Free Speech and Honest Debate
If there’s one thing with unites bloggers of all political persuasions, it’s the right to free speech. When Alisher Usmanov attempted to deny Craig Murray and Tim Ireland that right, literally hundreds of blogger stood up for Craig and Tim. The bullying tactics and smears used by Usmanov’s legal people to shut down a perfectly legitimate debate into their clients conduct had people protesting left, right and centre. And rightly so. It was a wonderful thing to see (and be a small part of).
And yet, when I recommend reading Tim Ireland’s new post on the bullying tactics and smears used to shut down another perfectly legitimate debate into the conduct of a member of parliament, it will not generate the same strength of feeling.
I’ve thought about this and if I’m honest, I don’t really understand why this should be the case. It is true that Ellee Seymour is one of the bloggers on the list of supporters linked above but I can’t see how that could be considered a free pass. Suppressing a legitimate debate after publicly protesting when someone else suppressed a legitimate debate surely makes it worse, not better.
I don’t get it.
As I write this, what you’ll see if you click through here is the third version of the thread. The first contained Tim’s comments, the second had all Tim’s comments removed, and the current one has selected comments reinstated. This third version appears to have been created to give credibility to the claim, no, let’s not mince words, the lie on another thread that:
[N]o comment has been deleted. One was held up in comment moderation while I was out and later published.
Totally disingenuous semantics aside, this is a lie as you can easily see if you click through (right now anyway, we may not have reached the final version yet). In what is now comment one, I refer to the links in an earlier comment by Tim’s. It’s still missing. In what is now comment two, Matt lays into Tim but according to this latest version, Tim hasn’t left a comment yet. Maybe Matt has ESP or something and knew that Tim would be along shortly.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, that’s not it. Tim’s first comment has been removed from the thread. And it was removed not because of anything untoward in the comment but for other reasons entirely.
The comment I submitted yesterday evening at around 8.30pm has still not been published. Here it is awaiting moderation. As is, the last word is left to Welshcakes Limoncello who supports the idea that no comments are missing despite the fact that this is demonstrably untrue. And Tim has the evidence which proves that the thread was altered and some comments reinstated sometime after I’d submitted my last comment. At that point, a decision was made (by Ellee or someone operating her blog with her permission) not to post my comment.
A cynic might suggest that that decision was made in an attempt to provoke me into a leaving rather more heated comments which could then be used at a later date as “evidence” of my unreasonable attitude. Ellee’s off for couple of days now, you see, and it’d obviously be unreasonable to expect her to take a moment to check her moderation queue before she went rather than leaving people hanging on for days…
My politely phrased questions have been ignored and the evidence on the threads manipulated in an attempt to make me look foolish. Lies have been told. Insinuations and outright smears have been published.
And all of this is because Tim and I share a desire to openly and honestly discuss the minority report and behaviour of Nadine Dorries MP. Importantly, we’re trying to conduct this open and honest debate on a blog which claims to allow it.
It doesn’t. Attempts to conduct open and honest debate or present evidence she’d rather have suppressed in the comment section of Ellee Seymour’s blog can be downright hazerdous.
As I said, I genuinely don’t understand why more bloggers aren’t outraged at this. Here’s the post again. Where are your angry pants?
Mini-Update (10 mins later)
Just to be absolutely clear, I’m not suggesting anyone get shouty in Ellee’s comments. I don’t recommend that at all.
Also, the comparison made in this post is one of principle, not of scale.
ian said,
November 8, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
Usmanov’s actions were the actions of a rich man trying to erase his past from everywhere, whereas Ellee Seymour and Nadine Dorries are just nobodies restricting what appears on their ‘blogs’. Fortunately, they are too poor to try, or perhaps just bright enough to realise the futility of, try to stifle the truth from getting out elsewhere.
It’s also a pertinent comparison to look at Nigel Hastilow’s blog. His blog has attracted numerous comments, several of them understandably unfavourable, yet a large number of them (obviously I can’t say all with any certainty) have been published. Perhaps it was his habit of actively engaging in debate rather than treating his blog as a broadcast medium that got him thrown censured by the tory party, where such behaviour will not be tolerated.
Garry said,
November 8, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Thanks for your thoughts Ian. There is a difference in scale, I agree.
There is more going on here than just restricting what appears on their blogs though. The re-insertion of deleted comments to make my claims of deletions look foolish was a new one on me, for example.
And, tempted as I am, I have to disagree with the idea that they are nobodies. Ellee Seymour has a high profile blog and works for a Conservative MEP. Nadine Dorries is an elected member of parliament with a media profile.
If people don’t speak up when politicians and their supporters make entirely false allegations on their websites, it’s only going to get worse. If these allegations are presented in such a way as to suggest that the claims can be fairly challenged when they actually can’t be, that compounds the problem. If people don’t make their opposition to this sort of behaviour explicit, political blogging will soon become a worthless partisan mess where fictions prosper.
I’m agin’ it.
Nigel Hastilow is slighlty off-topic but he was undoubtedly reflecting the views of many of his constituents. I think he was extremely unwise to evoke Enoch in any way but the wider point does need to be discussed.
Surreptitious Evil said,
November 9, 2007 @ 9:43 am
I can say that I am amused and irritated - the latter being my usual reaction to political mendacity, which is why I am in dire need of a G&T so much of the time - but I cannot really comment on the attitude of my boxer shorts (assuming that you weren’t being American about this.)
Personally, I don’t get enough comments to filter them - the only ones so far I have not approved are spam - but the difference (and the dishonesty) here is the approving then deleting. Have a policy and stick to it. Explain, don’t complain (or whine, but the rhyme just sounds better
But you seem to be objecting to a lack of intellectual honesty and forthright courage in our politicians (actual and hopeful.) Seems a bit Sisyphean to me.
political blogging will soon become a worthless partisan mess where fictions prosper
You mean just like mainstream politics?
Garry said,
November 9, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
Thanks SE. I see what you’re saying and it may well be the reason why more people don’t speak out.
The other day, I wrote a joke about the phrase “people get the politicians they deserve” but there was a serious point there too. It might be naive to think that political mendacity might be countered but we definitely won’t know unless we try. And it will surely only become more common if the political classes are not challenged when they behave in these ways. (I should add that there are some honourable politicians out there.)
It seems to me that blogging ought to be the perfect arena in which ordinary people can make it clear that they’re sick of political mendacity. If that possibility is to be preserved, I believe it is essential that we defend the medium itself against this sort of dishonesty. But as I say, if we don’t try, we definitely won’t succeed.
Thanks again for taking the time to share your view. I’m hoping my reply doesn’t sound too much like a rant as it’s not intended to be.
Mr Eugenides said,
November 9, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
I agree that the principle is exactly the same, and if Tim’s description of Ellee’s treatment of his comments is accurate, then it’s a shoddy piece of work which he is entirely right to publicise and draw attention to.
However the comparison is not, I think, a very close one. The Usmanov affair was/is a question of free speech, pure and simple, because Tim’s blog (and others) were pulled on the say-so of a lawyer without any cause being shown or libel demonstrated. The effect of this is chilling to free speech - say something a rich or influential man doesn’t like, and the next morning you get a 404 error when you log into your blog.
Selectively moderating and deleting comments on your blog, lying about it and then partially restoring some of them and claiming that nothing untoward has gone on, is extremely dishonest and to be condemned, and is not something I have ever done or would ever do. But I don’t think you can frame it as a free speech issue in *quite* the same way, because Ellee doesn’t have any obligation to give Tim or anyone else a platform.
So the most you can say is that Ellee (or Iain Dale, or Guido) is a hypocrite, because they bang on about free speech and then suppress it on their own blog when it suits them. I reiterate that this is a fair charge, and the sort of behaviour documented by Tim and perpetrated by those bloggers is a flagrant breach of the unwritten ‘code’ of blogging. I don’t delete or moderate comments, and would only do so if a comment was (a) obviously libellous and therefore putting me at risk legally, or (b) extremely racist or otherwise discriminatory (and even then I would normally leave it there and perhaps add a comment of my own condemning it for the avoidance of doubt).
But I don’t see it as comparable to the Usmanov situation, any more than the Daily Mail refusing to let critical comments through moderation is comparable. I think the title of your post gets it right; one is about free speech, the other is about honest debate, and the two, though intimately linked, are not exactly the same issue.
Mr Eugenides said,
November 9, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
[Correction: Reading back, the word “exactly” doesn’t belong in the first line of that comment, as I spend the rest of the post arguing that it’s not exactly the same at all.]
Garry said,
November 9, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
Good points, Mr E.
I agree with a lot of it but would quibble with one point in particular. If Ellee allows a comment which is a personal attack on someone else’s integrity, I believe there is an obligation to provide a platform to that person so that they can defend themselves.
In this case, because Tim has an established blog and reputation, he is able to defend himself on his own blog. But only to an extent; many of Ellee’s readers will only ever see her version of what happened.
If that were to happen to a new blogger just starting out however, it would be very difficult to mount any sort of defence. A reputation could be destroyed before it ever had a chance to be established.The hypothetical blogger does still have the right to free speech on their own blog, of course, but in practice, the high profile blog has a huge advantage.
For those reasons, I believe that if you’re attacked on a high profile blog, you should have the right to defend yourself in that same forum. Denying that right to free speech while maintaining the pretence that it is allowed compounds the problem. It creates a false impression that no defence was mounted and that’s only likely to add credibility to baseless allegations.
In short, while I agree that this isn’t exactly the same as the Usmanov affair, I do still think it’s something bloggers should be very concerned about.
(Sorry for delay in replying. Had to go out.)