On Freedom Of Speech

[Rousseau 10,812]

A little piece I did - thoughts greatly appreciated:

 

Freedom of Speech – In the past week there have been three episodes that have infuriated the Rangers support. Rightly or wrongly, many have called for some kind of retribution. But I have often found myself taking a step back from the furore. Do we have a just cause, or are we being swept up in the usual vitriol that flows back and forth? I would like to go through these episodes later, when a foundation on which to judge them has been built.

 

There are those that call for a response to any tweet or publication that causes harm to Rangers’ reputation. An incorrect newspaper article should rightly be challenged, but when it comes to Tweets, and social media in general, I have often been hesitant. There are hundreds of thousands of tweets every month. How could you possibly respond to all of them? I always thought there was something petty in the need to respond to everything. I have always been an advocate of the dignified silence. There is also a degree of hypocrisy in the demand for retribution because many would not give a second thought to a run-of-the-mill fan’s tweet, but would feel enraged and demand an apology when a newspaper editor tweeted something. In my view one cannot differentiate between the two: surely that impeaches on discrimination? I suppose there could be an argument that a public figure entails a level of responsibility. But I would like to leave that to one side.

 

Earlier I read a blog post (“When the wind blows cold”, by Immortal Rangers, or The Blue Blog) arguing for a response to these publications that made me think again. The premise of the argument was that the negative tweets directed at Rangers are analogous to homophobic tweets in terms of intent. Although I could never agree with that parallel, it did make me look again. The recipient of the disgusting homophobic abuse was Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives. The blog quoted a statement from Ms Davidson:

 

“A significant proportion of the abuse I receive is homophobic, and I make a point of calling out a selection of such tweets every few weeks. It’s not OK. People don’t have to just sit there and take it. You are allowed to challenge it.”

 

I find myself agreeing with this completely: we should challenge it. If we are so affected by it, if it does insult the reputation of our club, then we should be challenging it. This seems entirely fair.

However, we are all advocates of freedom of speech – It is a pillar of our democratic nation. How does challenging a tweet infringe upon freedom of speech? One should start with a definition. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), freedom of speech is defined as:

 

“n. freedom to express one's opinions without censorship, legal penalty, or any other restraint”

 

This is where I have a problem with challenging a tweet. Surely, everyone has a right to an opinion without censorship? I would suggest that most would agree with this. The recent Charlie Hebdo atrocity has reaffirmed our beliefs in this regard. But, of course there is a line. When does a tweet cross this line? When does a tweet cross the line into defamation? Again, one must look at a definition. The OED defines defamation as:

 

“n. the injuring of a person's good name or reputation”

 

And its sister definition, Libel:

 

“n. the publication of defamatory matter in permanent form, as by a written or printed statement, picture, etc.”

 

Of course, added to these definitions is that any defamatory statement would therefore need to be false. A statement that is correct is a statement of fact, or opinion, of which there is no issue.

 

Armed with these definitions, I looked once again at the episodes that so infuriated the Rangers support. The first was the publication of a number of articles bringing to our attention – or at least those not in the know, because most twitter users would have been aware – a tweet by newly appointed Non-executive Director Chris Graham. The tweet included an image of the prophet Mohamed carrying out a homophobic act. The press clearly inferred that the position of Graham was untenable. In my opinion the tweet itself is protected under freedom of speech. But that is not really the issue. What really infuriated the fans was the fact that this tweet was in the public domain for months prior to Graham’s appointment, without as much as a ripple from the press. It has since led to Graham’s resignation. This is quite clearly a biased campaign. Nevertheless, I do not have an issue with it. The press are biased. It is their opinion. There is no issue of veracity involved. Moreover, I don’t condemn Graham for tweeting the image because I respect his right to freedom of speech. I do, however, think the blame lies with Rangers for appointing such a man without first looking into his publications. And I do think that the prestige of such a position should preclude the publication of such tweets; I think Graham new that himself because he later locked his account. In this case I do not think there is any justification for the outcry.

 

Another journalist, Gerry McCulloch, was also roundly criticised for jumping on the bandwagon with regards to Graham’s downfall. But, it is an opinion which he is entitled to. Again, we may disagree with it, but there is nothing wrong with it.

 

The second episode was the publication of an article by Daily Record journalist Mark McGivern highlighting the appearance of a banned fan at Ibrox. This in itself would not be an issue, except for the fact that it is completely untrue. The journalist published an article that called into question the vetting procedure at Rangers. Like I have said, I do not have a problem with biased journalists, but I do have a problem with false claims. And this should be challenged by Rangers. At the very least it is a sad indictment of Daily Records process.

 

The final episode was a tweet by Kenny Farquharson. In this tweet he intimated that sectarian singing at a Dundee Utd match couldn’t possibly be Dundee Utd fans but must in fact be Rangers fans in disguise. This is an astonishing accusation of sectarianism, which we know is a heated subject. Every conceivable footballing body takes a strong position on sectarianism. Moreover, it has absolutely no basis in fact; in short it is libellous. In my opinion it should be challenged aggressively. It is an incendiary tweet that is directly accusing the Rangers support. I think Mr Farquharson new it himself, because a few hours later the tweet was removed. Is this tantamount to guilt? I think so.

 

We are in a weakened state and we are hurting. Our way of coping with this hurt is by acting out. We rail against anyone that appears to revel in our predicament. We take exception to any ‘campaign’ against our club. But I think we forget that not everyone shares the same beliefs as we do. It does not mean that they are automatically against us, or for us. It is simply a view. In the past we would always have had the last laugh to a degree because the team on the park would win. Now that we are not winning, we feel the need to fight back. I think it is natural. We must learn to recognise this.

 

We fans are not a paragon of virtue. We are all biased. I think we make a mistake in projecting that bias onto any statement that appears to slight our club, rather than judging it rationally. Everyone is biased. Every paper is biased. Our problem is in thinking that this is wrong. It should be encouraged. After all, freedom of expression is something we wish to encourage. If one doesn’t agree with the viewpoint of a particular newspaper, then one shouldn’t buy it, and vice versa. It is ok to disagree with someone’s viewpoint. It does not mean that there is a campaign against us.

 

I do, however, think we have a right to challenge those that are libellous. We should not sit idly by when false accusations damage the reputation of our club. As Ms Davidson said, we “…don’t have to just sit there and take it. [We] are allowed to challenge it,” but we should also be able to take a step back and look at any statements calmly, and rationally, and always judge them in isolation.

[Frankie 8,652]

Enjoyed that mate - please find it published on the main site here:

 

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/324-discussing-freedom-of-speech

 

 

Generally I agree with the thrust of the piece but I can also understand the frustration in which we react to what often appears to be clear breaches of imbalance from some media people and groups. However, you're completely correct to say we have to pick and choose which battles to fight in that respect.

[26th of foot 6,114]

The stick to beat both Rangers and Rangers supporters, has already been fashioned. The anti-sectarian legislation was not proviing the necessary statistics, in fact the accrued stats suggested the problem lay elsewhere. The current Lord Advocate and Justice Minister are currently ensuring the stats will prove Roseanne Cunningham's initial hypothesis. The club will have to meet this most serious challenge head on, sooner rather than later.

[ranger_syntax 4,422]

The tweet included an image of the prophet Mohamed carrying out a homophobic act.

 

I'm not sure that's correct.

[Rousseau 10,812]

*involved in?

[Thinker 887]

I'm not sure that's correct.

 

I agree with you. The picture was not of Mohamed carrying out a homophobic act, it was of Mohamed carrying out a homosexual act.

 

IMHO, the point of the cartoon was to lampoon the homophobia prevalent in fundamentalist Islam (and, TBF, many religions and sects that don't consider themselves to be fundamentalist).

 

To my mind the joke is obvious: "You're intolerant of anyone drawing a picture of Mohammed, you're intolerant of homosexuality, therefore you'll be doubly out-raged by a depiction of Mohammed performing a homosexual act". (Jar-Jar Binks' inclusion is an added piece of light comic absurdity.)

 

Is it offensive to suggest a prophet of God might be homosexual? If so why? I think you can only come to the conclusion that it is if you approach the question from a starting point of mild homophobia.

Edited March 23, 2015 by Thinker

[Rousseau 10,812]

You're correct, it should be "homosexual". But I was wrong on two counts because it was jar-jar binks(?) carrying out the act. In my defense, I couldn't find the tweet to check, so I had to write about what I could recall.

[Thinker 887]

You're correct, it should be "homosexual". But I was wrong on two counts because it was jar-jar binks(?) carrying out the act. In my defense, I couldn't find the tweet to check, so I had to write about what I could recall.

 

Sorry, fair enough.

 

It's just that I've seen others claim that the cartoon is homophobic, which I don't really think it is (and I'd be astonished if Chris Graham meant it that way).

[Rousseau 10,812]

I also defended his right to post the image.

[Rousseau 10,812]

Absolutely. Like I said, I defended his right to post it.