Mick Hume has written an excellent piece in Spiked on how censorship can only get worse with Labour, the clearest signal of which is the party’s commitment to bring in state-backed supervision of the press by implementing Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. Here’s an excerpt.
The Tories belatedly want to abolish Section 40, but Labour has vowed to oppose its abolition. This alone should be enough to make anybody who cares about freedom of speech and of the press think twice about voting for Sir Keir Starmer’s party.
Some background. Section 40 was passed in the wake of the 2012 Leveson Inquiry. That was ostensibly an inquiry into the phone-hacking scandal at the closed Sunday tabloid, the News of the World, which became an inquisitorial probe into the entire “culture, practices and ethics” of the British media. It was effectively a show trial in which the tabloid press was found guilty before proceedings began.
Lord Justice Leveson’s final report called for a firm regime of press regulation backed by law – the first such state-backed system since Crown licensing of the printing press was abolished in 1695. An official regulator called Impress was duly established under the aegis of the monarch’s Privy Council. However, understandably, no national news publisher agreed to bend the knee to state-backed supervision. Impress is still boycotted, not only by the likes of the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Times and the Telegraph, but also by the Guardian, the Financial Times and the rest.
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 was intended to force the reluctant news media to submit to state-backed regulation. Its rules mean that if any news publisher not signed up to the official regulator is sued, it will have to pay the substantial court costs of both sides – even if it wins! Dissident news organisations could also be subject to huge fines.
Ludicrously, this form of legal blackmail was presented by the establishment as a ‘carrot’ to induce newspapers to sign up to Impress. As I wrote at the time, if Section 40 was a carrot, it was one shaped like a baseball bat with a nine-inch nail sticking out of the end.
Section 40 was duly passed. But in the face of public pressure (not least a ‘consultation’ exercise that came out overwhelmingly against the new rules), successive Tory Governments refused to implement it. The law has instead sat dormant on the statute book, waiting for a Labour Government to enforce its repressive regulations, as the party promised to do at the last General Election.
As promised in its own 2019 election manifesto, the Tory Government has now reportedly moved finally to abolish Section 40 altogether, as part of its forthcoming Media Bill. In response, the Labour Party has pledged to oppose abolition. Note, Labour has not said that it will oppose the whole Media Bill – only that it will single out Section 40, and make a stand for state-backed regulation of the press.
A Labour Party spokesperson accused the Tories of “muddying the waters” by trying to abolish a dormant law. But, amid waffle about the press playing “an important and valued role in our democracy”, this spokesperson also gave the game away. According to this unnamed Labour official, one major threat we face today comes from “disinformation and misinformation”. Therefore, “It’s right that the press is held to the highest standards and [is] accountable for [its] reporting”.
In other words, a Labour Government would want to regulate the press to ensure that it does not spread “disinformation and misinformation” – a.k.a., stories and opinions of which the new establishment disapproves. To that end, the media must be held “accountable”. But not, as in a free society, by their many readers, viewers and listeners. No, held accountable by a handful of elite figures on a regulatory committee approved by His Majesty’s Privy Council.
A Labour leadership source added that “We know this will trigger a fight with the press, but it has been Labour policy for years to have Section 40. It would look very odd not to stand up for it now the Tories are trying to repeal it.” Tellingly, Starmer’s party of technocrats honestly believes that it would “look very odd” to stand up for the freedom of the press.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
So… I’m confused, were his remarks a mistake or just bad comedy? Is bad comedy a mistake or just comedy that few people find funny? If someone found it funny, then it wasn’t a mistake, it was just bad comedy, no?
As Delingpole would say, Tobes, you’re such a cuck.
Signed the petition anyway, it’s the right thing to do.
Totally agree. We need to move the goodthink window quite some way, and we’re not going to do that by apologising for everything. No apology is required.
The problem is Clarkson has misread the room and picked on the wrong person. Did he really expect Megan to take it on the chin and not react? Harry also? I’ll bet he could’ve said the very same words, directed them at someone else ( e.g Sturgeon ) and nothing would have came of it. Sturgeon is probably used to receiving shed-loads of abuse and vitriol anyways. But I think it’s because he said it about royalty, not necessarily Megan personally even. What would’ve happened if he’d directed that comment at Kate?
I can predict the shit would have hit the fan in exactly the same manner. It’s one thing to do a stand-up comedy act, where anything goes, but tweeting or writing it so that all and sundry read it was just stupid and reckless and I’m wondering if he was half cut when he did it…
Jeremy, we have Bridgen who got suspended for far less, and he’s unlikely to ever get his position back, so I don’t fancy your chances tbh.
The context of what he said was always going to be too difficult to rationalise for H&M and their supporters. Oblique references, even to Game of Thrones, just escape these people who take every word literally. They aren’t smart enough to process that. Jeremy should have known this before taking aim at the frightful pair. Maybe he did. Maybe he doesn’t care anymore, and was just out to blow it up. If he did, he did a good job.
Quite. Can we please have a petition to the Tory leadership about the appalling treatment of Bridgen for telling the truth to power.
For goodness sake all of you! Stop blaming Clarkson for”picking on the wrong person” there are no wrong people to pick on! It’s comedy, if your in the public domain your fair game! get over it
And for ordinary folk not in the public domain who, just for expressing valid views, get abuse and hate online on social media from the armies of thugs and trolls and bullies who do just what Clarkson did.
Take a look at this and let me know if you still hold the same views.
Completely wrong! Reading the room is not comedy, comedy is what is NOT expected, hence, comedy.
Everyone is up for grabs! it’s comedy!
She would have done herself a massive favour if she had laughed along with it!
Now, shes just a poe faced victim married to Captain James Hewitts son!
(Being in the public eye, show me the DNA evidence and I’ll belive otherwise)
I get what you say, Mogs, but Clarkson has made his living by being generally outspoken and it’s what his fans and audience expect from him. A friend of mine called him a gammon! However, iIt was quite clearly meant as comedy – dark comedy perhaps – but comedy nevertheless and more akin to irony. I very much doubt that he wished to see Little Miss Perfect naked and covered in excrement – no reasonable human being would – and the problem there is that if you don’t know Games Of Thrones, the reference would fly over your head and the metaphorical context would be lost. It’s like saying that we want to see the government hanged or Gates’ head on a spike. We don’t actually mean those things, they’re just ways of expressing exasperation and anger. If we did mean those things then I would say that there were problems with our mental well-being – it’s not the action of a normal human being. I wouldn’t go so far as ‘hate’ because that is something else entirely, in my book anyway, and hate is such a strong emotion, a verbal or mental violence, that it’s only a step or two away from physical violence. There have been many real comedians in the past who said a lot worse than Clarkson and survived although not in this day and age. We probably won’t see the likes of Bill Hicks or George Carlin again because they would be cancelled too – although to be fair, they were much subtler and nuanced in their approach. I would also add that the Sun editor has a lot to answer for too – ultimately the decision to publish rests with him/her but no one seems to be looking their way.
“We don’t actually mean those things”
But what of the people who read it and think you do?
Take a look at this and tell me you still hold the same views.
“So… I’m confused, were his remarks a mistake or just bad comedy? Is bad comedy a mistake or just comedy that few people find funny? If someone found it funny, then it wasn’t a mistake, it was just bad comedy, no?”
Who gives a f…?
I do.
Take a look at this and tell me you still do not give an ‘f’..
It’s comedy!
If a president or prime minister would have said it, that would be offensive because they mean it, they are not comedians.
When you pay to see a comedian the last thing you want or expect is censorship! or why go in the first place?
I know someone who suffered from depression who got online abuse and killed himself because of comedy like that.
Clearly, comedy is a serious business. It is for Clarkson who makes millions from comedic abuse of other people.
Take a look at this and tell me you still hold the same views.
If there not your favourite comedian, then ignore them, why try to get the rest of the world to hate them just because you don’t like them? that’s the ipitomy of insecurity.
There are those of us who joined the FSU and signed up to DS to comment because we have been cancelled and/or subjected to abuse and hate from the myriad of trolls thugs and bullies on the internet all out to stop us exercising free speech.
So it is very dispiriting to see Clarkson being fêted here for doing much the same but in Clarkson’s case it is so much worse.
Why are we referring the Duchess of Wales in para.6.?
Good point. Don’t give the ghastly woman any further ideas!
Signed!
Clarkson made the classic mistake many people inside the media make, which is to assume everyone understands you are making a reference to something in the media. Most people in the UK haven’t watched Game of Thrones. The reference went over their heads. The trash among the woke who recognise the reference won’t care and will ignore the truth in order to extract their pound of flesh.
YouTuber MechaRandom42 was caught out in a similar way on her channel, referring to the preemptive accusations of racism thrown at Star Wars fans over the Kenobi series (the pre-planned accusations accidentally started before the show had gone out and reviews on the relevant site had become possible to post!) Mecha satirically referred to ‘Operation Get Behind the D**kies’ – which I believe came from South Park. However, she was immediately accused of racism and using a verboten word. Even UnHerd (I suspect not understanding the reference) made an example of her.
I’ve had the fortune to work in a part of the media that means I’ve never really been a media insider. I get to hang out mostly with non-media people and they simply don’t watch enough TV to get the jokes. Heck, if you say ‘BUT IT’S DEAD!!!’ or ‘I’m a Lumberjack’ or ‘Don’t mention the war!’ I’ll get the joke. Mention something from, say, Little Britain or The Mighty Boosh and you’ll get a blank stare from me!
Actually I didn’t get the reference either as I’ve never seen that show.
I may have seen it before briefly, but I hear it’s really overrated.
Exactly. It shows how self-involved the media is and how much they navel-gaze. Remember, ten million viewers for a TV show in the UK is seen as a great rating. It ignores the fact that the better part of 60 million people didn’t watch it. I doubt Game of Thrones had anything like those figures either… It’s an already-dated boobs-and-blood drama series that had an exceptionally large appeal among a small, niche viewing pool. The author of the books can’t even be bothered to finish writing the novels, so the ending was pulled out of the producers’ arses and even diehard fans hated it.
The media is out of touch with its audience. It’s obsessed with itself. Clarkson simply demonstrated that he is too immersed in the media environment for his own good.
He didn’t make a mistake, stop giving her credence!
Great article
I have signed the petition. To be frank I thought Clarkson’s comment about Markle was in poor taste and not even funny but we supposedly have free speech in this country and so taking away a man’s livelihood for a lazy bit of writing is absolutely grotesque. I don’t know what this Game of Thrones thing is so the reference went straight over my head anyway.
I have signed because I detest the Windsors and the ginger Whinger is a bloody disgrace to this country and I wouldbe happy if he just pissed orf. Muck-raking Markle is bad news fullstop.
If anybody should have seen the inside of a police cell it is that fat, ugly, very unfunny Jo Brand. Her verbal assault on Nigel Farage was and remains one of the most vile and vicious incidents I have come across in my lifetime.
Jo Brand is an execrable piece of work.
Doubtless our petition will go nowhere because those going for Clarkson will thoroughly enjoy their vicious virtue signalling. It is a fact though that Clarkson has put more smiles on my face than any of the Windsor grifters and that horror Jo Brand.
And if I cannot support free speech I’ve no business here have I?
Well said hp, I could not agree with you more. Possibly it was the hypocrisy of the H&M circus that tipped Clarkson over the edge. They’re happy to be fully paid up members of the Offendables brigade when people are being negative about them but are happy to spread their spiteful and vindictive bilge about others. But that’s OK because it’s “their truth”.
I have watched Game of Thrones and the reference passed me by. Possibly because I would be more than happy to line the streets and throw horse manure (other manures are available) at them. And if Brand was in the same tumbril; even better.
Thanks DBB.
Bravo, HP! Well said indeed. Yes, I’ve never ‘got’ Jo Brand, she seems to be famous mainly for being sarky which is, in my opinion, a low form of humour. Clarkson has certainly caused me much mirth and I thank him for it and hope he causes more!
Cheers Aethelred.
Whilst signing this petition, could we perhaps create another one suggesting that Jo Brand receives an equivalent sanction to Mr Clarkson for ‘jokingly’ suggesting throwing battery acid at Nigel Farage?
Quite.
There’s a difference she meant it and it was in no way funny, Clarkson’s column was satire and hilarious.
Clarkson’s column on Nutmeg is the finest piece of journalism to come out of fleet Street in several years, laugh out loud hilarious and completely on point. Happy to sign this petition even though the preamble is laced with cuckishness.
I’ve not liked Clarkson since he physically attacked a person for not arranging his dinner for him! But, he paid the price, served his fair dues, must he be punished for ever? No, or we will all suffer. I’ll sign
“Just because he upset a Duchess”
What Duchess? Surely you mean bit part American actress?!
Hear hear! And duly signed.
I will not be signing the petition. Not because of any dismay over Jeremy Clarkson. He is a big-boy now and should – with his apparent means be able to look after himself.
Jeremy is the non-thinking mans Jordan Peterson. I am 100% confident that through his existing newspaper channels, twitter and even this site, he could quite easily start drafting many pointed and direct pieces in his own style on the sussex’s and how they have ungraciously declined his apology ad hominem.
I can further dig into those MSM and MSE channels that dare to block, censor and cancel because of wokeness. I see no reason why he cannot be a success doing this unless he only cares for making money.
Signed. Jeremy Clarkson sometimes doesn’t stop to think, as evidenced on a few occasions, and he has a planet sized ego but he is not a bad, evil man. He has made me laugh out loud on many occasions and should definitely not be cancelled and have his life ruined – OK, he has a few mill – for making a poor taste joke. No one mentions the role of the editor of the Sun in this either – a good editor would have watered down the column. The weight of opinion about Harry and Meghan is in his favour methinks as they continue to make capital by portraying themselves as hard done by. They will bring down the monarchy if left unopposed and JC’s remarks were a sign of the exasperation felt by so many.
There are those of us who joined the FSU and signed up to DS to comment because we have been cancelled and/or subjected to abuse and hate from the myriad of trolls thugs and bullies on the internet all out to stop us exercising free speech.
So it is very dispiriting to see Clarkson being fêted here for doing much the same but in Clarkson’s case it is so much worse.
I believe in freedom of speech and freedom from personal abuse. These are entirely compatible. One can express one’s views without also engaging in personal abuse and hate-filled speech.
But no one here seems to realise this. You are voting for free speech of ordinary people being shut down because people like Clarkson and people who follow his example use abuse and hate online against them simply for expressing valid views without themselves engaging in abuse or hate speech.
Adults and children have killed themselves when subjected to abuse including online on social media delivered direct to them on their phones – from the armies of trolls, thugs and bullies.
That is having free speech removed permanently.
There is no escape from it for them except in death.
Does no one here understand this?
No one should blindly or dogmatically campaign for freedom of all kinds of speech.
This is the part of what Clarkson wrote which is so misogynistic and abusive that it contravenes the principle of “freedom of speech and from abuse“:
That is pure hate. It is Clarkson indulging his sexual fantasies in public at someone else’s cost.
Just because you may not like the behaviour of Meghan Markle does not make what Clarkson did right.
An open debate is needed. It is about values fundamental to freedom of speech.
Many many people who suffer cancellation do so through no fault of their own nor in what they have said or written. They are cancelled because of perfectly reasonable and innocent use of freedom of speech to express valid proper views.
They become targets for the cowardly anonymous trolls, bullies and abusers who commonly gang up on them.
Clarkson on the other hand is a multimillionaire who has made abusive attacks his stock-in-trade often against others who have little or no media access to counter him.
He is profiteering from abuse and harm.
Clarkson could have expressed his revulsion of Markle in strong factual terms without abuse. There is and can be no problem whatsoever with that.
But by engaging in hate-speech and abuse – which he without doubt did – the effect is to make the average person withdraw and shut up to avoid more of the same – it is happening every day but Clarkson is so prominent and has such media reach that it is awful for people to get on the wrong end of this kind of abuse and hate.
It is that simple – Clarkson has freedom of speech and could have expressed himself differently. And Clarkson is smart enough and equipped to do it – words are his business.
He is also smart enough to realise there are consequences – he took a chance and he lost. Boo-hoo for Jezza but he is supposed to be a big boy now but does not behave like one.
Others who do not go looking for a pointless fight are not so lucky as Clarkson who does go looking constantly.
And he will not be losing his livelihood. He is a very wealthy man. In contrast, online abuse is used to harm little people’s ability to find employment. Recruiters can and do search online and the moment there is the slightest suggestion the candidate is not 100% that person is off the list.
Anyone who chooses to write in hate-filled abusive misogynistic terms like Clarkson’s must accept there is a price for doing so and be made to pay it. He had the option to choose wisely but did not. The FSU also has that option but the members should be allowed the debate.
Defending the indefensible is harmful to the cause of free speech. The principle of freedom of speech is harmed by associating it with freedom to engage in misogynistic hate-filled abuse on a national and international scale. In this case it is by someone with privileged access to mass media. It is someone who does know better but chooses to plough his own furrow regardless, just to make money.
Those who believe in freedom of speech are creating a whip for their own backs defending this.
I see the first expected downvote.
A downvote for the above comment is a downvote for freedom of speech and an upvote for abuse by cancel culture online thugs, trolls and bullies.
Regardless of how many downvotes there may be, it is and will remain still true and right.
If you do not agree, debate it and say why your view is better and my view is not.
Explain why you are upholding free speech by supporting abuse and online hate-speech.
Ha! I see my favourite downvoter is a faithful follower, downvoting wherever I comment.
It is lonely work but someone has to do it [or so he seems to think.]