In a further case of the internet providing new opportunities but also challenges for academic freedom, Prof David Colquhoun of University College London has struck a victory for academic freedom. It is not worth retelling the whole story (it would inevitably take on the tone of playground tittle-tattle - "he said and then she said and then teacher did and then what happened was..." - best to read it in The Guardian), but suffice to say that hopefully the outcome of this case will set a precedent: simply because an academic's potentially controversial, offensive, or even subversive words are spoken via the medium of a webpage hosted by their own institution, this does not justify curbs on their autonomy to pronounce on important matters.

While on the one hand we can see cases such as these as being merely teething problems to do with the recent advent of blogging, social networking and the like - and there must be some truth to this - the prevalence of such cases, of which only a tiny sample have been documented on Speaking our Mind , indicates a wider culture of unfreedom in the academic sphere.

A further element which is indicative of this culture: as Ben Goldacre correctly notes in The Guardian, the appeal to authority (the Provost of UCL and the law) made by Colquhoun's antagoniser was pretty much immediate. That is to say, the plaintiffs in this case evidently didn't bother to engage with Prof Colquhuon at all, instead putting legal pressure on the university to create the conditions in which Colquhoun would have to remove the offending post, or even take down his whole blog.

Of course, not all cases are as clear-cut as this one, which is why attempts to clarify what we mean by academic freedom, versus free speech in general or employment rights in particular, are essential (1, 2). Nevertheless, Prof Colquhouns' intransigence in this case remains an example to follow.

Alex Hochuli

Real academic freedom

Academics should be free to call into question our most cherished beliefs - to slaughter a whole herd of sacred cows, if that's what is required. Critical inquiry is the starting point for stable and enduring knowledge about the world, and that often means upsetting people.

But academic freedom doesn't mean that academics can say whatever they like, whenever they like. Academic freedom doesn't mean freedom to swear at their students in class, just as it doesn’t mean freedom to behave badly at dinner parties. There are certain standards and restrictions that academics should be expected to comply with, given their position as professional - and adult - members of society.

So that is why the case of Sal Fiore, a senior lecturer in computing at Wolverhampton, sacked for criticising his employers online, is not really an academic freedom issue. In an online discussion forum, Fiore linked Wolverhampton to bullying allegations, and he also conributed to a blog, 'Bulliedacademics.blogspot.com', discussing his university. Heretical books are one thing, but this is an academic behaving like his students on Facebook, who moan about people they don't like.

Academic freedom means something very specific: the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. This is inherently valuable, and can be exempted from normal administrative and professional regulations. The deputy director of a company would not expect to keep his job if he criticised the ideas of the top director. This is not the case in academia, a sphere based on the free contest of ideas. But an academic could expect the sack if he criticized his boss's hair colour or personality, which is not a matter of ideas at all, but merely a matter of bad behaviour.

So defend academic freedom - for academics that know the difference between ideas and tittle tattle.

Josie Appleton

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

Leave the idiots to it...

The proposed code of conduct for blogs has highlighted a common confusion between censorship and editorial judgement. While the idea of 'content warnings' for uncensored blogs is patronising, the implication that decisions about publication can or should be made according to a code of conduct is downright objectionable. The web as a whole is quite rightly unregulated, but there's no reason people shouldn't make their own decisions over what they allow on their own sites. Dissenters are free to post comments elsewhere, or to set up their own sites. What is difficult is settling on what is a reasonable degree of regulation to facilitate open debate, rather than a straightforward editorial line.

At a public meeting, a good chairperson will shut people up if they speak too long or talk nonsense, and will also set the tone of debate, usually discouraging abuse or swearing. Nobody sensible thinks of this as 'censorship'. Indeed, in a narrow legal sense, the organisers of a meeting (or whoever is paying for the room) have absolute discretion over who speaks and what they are allowed to say. If the organisers want the event to be taken seriously as a debate, however, they are obliged to allow dissent, subject to commonly agreed terms of civility. Most of the time, this happens fairly spontaneously and without controversy. While the same principle applies to online discussion, various factors make the issue more vexed: the psychological distance afforded by the medium, and the possibility of anonymity, both contribute to a weakening of civility. Perhaps more importantly, the diversity of possible contributors to a discussion, and their often conflicting agendas, mean there is often little or no agreement about what is and is not reasonable.

Rather than despairing at the deterioration of some online discussions into childish abuse and worse, however, we should take heart from the fact that so many online discussions work so well. This happens when people do share at least a basic idea of what the discussion is for, and the terms of engagement. Often this develops spontaneously, but sometimes a little moderation is required: as long as everyone involved acts in good faith, it really doesn't matter. We all make judgements when looking at online forums about how seriously to take them, and whether it is worth taking part. The smart thing to do is to steer clear of flame wars, and leave the idiots to it. And those of us who believe in free speech should lose no sleep over advising childish and abusive contributors to our websites to go exercise their freedom elsewhere.

Dolan Cummings

Codifying conduct on the 'net

A blogging code of conduct has been devised by Tim O'Reilly, the digital media developer, which aims to restrict any content deemed to be abusive, harassing or threatening to others from appearing in blog spaces. Although, the report begins with the phrase, 'we celebrate the blogsphere because it embraces frank and open conversation,' it then goes on to say that any unacceptable content should be deleted. The new code could possibly be implemented after it has been amended by other bloggers.

The idea of online censorship follows complaints from a prominent blogger, Kathy Sierra, after she received death threats on her blog. Let us leave aside for a moment the fact that Kathy may just be oversensitive and lack perspective when it comes to online banter. Surely we must challenge the idea that we are not robust enough to handle the occasional insult or bad-mannered blogger in the name of a more open online dialogue.

Although one can make the case that you don't have to be insulting to get your point across, how long will it be until certain unpopular ideas, such as opposing the ‘green’ agenda, are deemed ‘insulting’? It is not right that blogs - which enable discussion between millions of people on the internet - should be censored to prevent a small number of people from being offended.

So much for the web being an open forum for discussion and debate...

Suzy Dean