United Kingdom

How British Liberals Sold Out Free Speech

A new wave of press censorship hits the U.K.

|

Steve Coogan
Wikimedia Commons

When the actor and comedian Steve Coogan (pictured) was made a patron of the Index on Censorship earlier this month, the British media's guffawing could be heard round the world. Coogan, you see, is a leading light in Hacked Off, the celeb-packed censorious outfit that has spent the past three years agitating for state-backed regulation of Britain's raucous tabloid press. For a venerable free-speech group like Index on Censorship to make the celebrity censor Coogan a patron is like the British Humanist Association giving a job to the Pope of Rome.

So it's understandable that large sections of the British press went into meltdown over Coogan's appointment. A writer for the Daily Mail said Index's embrace of Coogan was a "shabby betrayal of freedom of expression." Index was founded in 1972 to be a "champion of free expression," the Mail reminded us, yet now it cosies up to a man who has been the most visible, vocal advocate of state-legislated regulation of the press during the Murdochite phone-hacking scandal of the past three years.

This is a celeb who thinks "freedom of expression does not apply to those writing about his own affairs," said the Mail (Coogan was famously made irate by the muckraking tabloids after they exposed some of the shenanigans of his private life), yet he's now been welcomed with open arms by one of the world's best-known free-speech outfits that once "oppos[ed] tyrants in the Soviet Union and the Third World and passionately defend[ed] the freedom of the press."

On another level, though, it is odd that there has been so much shock at the shacking-up between Coogan and Index. Because, believe it or not, there are many incestuous links between those warriors for press censorship at Hacked Off and those one-time battlers for freedom of expression at Index on Censorship.

Indeed, the current campaign to enforce tighter state regulation of the press in Britain is being spearheaded by individuals who are intimately associated with, or who previously worked for, free-speech groups such as Index on Censorship, PEN International, and Liberty. This is the terrible, untold irony of the current war of words against press freedom in Britain: It is being waged by those who, just three or four years ago, were key players in the supposedly anti-censorship sections of Britain's liberal establishment. The eye-swivelling speed and ease with which these one-time complainers about censorship became cheerleaders for state-backed regulation of the press needs some explaining.

Hacked Off was founded in 2011 by the Media Standards Trust, a group devoted to "cleaning up" (some would say taming) British journalism. It was set up in response to the phone-hacking scandal at Rupert Murdoch's Sunday tabloid the News of the World (now deceased), where some journos were using less-than-admirable methods for getting stories about celebs, royals, and ordinary members of the public who found themselves caught up in crimes or scandals.

With big-name actors Steve Coogan and Hugh Grant doing much of its bidding, and with effusive support from numerous influential writers, thinkers, and comedians from across the U.K., Hacked Off has been extraordinarily successful. Its demand for firmer state oversight of the naughty press has influenced everyone from Lord Justice Leveson, the judge who oversaw the 2011-2012 Leveson Inquiry into the phone-hacking at the tabloids and into the "culture, practices and ethics of the press," to the various politicians who have spent much of the year-and-a-half since Leveson published his 2,000-page report coming up with new ideas for how the press might be brought to heel.

Thanks in large part to Hacked Off, Britain now faces the very real prospect of the state venturing back into the world of the press and doing something it hasn't done for around 350 years: reprimanding press reporting which in its view is "unethical" and officially distinguishing between the good, ethically correct press (the broadsheets, basically) and the bad, unacceptable press (the tabloids). So the gains made by John Milton and other heroic historical figures who fought tooth-and-catapult against the state licensing of the press ("give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties," cried Milton in 1643) could be reversed by tabloid-haters like Coogan, Grant, and too many Members of Parliament to mention.

And who staffs a censorious outfit like Hacked Off? Who are its leaders? Incredibly, people from Index on Censorship.

It isn't just Coogan. Hacked Off's inaugural executive director and key thinker, the man who wrote its bible, Everybody's Hacked Off, is one Brian Cathcart—a former key writer for Index on Censorship.

Prior to becoming the architect of most of the arguments spouted by Coogan and Grant for state regulation of the press, Cathcart was best known as a contributor to and campaigner for Index on Censorship. Indeed, it was in his Index on Censorship blog that he first announced his decision to set up Hacked Off. On 4 July 2011, he told Index readers that he had got funding and support for a campaign to demand an official inquiry into the antics of the redtops, and Index readers didn't seem to think it was at all weird for a writer for a free-speech campaign group to start agitating for a state-led investigation of the culture and ethics of the press. On the contrary, they cheered him on, with one saying, "All the best in this vital campaign."

The government quickly heeded this cry for a public inquiry into the press—a cry first made on the website of Index on Censorship, let's remember. Ten days later, on July 14, 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron announced the setting-up of the Leveson Inquiry. Many of the censorious proposals later made by Lord Leveson were effectively cribbed from Cathcart's book, Everybody's Hacked Off. So, get this: Hacked Off was set up by a writer for Index on Censorship; its formation was first announced on the website of Index on Censorship; and the key Leveson arguments for tighter control of the press were first formulated by this former contributor to Index on Censorship.

There's more. Another of Hacked Off's most visible spokesmen, the former Member of Parliament Evan Harris, has previously worked with Index on Censorship on its campaigns for reform of the English libel laws. And last year it was revealed that one of the donors to Hacked Off is Simon Singh, the science writer, who has also worked with Index on Censorship on its libel-reform campaign. That so many Hacked Off people come from the Index on Censorship camp is, to say the very least, odd.

Other venerable free-speech outfits have likewise provided Hacked Off with people and arguments in its campaign to muzzle the low-rent press. Hacked Off's current executive director, taking over from Cathcart last month, is Joan Smith, a columnist for the Independent. She really hates the tabloids. When she gave evidence at the Leveson Inquiry, she described journalists like herself, who write for proper newspapers, as a "different breed" to tabloid hacks. Prior to taking the lead in the censorious campaign group Hacked Off, Smith was known for a different kind of campaigning: She was chair of the Writers in Prison Committee of PEN International, the anti-censorship campaign founded in 1921 which agitates for the right of writers to express themselves and publish their thoughts. Unless, one presumes, those writers are of a lower "breed" than the likes of Smith, in which case every effort can then be made to silence, punish, and imprison them—in Britain over the past five years of political hysteria about allegedly demonic tabloid behaviour, 104 newspaper staff have been arrested, questioned, often put on elongated bail, and some have been imprisoned.

How extraordinary that a woman who once campaigned for the rights of imprisoned writers should now steer a campaign group that cheers the imprisonment of tabloid journalists. And how extraordinary that the first two executive directors of Hacked Off should have come from the ranks of Index on Censorship and PEN International.

To see the extent to which Britain's liberal establishment  has conspired with the attempted reintroduction of the boot of the state into the world of the press, just look at the list of 200 cultural bigwigs who earlier this year signed Hacked Off's letter demanding that the press sign up to Leveson's proposed state regulation by Royal Charter. Key writers who have for years depicted themselves as devotees of freedom of speech and the right to publish put their names on the dotted line for Hacked Off, including Michael Frayn, A.S. Byatt, Ian McEwan, V.S. Naipul, even Salman Rushdie. Many of these writers, most notably Rushdie, previously stood up for the freedom to speak, to utter, to scribble, to think, and many of them worked with groups like Index or PEN—yet here they now were signing a letter agitating for state policing of the press.

But surely Britain's best-known civil-liberties group, Liberty, has taken a stand against the campaign to demonise and muzzle the tabloid press? Well, not quite. In fact Liberty's director, Shami Chakrabarti, was an actual panel member of the Leveson Inquiry, one of the Great and Good who sat in judgement of the sinning tabloids in this modern-day Star Chamber.

So get your heads around these facts, if you can: The campaign to restrict the historic rights of the press to rabble-rouse and publish and be damned—rights fought for over centuries by some of Britain's greatest liberals—has been led from the very start by people associated with Index on Censorship, PEN International, and Liberty, and cheered on by the liberal establishment. It wasn't a brutal state or truncheon-wielding coppers who effectively brought to an end 350 years of relative press freedom in Britain—it was liberals; it was progressives; it was the cultural elite; it was people who have made a name for themselves over the past 30 or 40 years as supporters of freedom of speech, though we now know what a colossal con that was. Liberty and Index have since made fairly anaemic statements saying the state shouldn't venture too far into the press—but it's too little, too late. Index and Liberty people were central to creating the climate of hysteria that has allowed the British state to loom large over the press for the first time in nearly four centuries.

How can this be? How could yesteryear's agitators for writers' freedom become today's demanders of state regulation of the press? It's because, in truth, such people's commitment to freedom of speech was always pretty partial. It was always fuelled, less by a full-on, balls-out, consistent conviction that everyone, regardless of their "breeding," should have the right to think, say, and write whatever they pleased, than it was by a belief that some writers had very important things to say and that their liberties should be protected. It was a free-speech position always more outraged by the harassment of Nobel Prize-winning authors in places like Eastern Europe than by state intervention into the affairs of the hacks and dimwits here at home. It was driven by a feeling that the purveyors of fine literature and clever ideas deserved freedom of speech, but badly bred, foul-mouthed tabloid hacks? Fuck them. Imprison them.

The phone-hacking scandal in Britain killed off the News of the World, a Sunday paper that had been in existence since 1843. It has also killed off something else, though not many people seem to have noticed: It has laid to waste the claims of Britain's liberal, progressive establishment to be committed to freedom of speech. These individuals, and many of the people in groups like Index and PEN that were their intellectual homes, now stand exposed as censors in disguise, pretty happy to see the state pummel those writers and editors whose publications offend the educated liberal sensibility. The era of these middle-aged, bourgeois, partial pontificators about freedom of speech is now surely over; the remnants of their institutions should finally be swept aside, ideally by a new, younger generation of freedom-of-speech campaigners who actually believe in freedom of speech.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

51 responses to “How British Liberals Sold Out Free Speech

  1. Look, all I’m saying is, if these big stars didn’t want people going through their garbage and saying they’re gay, then they shouldn’t have tried to express themselves creatively.

    1. If you think Patrick`s story is impressive…, five weaks-ago my son in law earnt $8989 workin 40 hours a month from their apartment and the’re neighbor’s mom`s neighbour done this for 3 months and made more than $8989 parttime on there pc. apply the guidelines on this site works33.com
      (Go to site and open “Home” for details)

  2. That is a righteous rant, O’Neill. Preach it!

  3. Coogan’s a censor? That’s depressing.

  4. just look at the list of 200 cultural bigwigs who earlier this year signed Hacked Off’s letter demanding that the press sign up to Leveson’s proposed state regulation

    Having left Australia more than 20 years ago, I sometimes forget how righteous it is to hate the English upper class. Articles like this remind me not only that it is righteous, but necessary.

    1. I always like the commoners, but having dealt with a few of the upper class, I hate them. Vile, arrogant shits. Their attitude about everything is “You are going to eat it, and whats more, you are going to like it.”

      Needless to say they hated me as well.

      1. I was at some waterfront restaurant in Edinburgh about ten years ago. Had been enjoying my time in Scotland. Then behind me sat down two women who spoke in that English upper crust accent babbling on about nothing. I so wanted to turn around and punch them.

      2. Everybody hates you.

        1. And for good reason.

      3. Their attitude about everything is “You are going to eat it, and whats more, you are going to like it.”

        Sounds like Progs. It’s not enough for them to get their way, they bitch and scream if you don’t agree with them getting their way, too.

    2. I worked (in the US) with a Brit who had come over when his company was bought by my company. His accent and attitude matched what I have seen as working class in Brit movies, and he had some interesting things to say about class warfare. His personal disgust was his former mates, who resented him going ti night school. They actually slagged him for trying to better himself, ranted at him for thinking he was better than them because he dared get an education to his own to get a better job. He mentioned an old woman in his neighborhood who dared hang a potted plant on her porch; the local yobs trashed her porch because she was putting on airs.

      He couldn’t get out of Britain fast enough.

      As much as I’d like to visit some historic places in Britain, I have less and less interest in meeting any of the people, what with high and low class snobs agreeing that snobbery is excellent, to idiots getting their panties in a twist (an entire block was locked down when a merchant found a .22LR round in his doorway one morning), to general stupidity and ignorance.

  5. Yet I have European coworkers tell me everyday how much freer Europe is.

    Every time I get bummed about what a shitty police state America is becoming I am reminded that Europe exists and it’s way fucking worse. Which is even more depressing. We are still the shining city on the hill relative to the rest of the world.

    1. Definitely better than Europe. Although there was a report recently that dropped the US from #1. I think New Zealand and Australia had moved above the US. Any maybe Hong Kong. Can’t remember the details now.

      1. I think New Zealand and Australia had moved above the US. Any maybe Hong Kong.

        In what way? New Zealand, Australia, and Hong Kong all have shitty attitudes to personal conduct, particularly, but not limited to, speech and firearms ownership. Australia has shitty immigration laws. Both New Zealand and Australia have protectionist import laws.

        Australia and New Zealand might have some greater degree of personal economic freedom (which is great), but the last time I was in Australia (2 years ago) they were still going on about guns and were balls to the wall in banning “hate speech” (or expanding the definition of what amounted to hate speech). Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING in either country is also 2-3 times more expensive. From what I saw, most Aussies don’t make 2-3 times as much.

        As a friend once told me in the USN, “it’s not that we’re that great, it’s that everybody else sucks.”

        1. I don’t think you’re wrong. I just wish I could remember where I read that so I could pull up the details.

          1. Heritage Index of Economic Freedom

            http://www.heritage.org/index/

        2. Prices in Europe are also very high. 20% VAT helps pay for all of those nifty social programs.

          I doubt many progressives truly understand that.

          An episode of Sherlock had the heroes amazed at some guys normal looking house. They asked if he was rich, and he said yes. I was like WTF?

        3. “America is the worst country. Except for all the others.”

    2. “..European coworkers tell me everyday how much freer Europe is.”

      Try pressing them on an exact definition of ‘freedom’.

      1. Wage Slave!

      2. I predict the response will be some variant of “We’re free not to get shot by some madman in the street!” That’s usually their fallback position.

        1. “How DARE you bastards talk about our fine policemen and -women that way! Ignorant, violent savages, sure, but mad? No!”

        2. Whenever I hear this, I like to bring up the Cumbria Shootings in England. Twelve people dead, and the killer only used a double-barrel shotgun and a .22 LR bolt action rifle. They were legally registered.

          Yet we still hear Obama and other politicians saying that that kind of thing “doesn’t happen” in England because of their virtual elimination of gun ownership…

    3. Yet I have European coworkers tell me everyday how much freer Europe is.

      Well, that’s true if you don’t differentiate “free” as in “gratis” from “free” as in “freedom”.

    4. Have you asked them what brought them here?

  6. “How can this be? How could yesteryear’s agitators for writers’ freedom become today’s demanders of state regulation of the press? It’s because, in truth, such people’s commitment to freedom of speech was always pretty partial. It was always fuelled, less by a full-on, balls-out, consistent conviction that everyone, regardless of their “breeding,” should have the right to think, say, and write whatever they pleased, than it was by a belief that some writers had very important things to say and that their liberties should be protected. It was a free-speech position always more outraged by the harassment of Nobel Prize-winning authors in places like Eastern Europe than by state intervention into the affairs of the hacks and dimwits here at home. It was driven by a feeling that the purveyors of fine literature and clever ideas deserved freedom of speech, but badly bred, foul-mouthed tabloid hacks? Fuck them. Imprison them.”

    Exactly what I was thinking while reading the article up to that point. Collectivists really don’t have the concept of freedom of expression. Free for me but not for you is the standard lefty mentality.

    If you can’t compete in the market place of ideas, then censorship of those who can is your only viable strategy. We see it every day here in the US.

  7. Social liberals don’t consistently apply their principles. Footage at 11.

  8. Can someone do a decent devil’s advocate here? Like, “those laws don’t actually infringe on freedom of the press, because X”, where X isn’t complete bullshit?

    I’m not exactly glad to see Airstrip One becoming reality.

    1. Can someone do a decent devil’s advocate here? Like, “those laws don’t actually infringe on freedom of the press, because X”, where X isn’t complete bullshit?

      “Fire in a crowded movie theater!”. “Harassment!”. “Hate Crimez!”.

      Depends a lot on your definition of “bullshit”. For 90% of people, those 3 or some variation are solid as a rock.

    2. Well, I think the Red Scare tone of the article is a bit overblown. Not that it necessarily deserves a heavy-handed response but the tabloids were involved in breaking into private property and accessing the private secured information of hundreds of people. It isn’t about a nosy reporter being hounded for asking one too many pointed questions on Question Time.

      Maybe the Brits are going too far in response but the press isn’t exactly innocent.

      Good enough Devil’s Advocate for ya?

      1. You do a good job of Devil’s Advocate, yes. What always gets my goat about this and similar overreach is that plain ordinary criminal law would have taken care of the phone hackers, especially if they prosecuted everybody involved. But as usual, the cronies got off, leaving outrage directed at the newspapers and industry in general.

        Victim prosecution would solve so many problems!

      2. “the tabloids were involved in breaking into private property and accessing the private secured information of hundreds of people”

        Yes, and existing laws already criminalize that; those crimes bear no logical relationship to regulating anything anybody writes.

  9. Good one 3Chili.

      1. Posting on iphone. Mistakes were made.

  10. The so-called Liberals have never been about liberty. They have always been about priviledge for themselves and the rest of you shut up and eat your vegetables.

    1. We have to stop calling them liberals. Progressive are as illiberal as Stalinist’s.

      1. Progressivism IS Stalinism

        1. The question that must be asked about progressives is “Progress towards what?”

  11. “Surprising”

  12. This makes sense if you assume that it’s all cultural and tribal signaling. Being against “censorship” is a free and tolerant position that shows you are forward-thinking rather than conservative. Being against tawdry media can signal many things such as: being cultured and highbrow; protecting victims of media scrutiny; or being against the Conservatives.

    The scandal started with Murdoch employees and Cameron testified at the inquiry. Pushing the issue may feel like a way to press the Conservatives.

    You could even make it aesthetically consistent if you assume that the fight against censorship and the fight against tabloid expression are both centered on protecting and cultivated a more sophisticated media culture. In which case liberal principles are really just temporary poses for effect.

  13. If the Brits had censorship, Brass Eye would never have happened

    1. A world without Brasseye is a world I don’t want to live in.

  14. …vocal advocate of state-legislated regulation of the press during the Murdochite phone-hacking scandal…

    Murdochite is a mineral combining lead and copper oxides with formula PbCu6O8-x(Cl,Br)2x(x ? 0.5).[1]

  15. we now know what a colossal con that was.

    Or it could be that, you know, people…change their minds. Do you think people are just born with certain ideas, and can only appear to change them? Maybe people form their opinions based on their experience, and when their experience changes, they change their opinions.

    I think some people here hope to persuade others of the value of individual liberty. You think persuasion works only one way, i.e. in your favor, and that anything going the other way is hypocrisy or venality or some such? Meanwhile if you think you could never be persuaded away from your current ideas, that could mean only that you expect to stop thinking.

  16. It’s hard to see how one can go on for two pages on the mystery of the British liberal Establishment turning against press freedom — without mentioning Murdoch. Surely it’s all about Murdoch. It’s what they would do here if they had a chance to move against Fox.

  17. Another big proponent of Leveson and a “free AND ACCOUNTABLE” press is Peter Tatchell. Tatchell was notorious for using the UK’s libel laws against his critics, and now wants a substitute to shut up people who “smear” or critique him. For some information on Tatchell’s bullying use of libel laws, see:
    http://paper-bird.net/2013/08/…..to-sue-me/
    and
    http://www.alanalentin.net/200…..perialism/

  18. Well, obviously press freedom only applies to Truth (I.e. Pravda).

  19. Americans, look in the mirror. You’re right that Britain is very class-oriented, but take a look at yourselves. Your country breeds class warfare but neglecting the poor in ways that are truly disgusting. You only need to look at how many homeless Americans there are, and the attitudes a magazine such as this has in assuming all poor people are frauds and cheats to the welfare system.

    Anyway, this article is full of misinformation. The Conservatives passed this legislation (and the token Liberal Democrats, yes, but they hardly have any say); Coogan, nor the other celebrities, complained because dirty secrets were being discovered about them, but because their personal mobile phones were being hacked into. Why is it wrong that the NSA monitor individuals, but not a private entity? The newspaper News of the World, by hacking into the parents of the missing girl Millie Dowler, created false hope to the parents that she may still be alive. It’s got nothing to do with snobbery.

    Moreover, neither Liberty nor PEN International supported the resolution that emerged over press regulation. See here (http://bit.ly/1jWV4Uh) and here (http://bit.ly/TXaYHC), from Liberty in the first link, and a PEN legal advisor in the second link. For the record, I oppose the Royal Charter too.

    1. Dan,

      You’re making far too much sense and have this silly notion that everyone on here cares about facts and reason. Haven’t you ever encountered ‘PM’ before? He’s close to retarded. And the one who calls himself Sutheboy’ is a world class cunt.

      These fucking morons don’t even know that left-wing papers such as The Mirror, (edited by that oh so libertarian Piers Morgan,) were subject to just as much scrutiny during the Leveson Inquiry as the right-wing ones.

      Don’t waste your breath, some people are just drawn by the mention of ‘Europe’ to give their completely uninformed opinions about Europe.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.