whether The Sun sold vastly more copies of its newspaper that day, but I suspect not.
Now, another question. Did Harry do anything wrong? Did that over-ride any claim to privacy and justify publishing the photographs? OK, he's a senior Royal and maybe could be more stayed in his behaviour. According to his friends, when the camera appeared, he was in fact gallantly, but probably foolishly, trying to shield the naked girl. The two quickly left the room at that point to avoid further embarrassment. But, whether that's true or not, he's single; he was understandably letting off steam before returning to arduous and dangerous military duty; he certainly wasn't doing anything illegal; I don't even think he let anyone down really. Boris Johnson's Tweet was probably the view of most people here - "The real scandal would be if you went all the way to Las Vegas and you didn't misbehave in some trivial way.' So, again, had there not been a freedom of the press issue, imagined or otherwise, the pics were best kept private and the story hardly ought to have deserved so many pages.
But the final point (at least it is one made by The Sun) is whether the public interest was really served by publishing the photographs. I think we ought to distinguish here between 'the public interest' and 'public interest'. I think these are different things. I don't rush out and buy The Sun when I hear that there is a scandalous pic published in it. But if there is a story (or maybe even a photograph) in the newspaper I buy, which refers to something I didn't know about or which sheds light on something currently being debated publicy, I think it's fair to say that there is public interest in that item. And I guess I am interested in seeing pics of famous people doing silly things, even if I don't rush out to get hold of them (the pics, not the famous people). But the public interest is served only when the newspaper reveals something that has been kept from public knowledge - a revelation about secret or illegal activity, the real reason for a Government policy, a new tax that has an effect not publicly announced, etc. I might actually rush out and buy a newspaper carrying that story. But I don't think a pic of a naked Prince is in that league at all. I don't even think that publishing the pic against requests for privacy is in the public interest. I do think that having the courage to publishing something that has been suppressed, in the face of some sanction or legal action, is a noble and legitimate act. The Sun's action was about something else.
In fact I think it's a great pity the story is still being written about and given airtime. Oh . . .
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
GOON FISHING
OK, there's an irony about the Assange camp complaining about being forced to give up details of his private communications. But, whatever we thought about Wikileaks, I think we should all feel uncomfortable with the latest US Government subpoena.
As things stand, Assange has not committed a crime. We may believe that publishing classified information that is already in the public domain is a crime; we may think that making publicly available sensitive military information received from a whistleblower is a crime; we may hold that publishing information without checking its source is somehow a crime; we may suspect that a rape of two women has been committed in Sweden and that that makes him a criminal anyway. But, at the moment, the courts do not recognise any of this as a proven crime.
Assange’s whereabouts are known and he is on bail. He is not yet a criminal and he is not charged with any crime relating to Wikileaks. In fact, whistleblowing is a legitimate, non-criminal activity. I don’t know what happens in America, but many government organisations here have to spell out that they will not prosecute whistleblowers. And publishing the information received from whistleblowers is not necessarily criminal either, especially when, as in the Wikileaks case, it so blatantly didn’t affect national security and merely exposed the shocking over-classification of material and the enormous public expense needed to protect it.
So, gathering enormous amounts of data to try to find evidence of some criminal activity is extraordinary. The manpower to be used in collecting all this information and pains-takingly sifting through it will be an incredible drain on government resources. The cost to tax-payers of pursuing this is incalculable. But it goes further than that.
Every message to the Assange operation will be scrutinised too. I managed to restrain myself from writing to him saying, jolly good show, or whatever, but maybe you said something to him? There are at least 2m followers of Assange on Facebook and Twitter alone. But now I’ve commented here (I don’t remember whether I Tweeted about him), all my personal details will presumably be combed through. And what have I blogged about that might offend the US or UK Governments? And what crime will be found to prosecute me for my views? Or will ‘free speech’ prevail?
The only official comments on all this seem be that the trawl is part of ‘an ongoing criminal investigation’. There is no explanation of what the crime might actually be, although it seems as though retaliation, embarrassment about the leaked material and the resulting reluctance of other countries now to tell America anything confidential are the most important triggers for this obsessive reaction. And one official suggested that the subpoenaed material will help show where Assange has been and where his operations have been. Well, we know where he is and, except for making it possible to disrupt his operation (though it seems not to be illegal) or target his supporters (who don’t appear to have committed a crime), where he has been won’t contribute much to the investigation. Of course Assange is probably only the excuse. There are many more whose records will now be available for examination and we may eventually see prosecution orders made against others who have engaged in ‘anti-American’ activities. Normally, it would be illegal to gather evidence in this way without concrete reasons to suspect a criminal offence.
I suppose this might seem like the investigation of Al Capone, whom no one much seemed to mind being prosecuted for tax evasion, even though he was head of a mass murdering gang. But I don’t know that people feel the same way about Assange. He’s hardly a mass murderer. But there will be many of us whose normally private affairs will now be closely examined on the back of this ‘ongoing criminal investigation’. We might even turn out to have committed some offence. But, whatever you think about Assange, if we justify an entirely arbitrary trawl through our affairs to check whether any crimes have been committed, we have lost the freedom of the Internet and are one giant step nearer a Big Brother society, not just in America, but worldwide.. I wouldn’t have expected that from a liberal administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)