The End of Freedom:
does a civilised society need censorship?

Orange Index debate at the University of London,
3 February 2003

Mark Tyson

The classical liberal defence of free speech can be traced back to thinkers such as John Locke and JS Mill. The liberal approach is centred around ideas of conscience, toleration and free and open debate in the pursuit of truth.

In our cynical age free speech is often characterised as at best vague and idealistic, at worst, bourgeois indulgence or a fig leaf for unpalatable things like as Nazism and child pornography. The liberal view remains the only convincing defence of free speech. Nevertheless unconditional defences of free speech are rare, today's consensus seems to be 'I support free speech, but...'. Indeed defenders of free speech are concerned with the question of 'where we draw the line'.

The Orange Index Debates are a series of debates around the issue of free expression, organised by Orange in partnership with Index on Censorship, designed to 'stimulate debate on social and political issues in student communities around the country'.

The first debate, held at the University of London, was chaired by Jonathan Freedland, with a panel of speakers made up of Michael Grade, Bea Campbell and Rear Admiral Nick Wilkinson, (perhaps less known than the other guests, he is Secretary of the Defence, Press and Broadcast Advisory Committee).

The first speaker was Michael Grade, who was once unkindly dubbed 'the pornographer-in-chief of Channel Four'. Grade made the point that no wants to be an advocate of censorship and only tyrants seek to control our thoughts. He was nonetheless concerned about the extent to which we should tolerate those who are a threat to tolerance. For Grade, then, there is a case to be made for censorship for the common good; not just for tyrants, but for the defence of liberal society itself. He argued that the presumption should be against censorship and that there should be clear democratic safeguards, such as open scrutiny through the courts and the media. Measures should be proportionate, and emergency measures should be removed when the danger has passed. For Grade the price of freedom is 'eternal vigilance'.

Grade did, however, make an interesting point about his reaction to cutting edge scripts by talented writers and directors. There were times when he could see the merits of certain projects, but alarm bells would ring in anticipation of how the material would be received. In short he was aware of 'the climate'. There are dangers here for free speech. Certain ideas take on a life of their own, and are internalised, so that we no longer trust our own judgement. This is a form of soft tyranny. Surely the right to free speech is the right to challenge conventional norms, and tyranny of both the hard and soft varieties.

Bea Campbell shared most of Grade's concerns. Coming from a 'human rights' position, she says she is in favour of maximising free speech. Like Grade she is concerned both by the potential of the state to exploit and abuse concerns around national security for its own purposes. But she is also concerned about vulnerable minorities. In the former case, she disapproves of the role of the British state in Northern Ireland, in the latter, she believes that we do need special protection against racism, for women and for children.

For Bea Campbell, words are not 'only words', but 'resources in strategies of domination'. Campbell argues that racist language causes harm, hurt, humiliation and even death; this is language as a mechanism for perpetuating white male domination.

Bea Campbell has recently been on the receiving end of calls for censorship herself; for her play And All the Children Cried, which features a portrayal of Myra Hindley. Her views are often confrontational and controversial, and if you happen to be a white working class man, particularly offensive. Campbell's defence would be that she is challenging established power structures.

Nick Wilkinson was perhaps the most convincing speaker. He explained the system of 'D' notices, which are agreement between the media and officials from the Department of Defence, the Home Office and the Foreign Office, whereby the media voluntarily agrees not to report certain stories or incidents. The main criterion here is the safeguarding of security personnel whose activities and safety would be compromised by media exposure. His job involves, he says, not just advising the media not to run stories, but also advising officials where there is no danger in allowing the media to do so. Wilkinson made a strong case for open government, while acknowledging the tendency of officials towards secrecy, as part of a culture of secrecy, and at times for reasons of their own.

I was not convinced by the consensus between Grade and Campbell in relation to racist speech. This approach is implicitly paternalistic and assumes that racism is the norm. Black people are ready, willing and able to speak for themselves and have a long tradition of doing so. Minority communities are saddled with 'authorised' spokespersons, while less acceptable minority opinion is marginalised or itself subject to free speech limitations; Louis Farrakhan being a case in point. A wider hearing for black opinion would lead to a more realistic consensus of what black opinion is.

As it is, white people with good anti-racist credentials come to resent being told that they are not anti-racist enough, or in the right way. Those who are open to persuasion do not feel able to express their concerns freely, and confirmed racists simmer resentfully and wait for their moment.

Free speech is not anarchic licence, it is not an invitation to be objectionable, racist or abusive. On the contrary free speech places high demands on people. It is based on the principle that people can be trusted to act responsibly, and to decide for themselves what that means. Orange and Index on Censorship are to be congratulated for encouraging more speech rather than less.

A transcript of the debate is available here.

All articles on this site © Culture Wars.