Is free speech free, or isn’t it?

Note: Further enquiries reveal that “Bethan Jones” is in fact Beth Tichbourne, and that her offence was not only to hold up the placard mentioned, but also to attempt to scale a barrier. Her account, reproduced uncritically on various websites, does not reveal that detail.

This morning I saw a post on Facebook by a woman who had been arrested during a protest aimed at David Cameron during the switching-on of the Christmas lights in Witney, Oxfordshire (the chief, albeit small, town in his constituency) last November. Bethan Jones had held up a placard saying “David Cameron has blood on his hands”, for which she was charged, and yesterday convicted, for causing “harassment, alarm or distress”, the magistrate reasoning that “I can think of nothing more alarming than the statement that ‘Cameron has blood on his hands.’”. To any reasonable person, this would sound like the normal stuff of political protest, and fairly tame compared to the lurid and defamatory material published in the commercial press every day. Jones also wrote that she had been beaten up by the police while the “celebrations” were going on. (Beth’s statement also republished at Bright Green Scotland, Liberal Conspiracy.)

In last week’s New Statesman, Laurie Penny noted in her column that, while it was common to allege that you can’t criticise “politically correct” targets such as Muslims in public, in reality, it was rudeness towards right-wing or establishment targets that attract outrage from the popular press and the censure of politicians: Princess Kate and Margaret Thatcher being two recent high-profile examples. We have some of the most stringent libel laws in the world, such that wealthy people can prevent exposure of their corruption, so “freedom of speech” has become “freedom to attack the vulnerable” as groups are not protected by libel law. Their main targets were Muslims and, occasionally, Gypsies and Travellers during the Blair government, and so-called benefit scroungers under the current government.

Recently, as the press have faced censure for their intrusive behaviour since the revelations about phone hacking were made public, they have howled about the dangers of “censorship” and “press laws” while not lifting a finger to defend the right to protest and sticking the boot into ordinary people who have shown (as they see it) bad manners towards establishment figures they believe should be above reproach. This is hypocritical: free speech should be free for everyone, or the commercial press should be held to the same standards as the rest of us. Of course, the libel laws should be reformed so that we cease to be a magnet for crooked oligarchs looking to silence critics here and abroad, but it is highly unjust that the right to protest is under dire threat while the right to spew hateful propaganda against powerless people to sell papers is not in dispute. The bigger crime should not be to spoil the middle classes’ party by reminding them that their special guest for the night is tearing others’ lives apart.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
  • http://godlessfaith.blogspot.com/ Sam Barnett-Cormack

    I remember a student fees protest in the first half of last decade, people chanting “Bush, Blair, CIA, how many kids did you kill today?”, which wasn’t even relevant to the march we were on. No-one was prosecuted for that.

  • http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/ Matthew Smith

    Yes, I remember that from the anti-war demos in 2003, and it wasn’t accurate (it wasn’t the CIA that was killing kids but the British and American armies). Obviously they used it because it rhymes (it was LBJ originally, during the Vietnam war). To chant it at a student fees demo is just ridiculous.

  • M Risbrook

    Facebook is a Zionist run spy machine. An internet search will reveal more information about this.

    Haven’t you noticed that almost all people prosecuted for saying the ‘wrong’ thing on the internet happened to have used Facebook? Why does hardly anybody get prosecuted for saying the ‘wrong’ thing on ordinary websites?

  • http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/ Matthew Smith

    She didn’t use FB to say the thing that got her arrested. She held a placard at a demonstration.

  • smith

    She didn’t ‘hold up a placard’ she tried to climb over security barriers whilst shouting at the prime minister. You know what, if you start shouting at the prime minister whilst climbing over security barriers, the next thing that will happen is that you will find yourself being sat on by several police officers. that’s what they are paid to do. Don’t take one sided stories that conveniently leave out pertinent facts at face value.

  • Phil Edwards

    The offence of harassment has two elements, “disorderly behaviour” (as in climbing a security fence) and causing “harassment, alarm or distress”. To find Beth guilty, the judge had to conclude that she’d done both (before being tackled to the ground and knelt on by police officers). Climbing the fence was reckless to say the least, but to say that the slogan in and of itself was “alarming” seems absurd. Perhaps they don’t see many protesters down Witney way.