Censorship, hate speech and freedom of speech
I'd like to say some things about censorship and what it means.
The Story So Far...
Julie Burchill wrote a piece in the Observer's "Comment is Free" section. It was really very very nastily transphobic. It produced a lot of anger and lots of people (including me) wrote or emailed the editor saying it wasn't the kind of thing they wanted to see the Observer/Guardian publish. Lynn Featherstone, who is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Overseas Development, called for Julie Burchill to be sacked and the piece to be withdrawn.
The Observer pulled the piece and deleted the comments made about it from their website. The Telegraph has, subsequently, chosen to host a copy of the article, alongside an editorial piece about freedom of speech, with, I think, the implication that they are hosting the piece in defense of freedom of speech rather than because they agree with it.
My Thoughts
What is censorship? I'd define it as the government interfering with freedom of speech. I don't think that the Guardian can be said to have censored Julie Burchill, because I don't think it makes sense to claim the Guardian has a duty to provide a platform to all and sundry. Lynne Featherstone did call for the piece to be withdrawn and in a different country with a different culture, that could have been a "The paper had better pull the piece or else..."-kind of government strong-arming, but we don't have that kind of culture and I think the reality is more to do with Featherstone trying to ride the wave of public sentiment to up her own profile than trying to strong-arm the press.
If the Guardian had refused to publish Burchill's article on the grounds of transphobia, nobody would have had an issue; it's the Guardian's freedom of speech to publish or refuse to publish things as they like. There are views that cannot find a publisher because they are of such a nature that no publisher wants to be associated with it, right down to the level of "My ISP refuses to host my racist private blog". I don't think this is censorship, provided it is the actions of private organizations and is not mandated or coordinated by the government. If somebody is so offensive they end up having to walk the streets with a hand-written billboard to get the word out, that's the marketplace of ideas at work, not censorship.
Now, many people host ideas they don't agree with, because they think that the circulation of those ideas is a good thing in the spirit of free debate (or because they think it's profitable). This is fine. There is a sliding scale of what conditions things must meet to be published in various ways. Newspapers typically require that the piece be well-written and well-reasoned, with these requirements imposed more lightly on those articles generally in accordance with the paper's political slant and more heavily on those that cut against it (That is, to get a left-leaning piece published by the Telegraph or a right-leaning piece published by the Guardian, it will need to be of a higher quality than vice versa). it is normal and accepted for a paper to make value judgments about what it publishes and the public judges a paper based on what it publishes (the Mail gives Richard Littlejohn a column, I make the judgement that the Mail is a worthless rag).
In contrast, Internet Service Providers typically only require that what they host be legal, whereas services like Live Journal, Twitter and Facebook will also take things down if they are out-and-out-beyond-the-pale-offensive to almost everyone, but will typically host pretty much anything else. I don't judge Facebook or Virgin for what they host because there is not the same implication that they approve of what they're hosting.
Newspapers, however, typically do endorse what they publish at least in so far as "this is a interesting contribution to the debate" or "this is notable enough you may wish to be read it". This is why I thought less of the Observer for publishing Burchill's screed and why I don't like the way (more the way, than the fact) that the Telegraph is hosting it now.
I don't think the Observer was right to delete the article. I think the best and most honest thing to do would be to publish a retraction along the lines of "We were wrong to publish this article and the paper wishes to disassociate itself from it" but to continue to host both the article and it's comments because a mistake once made ought to be owned up to, not swept under the rug.
Further, the piece itself is now news and notable and a record of it ought to be preserved. If the Telegraph had presented it in that way (the way a Prime Minister's speech might be publish verbatim, presented but unendorsed), I would not have a problem with it. My issue would be that I don't feel the Telegraph has clearly indicated either way whether the piece is presented but not endorsed or whether they are publishing it in the same way as they'd publish any other column.
And either way, this has nothing to do with censorship or free speech.
The Story So Far...
Julie Burchill wrote a piece in the Observer's "Comment is Free" section. It was really very very nastily transphobic. It produced a lot of anger and lots of people (including me) wrote or emailed the editor saying it wasn't the kind of thing they wanted to see the Observer/Guardian publish. Lynn Featherstone, who is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Overseas Development, called for Julie Burchill to be sacked and the piece to be withdrawn.
The Observer pulled the piece and deleted the comments made about it from their website. The Telegraph has, subsequently, chosen to host a copy of the article, alongside an editorial piece about freedom of speech, with, I think, the implication that they are hosting the piece in defense of freedom of speech rather than because they agree with it.
My Thoughts
What is censorship? I'd define it as the government interfering with freedom of speech. I don't think that the Guardian can be said to have censored Julie Burchill, because I don't think it makes sense to claim the Guardian has a duty to provide a platform to all and sundry. Lynne Featherstone did call for the piece to be withdrawn and in a different country with a different culture, that could have been a "The paper had better pull the piece or else..."-kind of government strong-arming, but we don't have that kind of culture and I think the reality is more to do with Featherstone trying to ride the wave of public sentiment to up her own profile than trying to strong-arm the press.
If the Guardian had refused to publish Burchill's article on the grounds of transphobia, nobody would have had an issue; it's the Guardian's freedom of speech to publish or refuse to publish things as they like. There are views that cannot find a publisher because they are of such a nature that no publisher wants to be associated with it, right down to the level of "My ISP refuses to host my racist private blog". I don't think this is censorship, provided it is the actions of private organizations and is not mandated or coordinated by the government. If somebody is so offensive they end up having to walk the streets with a hand-written billboard to get the word out, that's the marketplace of ideas at work, not censorship.
Now, many people host ideas they don't agree with, because they think that the circulation of those ideas is a good thing in the spirit of free debate (or because they think it's profitable). This is fine. There is a sliding scale of what conditions things must meet to be published in various ways. Newspapers typically require that the piece be well-written and well-reasoned, with these requirements imposed more lightly on those articles generally in accordance with the paper's political slant and more heavily on those that cut against it (That is, to get a left-leaning piece published by the Telegraph or a right-leaning piece published by the Guardian, it will need to be of a higher quality than vice versa). it is normal and accepted for a paper to make value judgments about what it publishes and the public judges a paper based on what it publishes (the Mail gives Richard Littlejohn a column, I make the judgement that the Mail is a worthless rag).
In contrast, Internet Service Providers typically only require that what they host be legal, whereas services like Live Journal, Twitter and Facebook will also take things down if they are out-and-out-beyond-the-pale-offensive to almost everyone, but will typically host pretty much anything else. I don't judge Facebook or Virgin for what they host because there is not the same implication that they approve of what they're hosting.
Newspapers, however, typically do endorse what they publish at least in so far as "this is a interesting contribution to the debate" or "this is notable enough you may wish to be read it". This is why I thought less of the Observer for publishing Burchill's screed and why I don't like the way (more the way, than the fact) that the Telegraph is hosting it now.
I don't think the Observer was right to delete the article. I think the best and most honest thing to do would be to publish a retraction along the lines of "We were wrong to publish this article and the paper wishes to disassociate itself from it" but to continue to host both the article and it's comments because a mistake once made ought to be owned up to, not swept under the rug.
Further, the piece itself is now news and notable and a record of it ought to be preserved. If the Telegraph had presented it in that way (the way a Prime Minister's speech might be publish verbatim, presented but unendorsed), I would not have a problem with it. My issue would be that I don't feel the Telegraph has clearly indicated either way whether the piece is presented but not endorsed or whether they are publishing it in the same way as they'd publish any other column.
And either way, this has nothing to do with censorship or free speech.