 |
|
Kate and
Gerry McCann |
In fact, the 26
messages placed on the story made it one of the most commented-on
stories in the Mercury that day.
The reason for
this disproportionate interest is because there are a number of
people who are hostile to the McCanns and vent their opinions
online, if given the opportunity to do so. For this reason, we
usually bar the comment facility on any story connected with this
family.
On this occasion,
this article slipped through the net and people were able to leave
messages.
Not all of them
were hostile. Some people had gone on to the site to remonstrate
with those making critical remarks.
One said: "The
McCanns don't need comments like this and the LM should remove the
comment facility as they usually do on this story."
As soon as we
became aware of the situation, we did exactly that.
We have also
taken some further steps to try to guard against it happening again.
I am raising the
matter here, however, to explain why we follow this policy at all.
Indeed, there is a view, generally held by those hostile to the
McCanns, that our stance runs against the principle of freedom of
speech and that they should be able to air their opinions on this
matter.
The first issue
here is a legal one. Some of the discussion around the Madeleine
McCann case tends to stray into the area of defamation. Indeed, the
McCanns have successfully sued several national newspapers for
libel.
However, the law
around internet discussion forums means our responsibility to remove
libellous remarks only begins when somebody complains to us about a
particular comment.
Nobody did so in
this case, we took the decision to remove the comments unilaterally.
In any event,
most of the remarks which were left were not libellous. Some of them
were, in my opinion, very harsh and lacking in compassion, but that
is, of course, not a legal issue at all.
What this is more
about then is an editorial judgement, rather than one driven by the
obligations of the law.
It is certainly
true that we regard the principle of freedom of speech as an
important one.
We create forums
in the print version of the newspaper and on our website to enable
readers to air their views. Sometimes, that discussion is extremely
robust and occasionally people are offended by things that are said.
There are certain
subjects where comment is likely to upset people.
Topics such as
religious faith and immigration, for instance, are highly sensitive,
but they are also important areas of public discussion, and we want
to allow this to run as freely as possible.
There is a
well-known observation that freedom of speech means the freedom to
offend.
However, the
principle of freedom of speech is not the only thing which we have
to consider as a newspaper.
We have to
balance it against other considerations, such as taste, fairness,
decency and courtesy.
For instance, we
would not publish a letter about immigration that we felt was racist
(there is a legal implication here as well) or one about religious
faith which was just insulting. Similarly, we would not print a
letter that was obscene, or in poor taste, or which contained abuse.
Balancing freedom
of speech against these other considerations is quite a tough call
and we constantly wrestle with establishing that line.
Discussion forums
online are a little different in that we usually only remove
comments when they are reported to us.
We do not
actively monitor messages left on our website. However, we still
apply the same considerations when complaints are made.
What I have
talked about so far relates to discussions around general issues of
public importance.
The issue of
freedom of speech becomes more difficult when it involves criticisms
made against specific individuals.
It is obviously
hurtful to see oneself attacked in print or online. There is,
therefore, a greater weight upon us to consider things like fairness
and courtesy.
Some individuals
are more likely to attract criticism than others. Politicians are
the obvious example. They are people with a high public profile who
are making decisions which affect our lives.
I do not agree
they are "fair game" as some commentators tend to assert. They are,
in my view, entitled to a private life free from unwarranted
intrusion and they are entitled also to respect.
However,
politicians have to expect to be scrutinised and discussed and
criticised, and that goes with the territory.
When the
individuals concerned, however, are ordinary members of the public,
who have suffered a terrible personal tragedy in their lives, the
need to show them fairness, courtesy and respect is obviously much
greater still.
In fact, I think
the responsibility upon us in such cases is so greatly weighted
towards the individuals concerned that it actually becomes very easy
to establish the line between common decency and freedom of
expression. In these circumstances, the former clearly outweighs the
latter.
And I do not
really accept there is any genuine issue of civil liberty at all.
There is no great
public importance in allowing the criticism of people in this
position. It is freedom of speech simply for the sake of freedom of
speech. The ability to make nasty comments about the McCanns, for
instance, is not important to our way of life or the future of our
society. The only possible wider outcome is to cause further upset
to them.
As a newspaper,
it is, of course, important to us to uphold the principle of freedom
of speech. It is a vital part of our credibility that we carry a
range of views and that debate in our pages is lively and vigorous.
However, there
are other values which are important to us also, the sort of things
I have mentioned above, and which I think our readers also expect us
to uphold, particularly as a community newspaper.
If some people
feel they have a right to say whatever they like about the McCanns,
they are perfectly entitled to find a forum for their views
elsewhere.
However, we are
not obliged to publish what they say and we will not be doing so.
