Registered user login:

Ben'sBlog

Ben's Blog

New Statesman website editor Ben Davies's weekly ramblings plus feedback on hot online topics

Ben's Blog Homepage

Free speech and censorship

  • Posted by Ben Davies
  • 24 June 2008

The danger of being cheery, how we should deal with unruly commentors, and some of the exciting things ahead on newstatesman.com

Let me take a few minutes to put the boot into the Cheery Digest. A confirmed miserablist, I'm clearly not the target audience for this sort of thing.

Nor have I any idea who is behind this blog so why not read this and draw your own conclusions...

NEWS: Why we love the Queen ...

There's no two ways about it, our dear old Queen has a twinkle in her eye - apparently she has revealed (we're not sure who to) that whenever she hears Abba's Dancing Queen come on the radio, she "always tries to dance, because I am the Queen and I like to dance".

That's rather charmed us.

Staying on the regal theme, we were also amused to hear Nelson Mandela's reasoning behind simply calling our monarch 'Elizabeth' when they speak on the phone: "Why not? After all, she calls me Nelson."

Possibly the most nauseating outpouring since Violet Elizabeth Bott had a good scream.

Moving on to the knotty issue of commenting, censorship and what lines should be drawn.

This is an increasingly vexed issue on newstatesman.com. First of all, there are some contributors who use this website - and others - to propound a particular world view. Some of the right, some of the left. Others use it as a place to insult people, belittle their intelligence. Somewhere in between the two there are the humourists who are often funny but occasionally cross the line. Most people are interested in the articles and fire off our content and off each other. They manage to disagree without being personal.

Ultimately the decision on when things should be removed falls to me and up until recently the decision to unpublish comments has been taken only because there's been some pretty extreme unpleasantness such as racism or homophobia or something that is likely to cause great offense. That's partly because I don't believe in censorship.

However, we've had to toughen up the stance in recent weeks. In particular we've focused on those who are just tediously rude and who put off other commentors but also on those with views which most right-thinking people will find offensive. We're also being tougher on some of the nastier personal attacks that occur - thankfully rarely - on some of our writers.

By enlarge, I'm grateful that so many people wish to hold intelligent debates about important issues. One good example of debate, I think, was this thoughtful exchange on homosexuality and Christian notions of marriage.

Coming up on newstatesman.com...

Unison boss Dave Prentis writes on why his members would be right to strike over a 2.45 per cent pay offer. As many as 800,000 workers from dinner ladies to binmen are set to walk out next month having rejected the rise.

Look out for criminologist Mary Lynn Young on the severed feet that keep floating into shore in British Columbia.

Heard the one about the obscenity trial judge caught with smutty images on his website? Alex Kozinski, said he wasn't sure whether he or some other family member had intentionally stored the sexually explicit images. Log on to find out more about how he caused a mistrial.

Jonathan Calder ponders the strange link between a cult children's TV show and New Labour. “The Roman Emperors used to keep a slave to whisper “remember thou art mortal” when they got above themselves. Tony Blair would have done well to have an aide close at hand to say “remember you’re a Womble” now and then.”

All this plus our new column on gaming – CultureTech
– and much, much more.


Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

9 comments from readers

Jonny Mac
26 June 2008 at 12:33

A suggestion - when you remove a comment, can you copy CiF and say "Comment removed by moderator" (or similar), rather than what you do at the moment which is to leave no trace of it all. That seems to me rather sinister and Stalinist...

Admin
26 June 2008 at 13:51

It's an interesting thought Jonny Mac. I think the objection would be that we'd have to explain why each time which I can imagine sparking a whole debate about a comment that had been removed. For example, offline I've had conversations about defamatory comments with posters who patently don't know the law of libel but insist on arguing about it ad infinitum. However I'll have a ponder.

Best wishes, Ben Davies.

cheery
04 July 2008 at 18:37

Hi Ben,

Thanks for perusing the Cheery Digest, but blimey, it's only a tongue-in-cheek site which aims to be a respite from all the cynical stuff out there - sorry you find that nauseating but it's not intended to be entirely serious.

All the best.

knave
06 July 2008 at 08:45

It is not libel you have to worry about but the threat of violence.

How is that covered in your blogs.

gnuneo
25 July 2008 at 19:27

Ben: have you considered turning NSO-L into a full forum, complete with accountable (electable/removable by those within the community) moderators? Although such a system has its own flaws, it would encourage good behaviour, and also prevent the strong suspicion that the censorship is politically motivated in many cases - even i have fallen foul to it!

it would also greatly open the areas of discussion, ATM the topics are restricted to articles the NS editors themselves choose to publish (well, to some extent ;) ), which would not only be a great boon to the ethos of free political discussion the NS should be completely committed to, but also give your paid writers and journalists an enormous database which they could almost certainly learn from.

surely this is the kind of direction a forward thinking, radical and politically liberal magazine should be going in?

yours, gnu.

Admin
31 July 2008 at 15:58

I think it's a good thought gnuneo - the only issue (and it's a big one) is that legally the buck will stop with us and if something defamatory or in contempt of court creeps through we'll be in difficulties. I'm not sure how you overcome that...

gnuneo
31 July 2008 at 19:49

well, that is a larger issue, to do with free speech, and censorship. But one option (not of course the NS would ever do something so corporate-style and underhanded), would be to create a separate legal entity to manage the forum, there are certainly no restrictions upon the NS allowing a separate forum to copy-publish the articles, and the only connection to the NS would be the links at the bottom of the page to the new forum. I doubt any action could be taken against the advertisers on a web-page displaying such content (the ramifications of THAT would be enormous!), leaving the NS to still promote their various wares freely.

so any legal action would be taken against this - probably virtually penniless - web-site, leaving the NS litigation-free.

of course, this is off-the-cuff, and would need running past the NS legal team to make sure its watertight. Worth a look though, i would have thought? :)

Admin
04 August 2008 at 17:36

However, I'm told "that the law applies to the content owner, the website owner and any entity that causes to be published said material" - otherwise everyone would be doing what you suggest...

gnuneo
05 August 2008 at 00:25

i'm just guessing mind you, no expert here, but that phrase can easily be interpreted thus:

"the content owner" - the content would be produced by the posters, a web-site should be able to post that any poster accepts legal responsibility for their own postings? On top of which, this would not apply to the NS, who would only be being paid for an external web-site to display the NS articles.

"The website owner" would be whatever entity is set-up to run the web-site, it certainly could be on an entirely different host, leaving the NS with the articles, and then links to the other, much freer forum to report the articles and discuss - and take all the risks. To be worthwhile, it would need to be run as something that takes risks... ;)

"any entity that causes to be published said material"

the only material that the NS could be blamed for, is the NS articles copied over (and properly paid for, if the NS is also paying for the ad space), so therefore in no formal sense is the NS responsible for the commentary of the posters on the forum.

"otherwise everyone would be doing what you suggest"

what exactly makes you believe they aren't...?? LOLz.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Ben's Blog

Ben Davies trained as a journalist after taking most of the 1990s off. Prior to joining the New Statesman he spent five years working as a politics reporter for the BBC News website. He lives in North London.

Feeds

Recent Posts

Trinny and Susannah fats your lot

  • By Ben Davies
  • 13 August 2008

Tories sail into stormy waters

  • By Ben Davies
  • 06 August 2008

Dark days for Brown

  • By Ben Davies
  • 31 July 2008

Hitler's head

  • By Ben Davies
  • 15 July 2008

Ray Lewis' resignation

  • By Ben Davies
  • 05 July 2008

Sister Dorries and the labour camp

  • By Ben Davies
  • 13 June 2008

My apologies to Stanley Johnson

  • By Ben Davies
  • 14 May 2008