In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Freedom of speech is a purely a covenant between citizens and the government. Please point out where the government is getting involved here because I don't see it.

The definitions of 'Freedom of speech' that I have found include the right to express one's opinions without restraint, or societal sanction. I.e. it is not just governments that can deny the freedom.

Indeed. Neither of which are occurring here. It's just a spat between private organisations.

In reply to a post by Spud2003:

If freedom of speech is purely about rights governments give - where do governments get the philosophical framework they enshrine in legislation? From thin air? The ideas clearly existed before legislation.

That's irrelevant to this discussion. You're trying to beat the 'Freedom of Speech' drum and it simply doesn't apply here.

This basic notion is embodied in the Human Rights Act(even though that references the state).

Exactly. Of course it references the state. That's because that's what it's all about.

You may feel you have the right to stop newspapers spreading ideas - even though the law is happy with it - but you would probably not be happy about someone having your ideas silenced.

Who says I think that? I said I have the right to try. That means I can complain to them. I can withhold funding. I can refuse to stock them if I own a shop or a distributors.

No-one has to be happy about it. If I post something here and Mr Saffron removes my post I might indeed not be happy about it. But it is in no way, shape or form a violation of free speech. It is simply the owner of a private space choosing to exercise their right to decide what messages are carried on their bulletin board.

Freedom of speech means simply that there should be no specific laws preventing things being discussed and that the government will not interfere in the process. As it happens there isn't a country in the world that has truly free speech but that's neither here nor there.

This discussion concerns a combination of private institutions and/or individuals trying to influence each other. That's just the normal cut and thrust of civilised life. As long as the government lets them get on with it and doesn't itself intervene everything is as it should be. PN have the right to choose who gets their advertising budget and as a public company the right (maybe even the obligation) to explain their choices. You have the right to change providers according to the terms of your contract.

There is no problem here.

Edited by Andrue (Mon 13-Feb-17 14:03:42)

In reply to a post by Andrue:

As it happens there isn't a country in the world that has truly free speech ....

As in libel and slander laws in many countries. Or torture and worse in some others.

It's the points I raise that you don't answer that are more revealing about your outlook on freedom to discuss and debate ideas, than the ones that you attempt to.

It is quite clear you feel you have the right to attempt to stop publication, rather than discuss and debate after publication - that is known as censorship.

As a member of a free society I have as much right to try and stop newspapers publishing as they do to publish.

There are many times I have been irritated by articles in newspapers, many times I have thought they weren't helpful - but that's actually a healthy democracy. It has never, ever, ever, occurred to me to attempt to defund a newspaper beyond simply choosing not to purchase it, the ultimate judgement - if a title has no merit the public will not purchase a copy. I'm not going to attempt to prevent people reading legal material that reflects their views whenever they want.

I'm going to leave this discussion here, I think it's clear what your attitude to freedom to spread legal ideas is(however you attempt to perfume it).

Edited by Spud2003 (Mon 13-Feb-17 15:56:09)

Please explain the difference between your choosing not to buy a newspaper and Plusnet choosing not to advertise in a particular newspaper. You appear to be saying that the first is acceptable and the second censorship. Why and how?

A private company choosing not to advertise with a given source of news is not an attack on the free press.

Perhaps you might consider the articles that are being attacked. Maybe ask the good folk of Liverpool about their opinion of the Sun. Ask 1 in 5 Muslims about the Sun etc.

tl;dr I believe this is about encouraging accuracy, proportionality and careful attention to materiality in reporting, not stifling debate and discussion.


This is really heading into "The Park" territory.

I don't think anyone disagrees that a media outlet has the right to set its own editorial policy, including political standpoint. What is, in my view, unacceptable is when the media report stories in a way that goes beyond what the evidence supports, often including the misuse of statistics. This is often done in ways that the proprietor and editor knows will resonate well with the readers, who might not read their familiar newspaper that critically. Unfortunately, balanced reporting of the issues and acceptance that we live in a complex world does not make for "juicy" headlines that sell papers.


There is an unfortunate tendency for every story to become polarised in the way it is reported. Take an issue that has personal resonance with me because I am severely physically disabled - the Paulley v First Group case about wheelchairs and baby buggies on buses. The case itself was about the right way to balance the needs of different users when there is only so much space on the buses, especially how this balance reconciles with the company's duty to provide reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 and the limits on the driver's powers under the regulations governing Passenger Carrying Vehicles. Much of the reporting seemed to want to turn this into wheelchairs v buggies, almost like a Harry Hill style punch-up. It wasn't about who "wins", but about how to try to ensure everyone can travel. There is no easy answer; if there was, the case would not have finished up in the Supreme Court.

It is arguable that the best answer is to introduce buses with separate provision for wheelchair users and buggies; such buses already exist in some areas. Somewhat analogous is the best practice of separating accessible toilets and baby change facilities. Partly this is because users can need a fair amount of time, partly this is because some disabled people have limited ability to wait and partly this is for hygiene reasons. Nappy changes and the use of potties can be incompatible with self-propelling wheelchairs (where anything on the floor will likely land up on the push rims and therefore the person's hands), also those reliant on clean techniques such as intermittent catheterisation are particularly vulnerable to any faecal contamination. However, it is still common to find the baby change in the accessible toilet, even in high traffic areas like motorway services. If I come across such a setup, I often find people are embarrassed if they feel they have made me wait in my powerchair or that they do not have the right to use the facility. That's not the way it works - there is no absolute priority for any group of users, nor do you have to disclose your (potentially hidden and embarrassing) reasons for wanting to use the accessible facility. If you have a need to use the facility, use it. I'll wait my turn if I can, otherwise I will ask politely if I can go next.


There are relatively few ways to call media proprietors to account over accuracy. The media, with considerable justification, has successfully argued for light touch regulation because of the importance of freedom of speech. A healthy democracy relies heavily on a free media to call government to account. There is a recognition that the right of free expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights should not readily be curtailed. Yet, the power of the media has been abused, as was seen clearly during the Leveson inquiry.

Media outlets rely on funding - and in an increasingly online world, a lot of that funding comes from advertisers. Nothing in this campaign is suggesting the curtailment of discussion and debate, merely that inflammatory reporting of sensitive issues accompanied by commentary expressed in highly emotive terms is unhelpful and might be something advertisers wish to dissociate themselves from. In today's society, money talks - and it is an entirely legitimate form of activism to lobby economic actors to use their power to bring about specific ends, whether that is pension funds disinvesting from environmentally damaging companies or advertisers deciding not to advertise with certain media outlets. The effects of mass media editorial policy affect the whole of society, not just those who consume a particular outlet's output, not least through the ways that the media seeks to influence people's political views.


As has been said by various commentators, ask a representative group of British Muslims what they feel about the Daily Mail's reporting and the effect polarised reporting has had on their lives. There is no direct cause and effect between a particular media outlet and hate crime, but that does not mean unjustifiable polarisation in reporting should be socially acceptable. That said, we should not resile from reporting abuse by minorities honestly - but we should be careful in the way we use labels. If I was found guilty of a serious crime, then that should rightly be covered by the media and that coverage may well include pictures. However, it is immaterial that I'm disabled (or, for that matter, white, male and Christian), so such matters should not really feature in the commentary.

Materiality should always be a consideration for journalists. We should be particularly careful about confusing religious practices, cultural practices and individual beliefs. In situations like the Rotherham sexual abuse cases, there is understandable outrage over what the guilty did. Yet, if you are going to identify some or all of the guilty as Muslims, surely you should give equal prominence to the total condemnation of what they did by the Muslim community in Rotherham and beyond? My personal feeling is that the religious affiliation of the guilty is immaterial; I can't think of any mainstream religion that regards sexual abuse of the vulnerable as appropriate. Even for those who try to read news reports critically, it is hard to resist unconscious prejudice if a link is suggested to you.

Excellent Post - thank you

Looks like they removed all the comments lol, i wonder if some were not PC so they were censored

Edited by tommy45 (Tue 14-Feb-17 13:50:39)

I will add a lot more people than immigrants have been affected by speculative newspaper reports. One such example is benefit recipients who are the victim of made up stories in the press.

I think freedom of speech is over stretched, I think papers should be made to substantiate their stories with evidence and not be printing speculation as news. If they are posting an "opinion" then it should be in a blog or something, not as a news article.

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 16-Feb-17 03:53:05)