The US First Amendment Center recently flagged up research showing the dominance of speech codes on US campuses. An analysis of more than 330 colleges across the USA found that some 68 per cent have policies that ‘clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech’.
This included The University of California at Los Angeles’ harassment policy, which states that ‘Sexual harassment may include: derogatory remarks about one’s clothing, body, or sexual activities based on gender; disparaging remarks, jokes, and teasing based on gender; verbal harassment or abuse; subtle pressure for sexual activity; unwelcome touching, patting, or pinching; demanding sexual favors’. It’s a wonder that students there have a social life at all.
The organisation that carried out the research, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, gave colleges a red, amber or green grading, based on whether they infringed First Amendment principles. Yet the UK has no such Amendment principles. When it comes to taking up similar speech codes here we have to start from scratch, exploring how free thought and expression are essential to a vibrant social life, and the development of individual ideas and character. After all, how are students to grow up into sensitive and responsible adults, if every aspect of their life – down to comments about clothing - is governed by codes? By simply banning any speech deemed unpleasant or bad, codes stifle the development of moral responsibility.
Josie Appleton
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query speech codes. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query speech codes. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, 2 March 2007
Friday, 27 April 2007
R-A-C-I-S-T, find out what it means to me
A local Standards Committee last week cleared Councillor Gail Kenney of Cambridgeshire of the ‘racial offence’ of ‘offending a group of Muslim girls’. Kenney met with the Soni Kuriz Young Asian Women’s Group last June. She demanded to know why someone would want to wear a headscarf, saying she found burkhas ‘frightening and intimidating’ and that they could be used by terrorists as a disguise (which is true, and has already happened). Kenney also said in response to a request for another mosque that, ‘we’ve got one already – do you want one on every street?’, and suggested that a college drop-out present at the meeting would ‘end up getting married to someone illiterate from back home’. Not the most diplomatic of performances, certainly – but did Kenney’s remarks really deserve a 9-month long investigation?
Article 2 of the Local Authorities Model Code of Conduct (2001) states that councillors should ‘promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully against any person’ and should ‘treat others with respect’, while Article 4 cautions against bringing one’s ‘office or authority into disrepute’. The young Muslim women claimed Kenney had broken these rules.
The danger in submitting elected representatives, or indeed anyone else, to codes of conduct that prescribe ‘respect’ is of course that in today’s censorious climate, almost anything can be (and is) interpreted as disrespectful. Indeed, the Cambridge Campaign Against the Arms Trade has accused another Cambridgeshire councillor of violating the Code of Conduct by calling them ‘pathetic’. Rather than focusing on the issues at stake – say, the right to dress as one pleases, rallying community support to demand the council build a mosque, or take action against the arms trade – groups instead cry foul about the way they are treated and spoken to. The claim is not that Kenney is corrupt, incompetent, or even wrong to hold the views she does, but that her replies conveyed inadequate ‘respect’ for someone else’s point of view.
But whether someone’s view is worthy of respect is contestable, not something to be pre-determined by a Code of Conduct, or indeed by someone's identity. Ideas should be judged on their merits and be debated openly and robustly – that is the only way we can test their validity. The Soni Kuriz group could have responded to Kenney by explaining their desire to wear headscarves, or making the case for additional mosques. If they felt strongly enough, they could have campaigned against her publicly and let the electorate decide her fate. Instead, they threw their hands up and cried foul, attempting to have her removed by a Standards Board comprised of mostly unelected representatives, on the grounds that she was rude to them.
Events like this are increasingly common and show up three troubling trends. The first is the use of unelected authorities to try to get rid of or silence elected representatives – highlighted most memorably by the campaign to have London’s Mayor, Ken Livingstone, removed from office for a supposedly anti-Semitic comment. This degrades public life by allowing a handful of ‘offended’ individuals to pursue a politically-motivated campaign that is not subjected to public involvement.
This is facilitated by the second trend, the rise of speech codes in public life. This gives ammunition to those who want to bring down elected officials without going to the trouble of using democratic means.
This produces a third, and possibly the most dangerous trend: the tendency to suppress all speech on ‘controversial’ racial or religious issues. This simply reinforces the public image of Muslim groups as particularly sensitive to criticism and as unable or unwilling to engage in robust discussion. Indeed, the Soni Kuriz group has now vowed to never invite a councillor to speak again. Speech codes that seem to pander to such groups simply tend to infuriate everyone else. More importantly, they do absolutely nothing to challenge racist or other discriminatory attitudes in society. Councillor Kenney’s views were never countered with better arguments and shown to be wrong. In this case they are not even ruled to be disrespectful. No one has changed their minds after this episode about the nature of burkhas, the socio-economic conditions of young Muslim women, or the need for another mosque in Arbury. Its only outcome is the further retreat of the Soni Kuriz group from public engagement, and a chilling effect on free speech.
Lee Jones
Article 2 of the Local Authorities Model Code of Conduct (2001) states that councillors should ‘promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully against any person’ and should ‘treat others with respect’, while Article 4 cautions against bringing one’s ‘office or authority into disrepute’. The young Muslim women claimed Kenney had broken these rules.
The danger in submitting elected representatives, or indeed anyone else, to codes of conduct that prescribe ‘respect’ is of course that in today’s censorious climate, almost anything can be (and is) interpreted as disrespectful. Indeed, the Cambridge Campaign Against the Arms Trade has accused another Cambridgeshire councillor of violating the Code of Conduct by calling them ‘pathetic’. Rather than focusing on the issues at stake – say, the right to dress as one pleases, rallying community support to demand the council build a mosque, or take action against the arms trade – groups instead cry foul about the way they are treated and spoken to. The claim is not that Kenney is corrupt, incompetent, or even wrong to hold the views she does, but that her replies conveyed inadequate ‘respect’ for someone else’s point of view.
But whether someone’s view is worthy of respect is contestable, not something to be pre-determined by a Code of Conduct, or indeed by someone's identity. Ideas should be judged on their merits and be debated openly and robustly – that is the only way we can test their validity. The Soni Kuriz group could have responded to Kenney by explaining their desire to wear headscarves, or making the case for additional mosques. If they felt strongly enough, they could have campaigned against her publicly and let the electorate decide her fate. Instead, they threw their hands up and cried foul, attempting to have her removed by a Standards Board comprised of mostly unelected representatives, on the grounds that she was rude to them.
Events like this are increasingly common and show up three troubling trends. The first is the use of unelected authorities to try to get rid of or silence elected representatives – highlighted most memorably by the campaign to have London’s Mayor, Ken Livingstone, removed from office for a supposedly anti-Semitic comment. This degrades public life by allowing a handful of ‘offended’ individuals to pursue a politically-motivated campaign that is not subjected to public involvement.
This is facilitated by the second trend, the rise of speech codes in public life. This gives ammunition to those who want to bring down elected officials without going to the trouble of using democratic means.
This produces a third, and possibly the most dangerous trend: the tendency to suppress all speech on ‘controversial’ racial or religious issues. This simply reinforces the public image of Muslim groups as particularly sensitive to criticism and as unable or unwilling to engage in robust discussion. Indeed, the Soni Kuriz group has now vowed to never invite a councillor to speak again. Speech codes that seem to pander to such groups simply tend to infuriate everyone else. More importantly, they do absolutely nothing to challenge racist or other discriminatory attitudes in society. Councillor Kenney’s views were never countered with better arguments and shown to be wrong. In this case they are not even ruled to be disrespectful. No one has changed their minds after this episode about the nature of burkhas, the socio-economic conditions of young Muslim women, or the need for another mosque in Arbury. Its only outcome is the further retreat of the Soni Kuriz group from public engagement, and a chilling effect on free speech.
Lee Jones
Thursday, 21 June 2007
Importing speech codes
It seems Western 'liberal' hate-speech laws are being taken up in Kenya. In this column from The Nation (Nairobi), it is suggested that hate-speech be banned post-haste. The author, Peter Mwaura, is clearly concerned with preventing inter-tribal or ethnic conflict by making incitement illegal; but interestingly he is also keen on applying said laws at the individual level as well - something that resembles the harassment laws pioneered in the US.
To buttress his argument, Mwaura refers to the prevalence of hate-speech laws in Europe and, while recognising certain cultural-historical national specificities to these laws, implies that these are positive innovations. It appears that, in an effort to further his point, the author points to the greater degree of freedom of speech enjoyed in America, suggesting this allows the Ku Klux Klan free reign.
This should be seen as a worrying trend, though no doubt some Western observers will champion it, perceiving this to be a move away from old style authoritarianism (read 'barbarian despotism/anarchy') to a new softly-softly approach to 'democracy' (speech management/modification). This is certainly a development to follow...
Alex Hochuli
To buttress his argument, Mwaura refers to the prevalence of hate-speech laws in Europe and, while recognising certain cultural-historical national specificities to these laws, implies that these are positive innovations. It appears that, in an effort to further his point, the author points to the greater degree of freedom of speech enjoyed in America, suggesting this allows the Ku Klux Klan free reign.
This should be seen as a worrying trend, though no doubt some Western observers will champion it, perceiving this to be a move away from old style authoritarianism (read 'barbarian despotism/anarchy') to a new softly-softly approach to 'democracy' (speech management/modification). This is certainly a development to follow...
Alex Hochuli
Tuesday, 3 April 2007
Speech police
That it is ridiculous to try to ban the use of the word ‘gay’ in the sense of ‘naff’ or ‘rubbish’ has already been amply demonstrated. Any attempt to impose such a ban not only fails to address the issues surrounding its use in a properly homophobic sense -thereby doing nothing to tackle real homophobia in society- but it also imposes a creed of appropriateness on people's behaviour. The response to the use of the term is more concerned with creating an atmosphere of ‘ooh, you can’t say that!’ than actually defeating any underlying prejudice, which is actually more often imagined than real.
These speech codes are usually policed by self-righteous, hand-wringing ‘liberals’ in human resources departments, local councils or student unions. But if you want evidence that the codes are becoming more rigorously enforced, look no further than an incredible incident in Cheshire on Saturday, when no fewer than four police officers turned up to reprimand a 10-year-old child for using the word ‘gay’ in an email to his friend. The friend’s parents reported this to the police, who tracked down the dangerous perpetrator with the help of his school – which is appropriate, since the boys in blue now seem to be very concerned about playground banter. Reportedly, 10-year-old George is now terrified of being thrown in jail, though the police insist their response was ‘proportionate’. Still, he won’t be saying ‘gay’ again any time soon, eh?
Lee Jones
These speech codes are usually policed by self-righteous, hand-wringing ‘liberals’ in human resources departments, local councils or student unions. But if you want evidence that the codes are becoming more rigorously enforced, look no further than an incredible incident in Cheshire on Saturday, when no fewer than four police officers turned up to reprimand a 10-year-old child for using the word ‘gay’ in an email to his friend. The friend’s parents reported this to the police, who tracked down the dangerous perpetrator with the help of his school – which is appropriate, since the boys in blue now seem to be very concerned about playground banter. Reportedly, 10-year-old George is now terrified of being thrown in jail, though the police insist their response was ‘proportionate’. Still, he won’t be saying ‘gay’ again any time soon, eh?
Lee Jones
Monday, 11 June 2007
Bully for you!
Josie Appleton's post attracted a number of comments and was reproduced with dismay on the Bullied Academics blog. The post had argued that the Sal Fiore case championed by Bullied Academics was not really a case of academic freedom, since Fiore had been disciplined for maligning his bosses rather than for the content of his work. In the comments, Lee Jones quite reasonably argues that even if this is not an academic freedom issue, employees should be free to criticise their bosses. While, legally, employers may be entitled to sack employees they judge to be harming their interests, it is certainly in the spirit of this blog to argue that they should err on the side of tolerance. Depending on the job, of course, there may come a point when free speech leads inevitably to the sack - Josie Appleton gave the example of a deputy company director publicly disagreeing with his boss; similarly, everyone understands that civil servants' freedom of speech is constrained by their position.
Academic freedom forms an important exception to the very basic rule that employers can sack whoever they want, but the point of the original post was that not everything an academic says comes under the rubric of academic freedom, or even ordinary toleration. Whatever the merits of Sal Fiore's case - about which I make no comment here - it would actually demean free speech to argue that people should be protected from the reasonable consequences of unprofessional or abusive speech, for example. There comes a point when it is fair enough for an employer to sack someone for expressing views that are incompatible with the job, or expressing views in such a way that is incompatible with the job. As long as state sanctions are not involved, the employee keeps his freedom of speech, but loses his job. It's a hard-knock life.
Again though, academic freedom is sufficiently important that it must be defined generously enough to give the benefit of the doubt to academics and prevent university or other authorities from silencing people on spurious grounds: as a rough guide, it is legitimate to sack a lecturer for hurling racist abuse at students, but not for espousing views deemed to be 'racially offensive'. Clearly such distinctions depend on a certain degree of good faith. Another problem thrown up by this case, then, is the shrill rhetoric about 'bullying', 'fascists' and 'fourth rate administrators'. It is telling that while Sal Fiore accused his university of bullying, a disciplinary letter from the university accused him of 'inappropriate and aggressive behaviour'. This spectacle of accusation and counter-accusation is the unedifying consequence of a legalistic and bureaucratic culture in universities, which is utterly at odds with academic freedom. For academics who feel pushed around by their bosses to style themselves as victims of bullying is counterproductive, since in the end it can only exacerbate the bureaucratisation of universities by entrenching anti-bullying codes and procedures. What is needed instead is a robust defence of academic freedom as a collective enterprise marked by thoughtful engagement with the ideas of others.
Dolan Cummings
Academic freedom forms an important exception to the very basic rule that employers can sack whoever they want, but the point of the original post was that not everything an academic says comes under the rubric of academic freedom, or even ordinary toleration. Whatever the merits of Sal Fiore's case - about which I make no comment here - it would actually demean free speech to argue that people should be protected from the reasonable consequences of unprofessional or abusive speech, for example. There comes a point when it is fair enough for an employer to sack someone for expressing views that are incompatible with the job, or expressing views in such a way that is incompatible with the job. As long as state sanctions are not involved, the employee keeps his freedom of speech, but loses his job. It's a hard-knock life.
Again though, academic freedom is sufficiently important that it must be defined generously enough to give the benefit of the doubt to academics and prevent university or other authorities from silencing people on spurious grounds: as a rough guide, it is legitimate to sack a lecturer for hurling racist abuse at students, but not for espousing views deemed to be 'racially offensive'. Clearly such distinctions depend on a certain degree of good faith. Another problem thrown up by this case, then, is the shrill rhetoric about 'bullying', 'fascists' and 'fourth rate administrators'. It is telling that while Sal Fiore accused his university of bullying, a disciplinary letter from the university accused him of 'inappropriate and aggressive behaviour'. This spectacle of accusation and counter-accusation is the unedifying consequence of a legalistic and bureaucratic culture in universities, which is utterly at odds with academic freedom. For academics who feel pushed around by their bosses to style themselves as victims of bullying is counterproductive, since in the end it can only exacerbate the bureaucratisation of universities by entrenching anti-bullying codes and procedures. What is needed instead is a robust defence of academic freedom as a collective enterprise marked by thoughtful engagement with the ideas of others.
Dolan Cummings
Monday, 12 March 2007
I'd rather be a censor than a football fan?
The metropolitan police are investigating a racist incident at a premiership match between West Ham and Tottenham Hotspur on 4 March. Fans allegedly chanted such lovely slogans as ‘I’d rather be a Paki than a Jew’. Spurs are well-known for their Jewish following and this was definitely unpleasant, but is it something to be banged-up for?
This, the latest in a long line of interventions by the police into the world of football, will unfortunately not be the last. No speech, however offensive, should have the threat of police action hanging over it. Moreover, a football match isn’t a dinner party and some of the normal rules of polite society are suspended for 90 minutes. Where the line should be drawn is a matter for football fans themselves, not the police.
Equally concerning is another story, also involving Spurs. Luminaries from that club as well as the FA and the anti-racism campaign ‘Kick It Out’ are to debate later this month whether there should be an ‘education campaign’ to phase out Spurs fans’ reference to themselves as the ‘Yid Army’. Although less obviously repressive, this restriction on what is appropriate for football fans to say or call themselves is a threat as equally pernicious as that posed by the 'boys in blue', those West Ham supporters. Let’s kick speech codes out of football along with racism.
Robin Walsh
Wednesday, 4 April 2007
Bad language
As was pointed out in a recent post below, the case of George, the 10-year-old whose parents were shocked to receive a visit from the police after he called another boy ‘gay’ in an email, is indeed disturbing. But what is the proper response to this kind of incident? We can cry ‘police state!’ and remonstrate about ‘PC gone mad’. We can also be sensible and point to the waste of police time. We can even be more nuanced and take issue with the policing, in the place of the parenting, of children. But that misses the point.
This is a free speech issue at heart. And it’s more complicated than it appears.
As a way of clarifying the matter, let’s compare George’s case with a hypothetical ‘hate crime’: a gay man is bullied, perhaps even assaulted, during the course of which he is called ‘gay boy’ in a derogatory manner. In such a case, it would be foolish to focus on the aggressor’s use of the word ‘gay’. Firstly there is the criminal issue to deal with and then, more importantly (socially speaking), there is the real underlying problem of homophobia. A case such as this would warrant our moral condemnation and a political argument against homophobia, not speech codes against the use of the word ‘gay’.
On the other hand, you have little George in Cheshire. In his ‘bullying’ of the other boy, his use of the word ‘gay’ is purely incidental. It bears about as much relation to homophobic assault as the fumigation of your house to deal with a pest problem does to Saddam Hussein’s attack on Halabja (i.e. they both used gas). This emphasises the real problem with the above responses to this case: they all work on the assumption that the boy is at fault and that the very use of the word ‘gay’ is wrong.
Leaving aside the question of bullying, what is there to suggest that George’s use of the word ‘gay’ is problematic? Do we think he is a homophobe, that he’ll grow up to attack gay men? As I’ve argued before, this relatively recent tendency to endow words with greater meaning than that which was intended by the speaker draws undue attention to the capacity of language to cause offence, rather than language’s paramount importance in permitting rational argument. The consequence of taking issue with the language we use amongst ourselves is the legitimisation of third party intervention, which in this particular case seems so utterly preposterous.
Alex Hochuli
This is a free speech issue at heart. And it’s more complicated than it appears.
As a way of clarifying the matter, let’s compare George’s case with a hypothetical ‘hate crime’: a gay man is bullied, perhaps even assaulted, during the course of which he is called ‘gay boy’ in a derogatory manner. In such a case, it would be foolish to focus on the aggressor’s use of the word ‘gay’. Firstly there is the criminal issue to deal with and then, more importantly (socially speaking), there is the real underlying problem of homophobia. A case such as this would warrant our moral condemnation and a political argument against homophobia, not speech codes against the use of the word ‘gay’.
On the other hand, you have little George in Cheshire. In his ‘bullying’ of the other boy, his use of the word ‘gay’ is purely incidental. It bears about as much relation to homophobic assault as the fumigation of your house to deal with a pest problem does to Saddam Hussein’s attack on Halabja (i.e. they both used gas). This emphasises the real problem with the above responses to this case: they all work on the assumption that the boy is at fault and that the very use of the word ‘gay’ is wrong.
Leaving aside the question of bullying, what is there to suggest that George’s use of the word ‘gay’ is problematic? Do we think he is a homophobe, that he’ll grow up to attack gay men? As I’ve argued before, this relatively recent tendency to endow words with greater meaning than that which was intended by the speaker draws undue attention to the capacity of language to cause offence, rather than language’s paramount importance in permitting rational argument. The consequence of taking issue with the language we use amongst ourselves is the legitimisation of third party intervention, which in this particular case seems so utterly preposterous.
Alex Hochuli
Sunday, 6 May 2007
Making Offending An Offence
Enough has been said, on speaking our mind and elsewhere, about the 'blogging code of conduct'. Tim O’Reilly’s proposal will undoubtedly remain a point of discussion as it gets taken up by bloggers and commentators around the world. Most recently, Tessa Jowell, UK Minister for Culture, endorsed the idea in a (very lightweight) speech to Progress. She then elaborated on it on the Guardian’s Comment is Free blog on Wednesday 2 May. It is easy to dismiss this: firstly one can ridicule her air-headed effort to re-brand the public sphere, including the new virtual space provided by the internet, as ‘Ourspace’ (yes, she is soooo 'in' with the kids). Secondly we can mock her attempts to legitimise the call for speech codes: on the Guardian blog, she unfavourably compares degenerate online discussions to the ‘boorish’ House of Commons, thereby evading any charges of elitist condescension (‘us lowly MPs ain’t perfect either’) or hypocrisy. But both these approaches miss the point. What is at issue here is a more profound discomfort with incivility.
Witness the recent attempt by five MEPs (from all sides of the political spectrum, harmoniously united against 'hate') to coerce internet service providers (ISPs) into including an injunction on hosting ‘hate sites’ in their terms and conditions. Never mind that such a policy is bound to fail and will never eliminate 'hate sites' (or indeed hate/prejudice/discrimination itself). What is at issue here again are two separate, but connected, ideas. Firstly is the idea that 'consumers' of information cannot cope with offensive material. This has been widely commented on here at speaking our mind. Secondly is that 'producers' of information, or indeed anyone engaged in online person-to-person or group discussion, has an obligation to behave 'reasonably'. The concomitant idea to this is that discursive activity online can (and should) be regulated by some external authority or by a pre-determined compact between participants and the host. This is incorrect: it is high time we stood up for our prerogative to be uncivil.
There is no a priori code that must be adopted before entering the public square. A truly free public space means we can be uncivil, disruptive, unpleasant, subversive or aggressive if we want to. Of course, I do sincerely hope that the standard of discussion on the internet improves beyond the name-calling and harassment we find today. But faced with establishmentarian exhortations to 'be nice', I think I'll politely decline. Faced with the prospect of a placid and passionless public space, give me puerility and pugnacity any day.
Alex Hochuli
Witness the recent attempt by five MEPs (from all sides of the political spectrum, harmoniously united against 'hate') to coerce internet service providers (ISPs) into including an injunction on hosting ‘hate sites’ in their terms and conditions. Never mind that such a policy is bound to fail and will never eliminate 'hate sites' (or indeed hate/prejudice/discrimination itself). What is at issue here again are two separate, but connected, ideas. Firstly is the idea that 'consumers' of information cannot cope with offensive material. This has been widely commented on here at speaking our mind. Secondly is that 'producers' of information, or indeed anyone engaged in online person-to-person or group discussion, has an obligation to behave 'reasonably'. The concomitant idea to this is that discursive activity online can (and should) be regulated by some external authority or by a pre-determined compact between participants and the host. This is incorrect: it is high time we stood up for our prerogative to be uncivil.
There is no a priori code that must be adopted before entering the public square. A truly free public space means we can be uncivil, disruptive, unpleasant, subversive or aggressive if we want to. Of course, I do sincerely hope that the standard of discussion on the internet improves beyond the name-calling and harassment we find today. But faced with establishmentarian exhortations to 'be nice', I think I'll politely decline. Faced with the prospect of a placid and passionless public space, give me puerility and pugnacity any day.
Alex Hochuli
Friday, 12 October 2007
Pregnant pause
Speaking our mind is taking a break for the time being, as the contributors pursue some of the themes raised on the blog in more detail. For starters, see Josie Appleton’s Manifesto Club Think Piece: A New Deal for Public Debate. The fraught quality of contemporary debate – the widespread readiness to take offence rather than make an argument – has been one of the major themes highlighted on the blog, and this is a trend we hope to challenge in a bid to rejuvenate and raise the level of public debate.Other recurring themes on Speaking our mind have included confusion about academic freedom (invariably leading to its erosion), race, religion and offence (again), and newly emerging etiquette and speech codes. These ideas will be further explored in a variety of forums by contributors to the blog and others. If you are concerned about the issues raised on the blog, and would like to get involved in our work around free speech, please get in touch, or better still join the Manifesto Club.
Monday, 12 March 2007
More PC at the FC
Yet another story involving racism and Tottenham Hotspur Football Club: last week, eight schoolchildren in Ware, near London, were arrested after a teacher saw a video on YouTube showing them chanting 'Yid Army' at his leaving do. As argued previously, this has nothing to do with racism; rather this incident highlights a growing tendency to assume the worst, and to apply informal but fastidious speech codes in ever more bizarre contexts.
In any case, football crowds have never been known for their PC sensitivity, and their rowdy chants and songs have often attracted the attentions of the censorious. While racist chants were relatively common when black players first began to appear in British football in the 1970s and 1980s - in the context of a far more racist society - they are largely unknown today. (The reaction to racist chants by a small number of Motherwell supporters at a recent game showed that racism is considered embarrassingly beyond the pale by football fans today.) Nonetheless, fans will use just about any other kind of abuse to wind up opposition players and supporters, with 'sectarian' chants and songs common in Scotland, and 'homophobic' abuse common everywhere. The authorities are increasingly anxious to rid the game of these unseemly features. The European football body UEFA recently fined Rangers because their fans sang the sectarian song 'Billy Boys' in Villareal, Spain, while the English Football Association recently decided to ban 'homophobic' chanting.
Leaving aside the straightforward free speech argument - these are chants and songs, not sticks and stones - the bans are based on a basic misunderstanding of what is happening at football matches. A football stadium is not a debating chamber or a public square where ideas are taken seriously and have bearing on real life. As Mick Hume has argued, 'football is the home-ground of the id', where people go to unwind by indulging their irrational passions for ninety minutes. As a matter of fact, there is virtually no sectarianism in Scotland today outside football grounds - the 'sectarian' songs are a peculiar expression of football rivalry, not a window on the soul of the nation. Similarly, 'homophobic' chants are not meant to insult gays and lesbians in general - again, there is overwhelming indifference to homosexuality in the world beyond the turnstiles - but to antagonise particular players, who may or may not be gay. (It's not big and it's not clever, but the implication that someone is gay is the cell form of male humour, and says pretty much nothing about broader social attitudes.) Banning this kind of abuse does not simply deprive people of the right to express their opinions; worse, it deprives them of the right to spout nonsense even when they don't mean it.
This is not simply irritating for those of us who enjoy the free and anarchic atmosphere of the football stadium - or indeed the leaving do. It encourages a humourless, witchhunting mentality that sees every slip from PC orthodoxy as something to be punished, and refuses to distinguish between the meaningful and the trivial. What we desperately need is not more bans, but the robust arguments to deal with actual bigotry, the good humour to deal with daft football chants, and the common sense to know the difference.
Dolan Cummings
In any case, football crowds have never been known for their PC sensitivity, and their rowdy chants and songs have often attracted the attentions of the censorious. While racist chants were relatively common when black players first began to appear in British football in the 1970s and 1980s - in the context of a far more racist society - they are largely unknown today. (The reaction to racist chants by a small number of Motherwell supporters at a recent game showed that racism is considered embarrassingly beyond the pale by football fans today.) Nonetheless, fans will use just about any other kind of abuse to wind up opposition players and supporters, with 'sectarian' chants and songs common in Scotland, and 'homophobic' abuse common everywhere. The authorities are increasingly anxious to rid the game of these unseemly features. The European football body UEFA recently fined Rangers because their fans sang the sectarian song 'Billy Boys' in Villareal, Spain, while the English Football Association recently decided to ban 'homophobic' chanting.
Leaving aside the straightforward free speech argument - these are chants and songs, not sticks and stones - the bans are based on a basic misunderstanding of what is happening at football matches. A football stadium is not a debating chamber or a public square where ideas are taken seriously and have bearing on real life. As Mick Hume has argued, 'football is the home-ground of the id', where people go to unwind by indulging their irrational passions for ninety minutes. As a matter of fact, there is virtually no sectarianism in Scotland today outside football grounds - the 'sectarian' songs are a peculiar expression of football rivalry, not a window on the soul of the nation. Similarly, 'homophobic' chants are not meant to insult gays and lesbians in general - again, there is overwhelming indifference to homosexuality in the world beyond the turnstiles - but to antagonise particular players, who may or may not be gay. (It's not big and it's not clever, but the implication that someone is gay is the cell form of male humour, and says pretty much nothing about broader social attitudes.) Banning this kind of abuse does not simply deprive people of the right to express their opinions; worse, it deprives them of the right to spout nonsense even when they don't mean it.
This is not simply irritating for those of us who enjoy the free and anarchic atmosphere of the football stadium - or indeed the leaving do. It encourages a humourless, witchhunting mentality that sees every slip from PC orthodoxy as something to be punished, and refuses to distinguish between the meaningful and the trivial. What we desperately need is not more bans, but the robust arguments to deal with actual bigotry, the good humour to deal with daft football chants, and the common sense to know the difference.
Dolan Cummings
Thursday, 23 August 2007
Is speaking your mind gay?
Users of Facebook will know there are thousands of ‘groups’ you can join, for everything from political parties to favourite bands or daft ‘just for fun’ stuff that often makes no sense to the uninitiated. The group pages show news, pictures and videos relating to the topic, and members can make friends with one another and take part in discussion forums. Membership of a group also shows up on your personal profile page, so even if you’re not that interested in getting involved, joining is still a bit like wearing a badge.
Once such group seems to be The word "gay" is not a synonym for "stupid", which currently has an impressive 78,232 members, and, more alarmingly, 28 ‘Officers’ and 14 ‘Admins’. On one level, the group simply expresses frustration with the use of the word gay as a term of disparagement. Actually, I don’t think this usage is quite synonymous with ‘stupid’ – more like ‘naff’ or ‘lame’, but that’s by the bye. The group’s general attitude wavers between pedantry and prudery, and is not very attractive, but that’s not important either – for a critique of this kind of censoriousness, see Censoring students at Oxford? That is so gay, by Maria Grasso.
What’s really interesting about the group is the enormous, 925-word preamble. Before doing anything else, visitors are told: ‘**STOP AND READ ALL OF THIS FIRST**’ What follows is a pre-emptive rebuttal of possible objections of various kinds, referring people to earlier discussion threads about censorship and the idea that language simply evolves, for example. To be fair, some of the points made are well-argued, but they are hardly the last word on the subject, as is implied. This preamble is followed by ‘Recent news’, which is really more of the same, but with added warnings against advertising and unsolicited friendship requests. The group’s ‘wall’ – a general posting area found on all Facebook pages – has been disabled too. Whatever else it is, this group is not gay. ‘Frigid’ might be a more apt insult.
Ultimately it is not surprising that a group set up to police language should end up trying to police debate about policing language. No doubt our choice of words reflects how we look at the world, and to some extent our political views, and it is fair enough to draw attention to it – though the connection between the new use of the word gay and prejudice against homosexual men and women is tenuous to say the least. More importantly, the attempt to stamp out particular words or their particular usage betrays a simplistic understanding of how the process works. The redefinition of words is a side effect of political debate and cultural production - books and films are rather more influential than speech codes. It isn’t established by edict, and the self-consciousness generated by this approach is anathema to intellectual freedom and good humour. There can be no better illustration of that than this Facebook group.
Dolan Cummings
Once such group seems to be The word "gay" is not a synonym for "stupid", which currently has an impressive 78,232 members, and, more alarmingly, 28 ‘Officers’ and 14 ‘Admins’. On one level, the group simply expresses frustration with the use of the word gay as a term of disparagement. Actually, I don’t think this usage is quite synonymous with ‘stupid’ – more like ‘naff’ or ‘lame’, but that’s by the bye. The group’s general attitude wavers between pedantry and prudery, and is not very attractive, but that’s not important either – for a critique of this kind of censoriousness, see Censoring students at Oxford? That is so gay, by Maria Grasso.
What’s really interesting about the group is the enormous, 925-word preamble. Before doing anything else, visitors are told: ‘**STOP AND READ ALL OF THIS FIRST**’ What follows is a pre-emptive rebuttal of possible objections of various kinds, referring people to earlier discussion threads about censorship and the idea that language simply evolves, for example. To be fair, some of the points made are well-argued, but they are hardly the last word on the subject, as is implied. This preamble is followed by ‘Recent news’, which is really more of the same, but with added warnings against advertising and unsolicited friendship requests. The group’s ‘wall’ – a general posting area found on all Facebook pages – has been disabled too. Whatever else it is, this group is not gay. ‘Frigid’ might be a more apt insult.
Ultimately it is not surprising that a group set up to police language should end up trying to police debate about policing language. No doubt our choice of words reflects how we look at the world, and to some extent our political views, and it is fair enough to draw attention to it – though the connection between the new use of the word gay and prejudice against homosexual men and women is tenuous to say the least. More importantly, the attempt to stamp out particular words or their particular usage betrays a simplistic understanding of how the process works. The redefinition of words is a side effect of political debate and cultural production - books and films are rather more influential than speech codes. It isn’t established by edict, and the self-consciousness generated by this approach is anathema to intellectual freedom and good humour. There can be no better illustration of that than this Facebook group.
Dolan Cummings
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
