The case for calling Councillors Nazis

1) They are.

2) Jon Gaunt has been Ofcom’d today, as the court decided that, in fact, being a dick is illegal. I listened to the interview in question, and came to the conclusion that Jon Gaunt is a stupid, pig headed, ignorant, arrogant failure of a man.

But then, the same could be said of Sunny Hundal, but I don’t see any reason to kick him off teh internets. The problem here is with Ofcom itself in regards to TV and radio. In theory, it’s supposed to make sure that the media is kept to a “high standard”, which, it seems, means shutting down anyone who’s a bit rude or offensive. Like this:

By section 6(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1990, broadcasters were regulated so as to require them to comply with a requirement that nothing would be included in their programmes which “offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling”. This has been replaced by section 3(2)(e) of the Communications Act 2003, which places the duty on OFCOM to secure the application by all television and radio stations of standards that provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion of “offensive and harmful material”.

Well, ok, perhaps in law Ofcom are totally in the right. However, that just goes to show that Ofcom have a bit too much power on their hands- in the name of “regulating” an industry, we- no surprise- see censorship instead. What is, by the court’s own admission “a rant” (para 4), has, amazingly, been turned into a political football.  It’s all in the name of democracy, of course.

Mr Millar QC, on behalf of the claimant, submits uncontroversially that legitimate restrictions on freedom of expression must be prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society (in this instance) for the protection of the rights of others and they must be proportionate. He accepts that the provisions of the Broadcasting Code are prescribed by law and, in general, necessary in a democratic society.

Uncontroversially? Sure, I can see why those in the judiciary would “uncontroversially” see the need for the judiciary to be involved in regulating the media, for the same reason I can see why MPs would “uncontroversially” see the need to set their own pay.

Not only do I not agree that the regulatory system enforced by Ofcom is not necessary, I’d say it’s down right incompatible with freedom of expression. Despite what the European Convention of Human rights and the Human Rights Act says, which is probably the most half hearted attempt at a bill of rights in recent years, Freedom of speech is not limited to what a select few decide is “appropriate”, be they MPs, a number of quangocrats, or even ECJ judges, but rather is best judged by the individual standards of every person, by themselves. After all, if our goal is to prevent content which is “offensive”, then offense, being an emotion felt towards different things by different people, can only be decided by individuals speaking for themselves, and can’t possibly be enforced by one set of standards being assumed by a small oligarchy, who are, we are to believe, finely tuned into the non-existing “collective consciousness” of the population. Erm. No.

Here’s a much better idea: We allow anybody to broadcast whatever they want, and maybe there’s a just reason to prevent actual incitement to violence or what have you- maybe- and then allow people to decide what they actually do pay attention to.

Now, I can see the allegedly liberal Guardian reader response to this: “But, people like Gaunt will spread hate!” To which the correct counter argument is “Yes, they will. Next question.”

Or, they may say “Surely the media has a responsibility to be impartial on sensitive issues?” But a neutral media is a myth. No matter what broadcaster or news service you chose, there will always be bias and predetermined judgements involved. Let’s face it, our newspaper industry does not exactly pride itself on impartiality. It silently shouts its political affiliations from the rooftops. The Telegraph like the tories, the Guardian likes Labour, and the Sun likes 18 year old titties. Media impartiality is a fiction by which the regulators get away with censorship.

Or, maybe they’ll say “Well, surely in a democratic society, it’s ok for there to be some restrictions to placed in the name of protecting minorities?” Sure, under a democratic society, where it’s ok for 51% to trample over the other 49%. But we’re concerned with the media of a free society, not one of a democratic society. And the two are very different beasts, and usually mutually exclusive of one another too. In a free society, even if there are a few shock jockeys broadcasting hate, given the fact that people in general are not hate filled racists (evidenced by the fact that such racism DOES shock us so much) ensures that they, as today, are either not taken seriously, or are generally thought of as being what they are.

The simple fact of the matter is that regulatory bodies such as Ofcom are a mild flavour of statism, and under such a system, the very concept of freedom of the press is a gigantic joke. I say that there’s no difference between the media giants (even though they do have government intervention to thank for some of their success) and a crappy loser’s blog that no one reads. Voluntary organizations have the same rights and freedoms as an individual does, and that includes the freedom to speak one’s mind, no matter how full of fuck it is.

Does Jon Gaunt offend you? Be offended. Nothing happens. Turn on BBC news instead. And government: Stop censoring people on the false basis that you’re protecting us. You’re not.

Be Sociable, Share!

•