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
Showing posts with label code of conduct. Show all posts
Showing posts with label code of conduct. Show all posts
Sunday, 6 May 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
Wednesday, 11 April 2007
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
Tuesday, 10 April 2007
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
