What are the limits of free speech in an open society? My instincts are libertarian, so I'd start with the premise that we should allow the maximum freedom possible which includes press regulation, unless someone is inciting criminal behaviour. So far so good, but then there's a number of cases in recent months around freedom of expression that are problematic.
Take Dapper Laughs for example, aka Daniel O'Reilly, who had a show on ITV2. I really don't want to defend Dapper Laughs; even Gene Hunt might think twice about sticking up for that show. The extracts I saw on YouTube were loutish and sexist; many others felt strongly enough to petition ITV and several comics wrote an open letter to the channel. The end result is ITV has cancelled the second series (if it was ever planned) and Daniel O'Reilly went on Newsnight to make an apology claiming that it was a character that got out of control. We can debate whether a fictional creation can escape the control of its maker or whether Dapper Laughs, who seems to be Daniel with a different name is really a character as such, elsewhere. Whatever you think of the show (I hope you don't like it), doesn't it still count as free speech?
You could argue that broadcasting the programme is not the same as someone writing a blog or posting videos on Vine or YouTube; that's more a question of audience numbers than the principle. Free speech would be so much easier to defend if everyone used that right wisely. In any group of people, there is always one goes too far. If you can't think of anyone in your office who keeps overstepping the mark, the bad news is that it's you.
The worry for me is not the Dapper Laughs was offensive and unpleasant, it's the strange precedent that it sets. Many liberal-minded people in the media wrote at length how the programme was an incitement to sexual assault; yet why was a stupid comedian the focus of such ire and not religious programming from the Middle East, available in the UK, that preaches women should be beaten for disobedience and gays should be killed. Ofcom is, as to be expected, launching an investigation...into Dapper Laughs.
This is known as 'whaboutery', citing other cases where a principle was not applied. It's an old philosophical trick, doesn't mean it's not valid. Campaigners for women's rights can claim a victory of sorts against ITV2, whilst much worse goes unchecked. Then there's Julien Blanc, the self-styled pick up artist, who is the focus of a campaign to be banned from Britain. For the record, I think he's a seriously nasty piece of work and any woman that falls for his tactics needs help from a mental health professional. Denying him entry to the UK risks increasing his profile amongst the type of man who might go to his seminars - they also need to seek help just not from him.
And there's the other point, unless in the eyes of the law he is committing or has committed a criminal offence, which is debatable, we are dispensing with the rule of law. Let him in if no crime is involved and he can hold his seminars; protestors can picket outside those seminars. Both are exercising their rights to free speech.
I think what bothers me about the Julien Blanc case most is that we have allowed extremist preachers into the UK on many occasions to preach much worse sermons than his pick-up tactics. Again it's a curious kind of message about women's rights that is so partisan, as if Muslim women or minorities do not deserve a Twitter campaign or a petition. There was a related incident a month ago, where Bill Maher on his TV show tried to discuss the problems of homophobia, misogyny and general bigotry in many Muslim countries. His guest, Ben Affleck shouted him down, accusing him of 'Islamophobia'. Here's the clip:
Bill Maher
There's a really interesting reply to Ben Affleck from a Pakistani woman, Eiynah, who wrote a book called 'My Uncle is Gay' and since been declared an Enemy of God and threatened with death. Below is the link, it's worth reading in full.
Open letter to Ben Affleck
Ben Affleck is a fine actor and director and no doubt his intentions were good, yet he sought to close own any further mention of the subject on a discussion programme with his peers. That's censorship, not free speech.
Let's consider a different case also in recent months, where an exhibition about slavery, with actors as live exhibits, was cancelled from the Barbican following a vocal media campaign and petition that it was was racist. The actors involved did not think so, nor did the Barbican or any of the countries were it was shown prior to the UK. Yet you and I will not be able to judge for ourselves, as protestors have ensured 'Exhibit B' will not happen. For more background, there's a link to the Guardian article.
Exhibit B
I realise at this point I should 'check my privilege' - English, heterosexual male, educated at private school. That means I've never experienced discrimination or prejudice, apart from occasional jibes about being a short. 5'7" isn't that short, it's Tom Cruise height and in no way is it comparable to being on the receiving end of genuine discrimination.
Nonetheless, free speech and free expression cannot be defined as the freedom to say nice things that we all agree with - that's not real freedom. For reasons I cannot comprehend, people articles written by Peter Hitchens, who trades in bile and cant. To take issue with the errors, logical flaws and gross generalisations in a single article of his would take days; one could argue his writing promotes prejudice, intolerance and bigotry. But he's free to write what he likes, you may choose to read it ( I'd suggest you don't), or not. That's your decision. In my opinion, you would get more sense and potentially a joke or two out of even the most right wing cabbie.
By the same token, much as it may offend your personal values, free speech must be free, with as few restrictions as possible.
Oh dear, it looks like I've ended up defending Dapper Laughs and Julien LeBlanc....feel free to lay into me as much as you like. That's your right.
