Whatever...

We can’t let our emotions restrict online freedom of speech

By Shazia Mowlabaccus

 

The recent online suicide of a teenager on live videocam has raised questions once again about whether the internet should be regulated.  While live broadcasts of a young man committing suicide are shocking and tragic, trying to control and regulate this is a particularly difficult task without infringing on rights of free expression. 

 

There is always the danger of incidents like this being used as a backdoor to enforce stringent policies to control the materials the public can post and read/view, as is currently the case in Australia, where the government wants to introduce a content-filtering scheme.  The scheme, which many criticise as amounting to censorship, is being imposed upon Australian citizens in the name of protecting children from inappropriate content.  But once implemented, schemes like this can also easily be abused. 

 

Our freedom of expression via the internet is vital to our freedom to protest and raise awareness.  In some countries, the internet serves as the only way to contact and inform the rest of the world of, for instance, political oppression.  Blogging has become a new means of resistance and often the only way for people to ensure they don’t suffer in silence. 

 

Certain governments have censored the internet and persecuted bloggers in recognition of their influence, and Western society has rightfully frowned on this.  However, are we also not moving in the same direction without realising it?  We need to ensure we don’t sleepwalk into internet censorship through scaremongering from our own governments. 

 

Internet companies such as Yahoo!, Google and Microsoft have an important part to play in this by refusing to cooperate with governments enforcing any form of censorship or suppression of citizens’ opinions online.  These companies pride themselves on being ‘caring’ organisations, which strive to be the best companies to work for by, for example, providing generous benefit packages for employees.  But as was the case with Yahoo!, which allegedly passed on information leading to the prosecution, torture and jailing of internet bloggers in China, it’s outrageous for them to then collaborate with repressive governments to help identify those who dare to speak out.

 

We must guard against online censorship wherever it occurs and challenge the internet companies that support it.  And similarly, we cannot allow governments to appeal to our emotions in order to pass laws restricting our freedom of expression.

The Beeb machine - what a load of tripe

By Lucy Smart

For those of you who may have been living on another planet the last two weeks, BBC comedians Jonathan ‘wossy’ Ross and Russell ‘my booky wooky’ Brand, have been accused of taking comedy a step too far after leaving lewd messages on Fawlty Towers actor Andrew Sachs's answer phone.  Several days later (or what felt like weeks in media terms) Brand resigned and the BBC finally pulled its finger out, suspending Ross for three months without pay. 

While the media has undoubtedly inflated the situation, the BBC’s painfully slow corporate reaction to events - despite the 35,000 complaints received - suggests this may not have been the case had its PR operation actually been up to the job.   Journalists have reported the BBC press office as being ”half-hearted” in its response to the story, whilst the majority of licence fee payers remain disgusted with the BBC’s inability to take Ross’s and Brand’s behaviour seriously enough.

As a result, there has been increased pressure on the BBC to justify its very existence, with this blunder reopening old wounds such as the dispute around celebrity salaries and the Beeb’s pursuit of a younger audience with the launch of its digital channel.  However, as director general of the BBC Mark Thompson informed us: “If you go into a restaurant and they’ve got tripe on the menu and you don’t like tripe, you don’t order tripe”.   True, but what if, as one disgruntled Daily Telegraph reader questioned, “the restaurant says that you have to pay for tripe whether you order it or not?”  Not only is this a shocking way to respond to what is fast becoming an outright scandal, but the BBC exists as a public entity - funded both by and for the public - and as such, must be held more accountable for its actions.  

It’s quite clear that the BBC failed to act quickly enough in the face of the escalating crisis, demonstrating a complete breakdown in its corporate communications strategy.  The organisation faces some big challenges ahead - which it will only overcome if it listens to the public’s concerns and becomes more concerted in its decision making.  One thing is for certain, this isn’t the first and it won’t be the last time that the BBC is at the centre of a storm of controversy.  Let’s just hope that next time its PR machine is up to the challenge!