The way people use the phrase ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘free press’ is becoming a bit worrying. Especially when people start trying to use it to silence those who have legitimate and constructive criticism of the press. This particularly worried me recently when a friend of mine posted a link to a petition to ‘Take Bare Boobs out of the Sun’, inviting those who felt the same way to sign the petition as well. It was a fairly low-key, non-strident situation; ‘here’s something I care about, if you care about it too, look at this’. Before posting the link, my friend confided in me that she predicted it would illicit some less than constructive comments. After all, as my friend succinctly pointed out, feminism on facebook does tend to be like magnesium in water; introduce the tiniest amount, and the reaction is violent.
Proof of this theory was the veritable shit-storm of bollocks that followed that post, veering wildly in topic from freedom of the press, to women’s choice, to whether we should ever talk about anything except starving children. That’s the thing about facebook comment threads, isn’t it? It takes ordinarily quite intelligent and sensitive people and turns them into furious soundbites. And I’m the first to admit that I was one of those furious soundbites, reacting angrily to brainless-sexist-comment after brainless-sexist-comment (and, in the process, not really doing myself any favours*). Anthropologically speaking, it’s a fascinating thing, but it’s another blog for another time. What I want to focus on is the way some people tried to silence my friend by paradoxically waving the bloodied truncheon of ‘free press! free press!’. The initial comment went a little something (as in, exactly) like this:
Are fucking with us?? [sic] This country prides itself on a free press. If you don't like it, then don't buy the sun!
The initial thing that had me puzzled was the fantastic logic that the only form of protest should be passive and market driven; if you morally oppose something, don’t dare say anything about it, just keep your money in your pocket and keep your lips closed. Which is an interesting idea coming from someone who simultaneously champions the ‘free press’, a form of free speech. Crying ‘free press’ whilst aggressively shouting down someone with a different world view is a very uncomfortable paradox, but doing it whilst also suggesting that the only power we hold is as consumers is almost disturbing.
Yes, the press should have freedom, but we should also accept that freedom of the press does not mean ‘freedom from criticism’. Journalists have a pivotal role in society; they have the ability to shape discourse and steer opinion. It’s reasonable to expect them to recognise that they hold a responsibility, even if they don’t decide to respect it very much. If a journalist wants to write utter bollocks about how Nicola Benedetti should probably just get her tits out, they’ve got to take responsibility for their decision to be shit at their job, and accept that people will criticise them.
So, shouting ‘free press’ and ‘free speech’ does not mean you can say whatever the dick you like with no consequences. You can speak freely, but you must be able to accept responsibility when that offends people; when what you write or say is offensive to the values held by society and your readers.
If The Sun newspaper wants to continue printing pictures of topless babes giving inane and tokenistic views on current affairs, whilst women across the country are still battling for, among other things, equal pay and freedom from violence, then The Sun has to be prepared for the fact that many people will find that offensive and upsetting, and subsequently want to voice that upset. And don’t tell me it’s all about the girls’ choice to pose; I’m a slightly pudgy ginger chick with small boobs and short hair - I doubt that my choice (if it existed) to pose naked on Page 3 would have little bearing on the reality of it actually happening.
The bottom line is that, most of the time, when people criticise the press, they are not trying to censor it, or damage its freedom, they’re simply saying ‘hey, you’re really, really bad at your job, and we just thought you should know’.
_____________________________________________________________________________
*Leading to the decision that I will NEVER AGAIN take part in a facebook comment-thread fury again. My blood pressure can’t take it.
Also, the petition is linked here. Please feel free to sign it.
https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/dominic-mohan-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun
The thing that gets me is that with the 'free speech' arguement against this petition is that nobody is saying that boobies should never be seen they are just saying that a daily feature in a NEWSpaper that very explicitly holds a woman up to be judged solely on her looks and body is completely inappropriate. Why doesn't The Sun choose to print hard-core porn picutres on Page 3 every day? Because this would be inappropriate and many people would find it offensice. But very few people are complaining the paper's free speech has been violated by the moral restrictions on The Sun not to print these kinds of pictures, despite the fact that such images are perfectly legal and are available in many of the same newsagents where you can buy the paper from.
ReplyDeletePhew, just wanted to get that off my chest (no pun intended). Thanks for writing this, some of the uninformed arguements against this petition have been making my blood boil too! (not saying there aren't some valid points to be listened to out there, just that the whole freedom of speech default arguement has been thrown about a lot by people who just seem to be looking for a defence of their own enjoyment of page three. Fine, if you like it then just say you like it, but there are plenty of other places you can view images of half naked women without having it there as a daily reminder that the country's biggest selling newspaper thinks that judging women solely on their bodies is of such high importance it deserves more prominence, every single day, than the majority of other news in the world.