While there has been the global expansion of mobile phone communication, the greatest contributor has to be the internet and the access the world wide web has given to those who wish to be heard.
At the same time, we have been swamped by surveys seeking our opinions on products and policies. We’ve even had ten years’ acquaintance with the Freedom of Information Act.
But before we get carried away on some cloud of unmoderated wik-euphoria, it’s all come with an inevitable downside. First out of the Pandora’s Box of free expression has jumped the strident chanting of violent radicalisation, while under the constraints of the human rights laws, we have seen reactive demands for privacy from those with more than their modesty to hide.
‘A victory for freedom of speech’, trilled a columnist in the Daily Express back in October, as the dust was settling from the shambolic BBC Question Time programme which included Nick Griffin on its panel. The writer went on to admit that the outcome had caused him to change his mind over whether the BNP leader should have been invited onto the platform. Sadly, his admission only revealed his pleasure with the humiliation of the odious Griffin rather than upholding any principle of free speech.
But, you see, in the theatre of public utterance, those who speak and write have already been judged before they open their mouth or put pen to paper. We more or less know what Her Majesty and the Archbishop of Canterbury are going to say in their Christmas messages. Even the editor of this newspaper depends on a bond of trust that in submitting material for publication, contributors like me will not attempt to defame, subvert or bring discredit to his publication.
Call it self-censorship if you like, but it’s a convention which enables us to keep relationships in a manageable context.
So when the chairman of the Joint Charities Christmas Appeal chose to express an unorthodox personal opinion about the transmission of Aids, which many saw as controversial, there was outrage. He was accused of ‘prejudice’ – an emotive epithet easily attached to views which don’t fit the accepted context, but nevertheless damning. So despite his impressive pedigree, his remarks were considered ill judged and he had to go.
Similarly, the senior politician of our Chamber, now absent for personal reasons, chose to use ‘unparliamentary’ language and conduct himself in a manner which many felt breached the conventions of his office. However provoked, the pendulum of support swung against him.
Saying what you feel about individuals or institutions depends so much on context and circumstance. There’s a great gulf between the courage of the whistleblower prepared to risk career and reputation for principle and the character assassin whose salacious innuendo oozes from the foot of the ‘society’ pages of tabloid newspapers. On the pretext of ‘public interest’, they hide behind the expectation that they are tapping into the popular rumour-mill and rely on an assumption that targeted individuals are unlikely to put themselves through the misery of legal proceedings to seek redress.
Furthermore, it’s showtime when the quarry happens to be Johnny Foreigner, and even better if there’s a chance to sling an insult or two. Witness the braying headlines calling the President of Iran a ‘nut’ and ‘beardy’ above accounts of the ‘plight’ of five British yachtsmen who had been detained after inadvertently straying into Iranian territorial waters.
As it happens, they were neither mistreated nor held hostage, but from the comfort of a keyboard in Wapping, the heralds of bad taste obviously felt they were inviolate – regardless of any consequences their invective may have had for the beleaguered sailors.
Yet as the decade drew to a close, newspapermen, scientists, MPs, even comedians have been expressing alarm that Britain, once known for its tradition of free speech, is allowing itself to become the world’s haven for ‘libel tourism’.
Corporations, religious radicals and canny international lawyers have been exploiting British law to silence critics of practices and conduct raising legitimate international concern.
You may recall that the BBC found itself facing a huge libel claim for its investigation of toxic waste dumping in the developing world; there was even an attempt to slap an injunction on reporting questions in Parliament about the issue.
Meanwhile, there is real concern about the prospect of a privacy law arriving ‘by the back door’. The concern is prompted by the competing application of sections of the European Convention of Human Rights. Whereas Article 8 preserves the right to respect private and family life, Article 10 guarantees the freedom of expression, and it has come down to individual judges to interpret the intricacies of that balance. Sadly, this has already served to illustrate how, when the opportunity arises, institutional hammers can’t resist sacrificial nuts.
Even the Royal Household has threatened legal action against what it considers to be prying. What possible justification can there be for confiscating the cameras of the well-wishers and congregation who attended church at Sandringham on Christmas Day?
Perhaps the answer lies in the example set by our American cousins. The First Amendment to their written constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Now, of course, we all know there’s freedom and there’s responsibility. Moreover, it would be up to Parliament in Britain to lead on such legislation.
After the bruising revelations in the press about MPs and their expenses, I can’t help feeling it will require a leap of faith to expect the hens to give the foxes more room for manoeuvre.
