Is this Cameron's Sepp Blatter moment?

[Vile Consort]

Contrasting. The Clarkson view supported by the law appears to be that hate isn't meant at all unless it is directed at specific groups when it is always really meant. For a start that is illogical.

Next, can we delve deeper into why hate against the groups in question became a crime? I'd be interested to hear from others but here are a few suggestions - to protect people, to be fair to them, to be inclusive, to be decent, to be civil, to prevent them from being placed in ever increasing vulnerability. All good stuff.

Funny then that the law would not protect against, say, cancer victims from "amusing jokes" and a state institution views lurid pot shots at those fighting against poverty in old age somewhere between great entertainment and a light faux pas. One looks back to the sixties when enlightenment was on the up and thinks of documentaries like "Cathy Come Home". People were upset and shocked by the realities that revealed. They were human. Men and women. Not bastards.

Now you get on a bus and half the people on it, both on the right and left, are culturally warped. Some wave flags they have been given for political correctness. Well, hip hooray. There is a kind of gas chamber Hitlerian attitude that accompanies that outlook in many. As long as they have treble ticked the necessary boxes, they can relegate all else to fodder. If any group is dispensible, it is surely that one. These people are things. I don't recognise them as people.

What you don't seem to have grasped, Lateral, is the essential difference between what people do and what they are (Jewish, gay, black, etc).

The thing that makes one a legitimate target for criticism, satire or even mockery and the other not is that people can decide what actions to take but not ... surely I don't have to go all the way with this one, do I?

I don't think Wednesday's strikers are strikers in quite the same way that black people are black. It's a category error to think that the strikers should be protected by the same laws that protect black people.

[french frank]

I didn't mention it being in a legal sense. Indeed at one point (post 106) I tried to establish by whom we were talking about verbal abuse being allowed.

I think you mentioned 'free speech' and its limiting. But (as I understand it) the only pertinent point about freedom of speech is the legal one. Mere verbal abuse, it has been established, is (specifically) allowed as a right of freedom of speech

You've also picked up my example about homosexuality incorrectly.

Indeed, I did. Apologies. The matter of 'offence' does not affect freedom of speech. As Mr Justice Collins agreed, the 'Nazi' comments of Ken Livingstone were very offensive but were allowable as a right to freedom of speech. My point is different, which is why I say freedom of speech is irrelevant: the BBC itself is not required to allow anyone and everyone to say what they like over its airwaves and, unlike the law, it does take 'offensiveness' to the general public into consideration.

I'm not sure what your point is about Dawkins. I'm not arguing that the BBC should be obliged to invite anyone onto the One Show.

The point being that if the BBC thought that what Dawkins would say would be deeply offensive to (a section of) the general public, it would be within its right to refuse him a platform without it being accused of infringing his freedom of speech, since freedom of speech does not stretch to allowing anyone to say what they like anywhere at any time. Merely that if they do say it anywhere at any time they will not be prosecuted unless it infringes an existing law.

[Pilchardman]

But (as I understand it) the only pertinent point about freedom of speech is the legal one.

Really? Pertinent to what?

I didn't bring Dawkins up (and, really people. Other atheists are available!), but since he's here, let's continue with the example. I haven't been arguing that the One Show should be obliged to have Dawkins on. They can book whomsoever they choose.

[Bryn]

I've never watched the On Show (a typo, that! ) and I'm not sure what it's for
...

It starts just before the Channel 4 News does (though it is scheduled to start at the same time, IIRC). What's it for? Work it out for yourself.

[Lateralthinking1]

What you don't seem to have grasped, Lateral, is the essential difference between what people do and what they are (Jewish, gay, black, etc).

The thing that makes one a legitimate target for criticism, satire or even mockery and the other not is that people can decide what actions to take but not ... surely I don't have to go all the way with this one, do I?

I don't think Wednesday's strikers are strikers in quite the same way that black people are black. It's a category error to think that the strikers should be protected by the same laws that protect black people.

No. First, I support the laws to protect people from discriminatory comment about what (surely who?) they are. Next, I agree that one can be a legitimate target for criticism, satire or even mockery on the basis of deciding what actions to take. Thirdly, I don't believe that the strikers (many of whom are black etc) should be protected by the same set of laws that protect black people. However, on point two, there is a bigger picture. One can be a legitimate target for censure and even legal action on the basis of deciding what actions to take. That includes deciding to incite killing or hatred or to reinforce hatred. There are many examples. Extreme Muslim community leaders have on occasion fallen into this category as have those in extreme right wing groups.

The former may be particularly relevant here. Normally Muslim extremists are direct. They may be creepy but they are not so creepy - and clever clever - to turn their thoughts into so-called humour. Let us say though that one did and was invited onto The One Show. The Muslim Extremist Comedian. I will give you two possible scenarios. One - he makes a "joke" about exterminating Jews. Two - he makes a "joke" about bombing the Bluewater shopping development. In each case, he turns to the audience and says laughing "don't you agree?". There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that he and the BBC would be heavily censured, or more, in either case. Interestingly, one is about Jewish people and the other is about shoppers. Hence one in your book is a "what they are" and the other is a "what they decide to do". However, I don't believe you would make huge distinctions there. The apologetic distinctions people are seeking to make about Clarkson are false. And in both the scenarios I mention, it is quite clear to me that people broadly would regard them far more seriously than calling someone from a minority group by an abusive name.

So the liberty being afforded here by many, by the BBC and the law, is to a white broadcaster who is thought by some to be a comedian. This though only applies to the language of killing. Had he used an abusive word about a recognised minority group, then he would be in a worse position than he is and then also in a worse position than if an Asian used an abusive word to someone white. So in other words, it is ok for someone from a minority to be injurious in language, it is completely intolerable for a white person to be injurious in language to a minority, it is ok for a white person to talk about exterminating and killing except if he is a member of an extreme right wing group and it is completely intolerable for someone from a minority to do so. It is illogical. In fact, Clarkson ironically is being seen as ok by many not because of what he decided to do but rather precisely because of who he is.

[french frank]

Really? Pertinent to what?

Oh, dear. You said in Msg#98 "But is "I'm offended" sufficient argument to limit free speech?" I'm saying in a general sense, no, because the right to freedom of speech includes the right to be offensive, as long as what you say isn't against the law. The general right doesn't include the absolute right in restricted contexts (e.g a workplace or on a live BBC programme) to be offensive without penalty. That doesn't properly 'limit free speech' because you have a general right to say what you said, but not necessarily when and where you said it. You can't be prosecuted for being offensive, but in certain contexts you can expect measures to be taken against you. My argument is that in having a character like Clarkson on a live programme like the One Show smacks of trying to have it both ways - running the high risk of an offensive comment and then apologising afterwards.

I didn't bring Dawkins up (and, really people. Other atheists are available!)

I think you did by implication in that you mentioned the atheist bus campaign of which Dawkins was a prominent supporter. That was why I then mentioned him.

[handsomefortune]

it is absurd that so much attention and capacity for distraction has been given to Clarkson.

yes, the 'non news' in relation to his outburst is on rotation on r4.

i think he may have another brewing now, this time about people who commit suicide by jumping in front of trains annoying him. endless extra blether about the him as a result ...

the great oaf.

still, i'm relieved he didn't say these things on 'world at one' on r4,during martha, anne mcelvoy and him 'putting the world to rights' .... (god forbid).

I think the BBC courts controversy and that it invites populist opinions on populist programmes.

agreed french frank.

[handsomefortune]

oops sorry, that first 'it is absurd' quote was john skelton's.

[Lateralthinking1]

I suppose one of the things is that people find different things funny. I was looking at a forum for the unemployed and found this message. I thought it had some bittersweet charm and it was the first thing that made me laugh out loud all week:

kawin eynin says:
February 7, 2011 at 6:27 pm
I usually put loo roll on my head and walk around town dancing like a chicken most days. I get about £25 a day because i beg the other tramps to lend me money! it is ideal for me at the moment cos i buy a lot of cheese for me and my pet fish

Mind you, this from The Guardian is kind of funny too and probably confirms everything we wondered:

Clarkson, who is now 51, grew up in a middle-class household in Doncaster. His parents made their money selling stuffed Paddington Bears.

[Bryn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyhdjMqCOY8

Unfortunately, the aspect ratio is up the creek.

[scottycelt]

I suppose one of the things is that people find different things funny. I was looking at a forum for the unemployed and found this message. I thought it had some bittersweet charm and it was the first thing that made me laugh out loud all week:

kawin eynin says:
February 7, 2011 at 6:27 pm
I usually put loo roll on my head and walk around town dancing like a chicken most days. I get about £25 a day because i beg the other tramps to lend me money! it is ideal for me at the moment cos i buy a lot of cheese for me and my pet fish

Mind you, this from The Guardian is kind of funny too and probably confirms everything we wondered:

Clarkson, who is now 51, grew up in a middle-class household in Doncaster. His parents made their money selling stuffed Paddington Bears.

That's funny, as I can't see myself what's particularly funny about Jeremy Clarkson now being 51, growing up in a middle-class household in Doncaster, and his parents making their money, and presumably making a lot of kids happy, by selling stuffed Paddington Bears. (I've always assumed there is no other type.)

Am I missing some relevant connection here, or maybe I've just suffered a complete sense-of-humour breakdown ... ?

[Mr Pee]

Mind you, this from The Guardian is kind of funny too and probably confirms everything we wondered:

Clarkson, who is now 51, grew up in a middle-class household in Doncaster. His parents made their money selling stuffed Paddington Bears.

Am I missing some relevant connection here, or maybe I've just suffered a complete sense-of-humour breakdown ... ?

That would make two of us then. And I'm not sure what it's supposed to confirm, or indeed what we're supposed to be wondering.........

[Pilchardman]

Oh, dear. You said in Msg#98 "But is "I'm offended" sufficient argument to limit free speech?" I'm saying in a general sense, no, because the right to freedom of speech includes the right to be offensive, as long as what you say isn't against the law.

So it isn't sufficient; other factors have to be present. People who are calling for Clarkson to be sacked (apart from reacting to an incomplete report) need to be clear why. Because they're offended? Not enough. Because they think he was inciting violence? Well, that's where knowing the full story comes in.

The general right doesn't include the absolute right in restricted contexts (e.g a workplace or on a live BBC programme) to be offensive without penalty. That doesn't properly 'limit free speech' because you have a general right to say what you said, but not necessarily when and where you said it. You can't be prosecuted for being offensive, but in certain contexts you can expect measures to be taken against you.

My question (pertinent to what?) was to find out why you thought "only pertinent point about freedom of speech is the legal one". I still don't know. Do you think I'm arguing that the One Show has an obligation to make bookings according to some notion of free speech? I'm really not, and I've said so several times. The One Show is in no way a barometer of free speech or balance. My point was a general one about the recent national sport of Taking Offence.

Here's the thing. If you don't like Clarkson, don't watch him. I don't.

[french frank]

So it isn't sufficient; other factors have to be present. People who are calling for Clarkson to be sacked (apart from reacting to an incomplete report) need to be clear why. Because they're offended? Not enough. Because they think he was inciting violence? Well, that's where knowing the full story comes in.

Exactly so - but the main point is that they wanted him sacked. That was a try-on by the union (in my view) to make an issue of it; it wasn't simply about free speech (his right to say what he said). You're right, they would have had to demonstrate either that there was something illegal about what he said (yes, incitement to violence) or, in these circumstances, that the BBC had some sort of precedent, or obligation, about what it allowed and what sanctions it imposed. I'd have thought they had done so, many times, in the case of Clarkson! In other words, still a try-on by the union...

My question (pertinent to what?) was to find out why you thought "only pertinent point about freedom of speech is the legal one".

Sorry, that might have clouded the issue: I meant there was a general right to freedom of speech (to say what you like) unless what you have said, specifically, was against the law (racial hatred, incitement to violence).

I still don't know. Do you think I'm arguing that the One Show has an obligation to make bookings according to some notion of free speech? I'm really not, and I've said so several times.

No, I'm not saying that. The question is, if someone is appearing on the One Show do they then have the absolute right of freedom of speech? My answer would be no, because although the law allows people to be offensive, the BBC does not necessarily allow it. But it is the BBC which is the judge, as here - and I have no problem with their decision.

Here's the thing. If you don't like Clarkson, don't watch him. I don't.

Quite so. And not being in possession of a television set I'm unlikely to make any special effort to watch him. Tbh, I don't think we disagree about much here.

As for the National Sport of Taking Offence, I think there is a growing element. If something is, by some sort of 'general consent' grossly offensive then there's nothing wrong with them complaining. All I would comment - gratuitously - is that perhaps the BBC contributes to the yob culture in the country by employing yobs at vast expense - in Clarkson's case because he makes a great deal of money for them. But, then, that's just me exercising my freedom of speech!

[Pilchardman]

The question is, if someone is appearing on the One Show do they then have the absolute right of freedom of speech? My answer would be no, because although the law allows people to be offensive, the BBC does not necessarily allow it. But it is the BBC which is the judge, as here - and I have no problem with their decision.Quite so. And not being in possession of a television set I'm unlikely to make any special effort to watch him. Tbh, I don't think we disagree about much here.

It is the BBC which judges, and - as you've rightly said - they have consistently shown that they want to give air time to Clarkson. Despise him and all he stands for though I do, I have no problem with that.

Nor do I have a problem with people complaining. What I have a problem with is what appears to be a new mob culture of people complaining about something they didn't see, reacting instead to ill-reported stories distilled even further into a Twitter posting, and wanting people sacked or silenced simply because they're 'offended'. Or, to be more precise, I deplore the craven way the BBC and authorities respond to that. (C/f also the racist abuse tram woman).

If we go down the route of letting broadcasters fearing the Twitterati, or ultimately the state, ban "offensive" utterances (with "it offends me" being sufficient measure), then we have to be prepared to see a definition of "offensive" put into force which we don't like. My beliefs, my politics, my dress code, my sexual orientation, my ethnic origin, may in time all be defined as "offensive".

That is quite different from a programme judging its audience, you policing these boards, or me deciding what I put up with in my living room.