Freedom And Broadcasting:
A Submission By The Libertarian Alliance
to Ofcom On Its Proposed New Broadcasting Code
Dr Chris R. Tame and Dr Sean Gabb
Political Notes No. 189
ISSN 0267
7059
ISBN: 1 85637 712 1
An occasional publication of the Libertarian Alliance,
Suite 35, 2 Lansdowne Row, Mayfair, London W1J 6HL.
© 2004: Libertarian Alliance; Chris R. Tame, Sean Gabb.
Dr. Chris R. Tame is the founder and Director of the Libertarian
Alliance. He has appeared on television and radio frequently (having
made over 1,000 appearances) and is a prolific writer and lecturer on
many topics in sociology, economics, philosophy and the history of
ideas. He is author of The Bibliography of Freedom; The
Euro-Sceptical Directory; and the forthcoming Freedom,
Healthcare and Welfare Policy. His articles have appeared in such
journals as The Jewish Journal of Sociology; Economic
Affairs; Science and Public Policy; Il Politico;
South African Freedom Review; The Journal of Social,
Political and Economic Studies; Wertfrei; The Journal
of Libertarian Studies; The Free Nation; and The
Freethinker, and in such books as The Politics of Crime
Control; J. M. Robertson (1856 1933): Liberal, Rationalist,
and Scholar; The Case for Private Enterprise; and The
‘New Right’ Enlightenment, amongst others.
Dr. Sean Gabb is the Director of Communications of the Libertarian
Alliance and edits both its journal Free Life and its ezine
Free Life Commentary. A university lecturer in law and
sociology he is the author of such books as Dispatches from a Dying Country:
Reflections on Modern England; Truancy in English
Secondary Schools (HMSO); Cultural Revolution, Culture War: The
Real Battle for Britain; and War and the National Interest:
Arguments for a British Foreign Policy, and is a
contributor to the forthcoming volume Home Schooling: An
International Reader.
The views expressed in this publication are those of its author,
and
not necessarily those of the Libertarian Alliance, its Committee,
Advisory Council or subscribers.
FOR LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY
PREFACE
OFCOM (The Office of Communications) was set up in 2003 to replace
previously separate governmental regulatory bodies concerned with
broadcasting. It describes itself as “the regulator for the UK
communications industries, with responsibilities across television,
radio, telecommunications and wireless communications services
… Ofcom exists to further the interests of citizen-consumers as
the communications industries enter the digital age.” (http://www.ofcom.org.uk)
Earlier this year the Libertarian Alliance was one of many
organisations and concerned parties sent OFCOM’s document
Consultation on the Proposed OFCOM Broadcasting Code, and invited to
participate in the consultation process regarding its proposed new
Code for Broadcasting (designed to replace the previous
separate codes administered by its predecessors, such as the
Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television
Commission and the Radio Authority). The rationale of such
consultations are described by OFCOM in the following terms:
“[d]ecisions must be based on evidence and they need to take
account of the views of those who have an interest in the outcome.
Consultation plays an important part in achieving this. It allows
those who could be affected by or concerned about a particular issue
to give us their views before we decide on a course of action.
Consultation is an essential part of regulatory accountability
– the means by which those people and organisations affected by
our decisions can judge what we do and why we do it.” (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/)
The following is the text of the opinion submitted by the Libertarian
Alliance and the Libertarian International to OFCOM. In due course
(although not at the moment of this publication) the text will also
be included with all other submissions to OFCOM on their own website.
The text was also released to the media by the Libertarian Alliance,
together with a news release (http://www.libertarian.co.uk/news/nr027.htm),
in the second week of October 2004.
Freedom And
Broadcasting:
A Submission By The Libertarian Alliance
To Ofcom On Its Proposed New Broadcasting Code
Presented by Dr. Chris R. Tame and Dr. Sean Gabb
on Behalf of The Libertarian Alliance and The Libertarian
International
4 October 2004
Contents
I: Introduction: About the
Libertarian Alliance
II: Libertarian Alliance and Libertarian International Submission
Regarding OFCOM’s Proposed Broadcasting Code
(i) Freedom of Expression
(ii) Regulation
(iii) Freedom of Expression Versus Regulation
(iv) “Cultural Diversity”
(v) “Protecting Children”
(vi) “Due Impartiality”
(vii) The European Convention on Human Rights
III: Conclusion
Biographical Notes
I: Introduction: About the Libertarian Alliance
1. The Libertarian Alliance is a non-party political pro-free market
and pro-civil liberties pressure group and think tank established in
1968. Our international Academic Advisory Council is listed on the
letterhead of the letter accompanying the printed version of this
Submission. The Libertarian Alliance has over 700 pamphlets and
monographs in print, publishes a quarterly journal, Free Life,
organises regular meetings, seminars and conferences (including an
annual international conference), and runs an internet discussion
forum (The Libertarian Alliance Forum) and a regular ezine (Free Life
Commentary). It regularly submits evidence to governmental and
parliamentary inquiries, and its spokesmen appear frequently on the
media (with approximately 2,000 appearances to our credit on both
radio and television, nationally and internationally). The
Libertarian Alliance is the UK representative of The Libertarian
International, and is also affiliated to LIBERTY (The National
Council for Civil Liberties), The International Society for
Individual Liberty, and The Sexual Freedom Coalition.
2. The political position of the Libertarian Alliance is one of
radical libertarianism, that is, the most consistent and systematic
form of Classical Liberalism and Radicalism – the tradition of
such thinkers as John Locke, John Stuart Mill, the Levellers, Tom
Paine and, more recently, Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises
and Murray Rothbard, amongst many others. Libertarianism supports
freedom in all its aspects – economic, religious, sexual,
social and cultural. Libertarianism is opposed to all forms of
illiberalism, authoritarianism, statism and collectivism –
whether conservative authoritarianism, socialism and communism,
nazism, fascism and racial collectivism - and to censorship of any
form of expression.
II: Libertarian Alliance and Libertarian International Submission
Regarding OFCOM’s Proposed Broadcasting Code
Our comments regarding OFCOM’s Consultation document will be of
a relatively brief and general nature, for reasons we will explain
below, rather than a response to a number of the specific questions
you raise for respondents.
(i) Freedom of Expression
You state [2(1)] that “Freedom of expression is an essential
human right” p. 4). We emphatically agree.
(ii) Regulation
Unfortunately, you immediately proceed to proclaim [2(3)] that
“regulation” of that “freedom” can and should
be “prescribed by law”, which is apparently
“necessary in a democratic society” (p. 4). You thus
further outline [2(7)] in the proposed Code a system of regulation
designed “to protect viewers and listeners … foster
plurality, promote cultural diversity, promote informed citizens and
support innovation, creativity and investment” (p. 4).
Elsewhere in the document [3] you speak of OFCOM’s duty to
ensure that broadcasters “comply with the law, respect the
truth and respect human dignity” (p. 7), to regulate in regard
to material that might cause “harm and offence” (p. 7),
and [4] to protect children from “potential or actual
distress” (p. 11). In section 5, on “Harm and
Offence”, you further outline the duty of OFCOM to ensure that
“generally accepted standards” in relation to various
sexual and moral issues are maintained.
(iii) Freedom of Expression Versus Regulation
It should thus be clear why we are unable to answer your specific
questions regarding, for example, “the right balance between
giving broadcasters creative and editorial freedom while protecting
listeners and viewers” (p. 19) or “What technical and
other protections can broadcasters and platform operators put in
place to protect children” (p. 22), amongst many others.
As for “generally accepted standards”, these are nothing
more than the opinions of some people, whether wholly right,
partially right, or wholly wrong. The idea that they should be
imposed upon those who disagree with them, and given privileged
protection against generally unaccepted standards is clearly utterly
at variance with the ideal and practice of free expression.
The idea that “freedom of expression” can be
“regulated” and still remain freedom of expression is
thus an absurdity. Any form of regulation is a restriction of freedom
of expression and is thus morally and politically unacceptable. There
is no “right balance” between freedom of expression and
“protection”. There is only freedom of expression, which
is either absolute and unconstrained, or there is regulated
expression and censorship.
In a free society the purpose of the law is to protect individuals
from coercive invasion of, or interference with, their persons and
property, and no more. Thus, individuals have no right to be
“protected” from (alleged) “harm and
offence”, and, indeed, any attempt to do so can only be utterly
subjective and self-contradictory. Thus, Christians or Moslems should
not be “protected” from “offense” or
“harm” (other, of course, than violent assault) from
either each other, or from other religions, or from atheists and
rationalists. Any such alleged “right” or attempt to do
so would be to silence and censor all. Similarly, in relation to
socialists versus capitalists, environmentalists versus scientific
rationalists, “para-normal”/superstition mongers versus
rationalists, racists versus non-racists, gays versus anti-gays,
feminists versus anti-feminists, and so on; all have a right to free
expression, no matter how irrational or rational, silly or sensible,
moral or immoral, attractive or ugly their views might be. None have
a right not to be “offended” or “harmed”.
Indeed, the progress of humanity is totally dependent upon some
belief systems being “offended” and “harmed”
(i.e., ridiculed or defeated in debate) by their (in fact) rational
critics.
Broadcasting should be totally free. It is up to broadcasters to
decide what they want to broadcast, and for to viewers to be free to
listen or watch, or not to do so. “Diversity” will
probably, indeed, almost certainly, result from the free choices of
broadcasters and audiences, and certainly does not need to be
“promoted” by any state appointed body. However, if
“diversity” does not result, then so be it. The State has
no right to impose “diversity” upon others.
(iv) “Cultural Diversity”
In reality, of course, when the term “cultural diversity”
is employed at the present time it usually means the imposition of a
very specific and rather un-diverse ideological viewpoint known as
“political correctness”, an evil axis of anti-liberal,
anti-white racist, anti-Western, anti-Enlightenment and collectivist
values and coercive social engineering. With the decline of old style
Marxism and Socialism this form of illiberal doctrine has gained a
growing and hegemonic role throughout much of academia, charities and
civil organizations, churches, social and welfare services, most
political parties, and government and the civil service. As an
ideology it promotes the power and privileges of a hegemonic class,
especially “knowledge-workers” and the intelligentsia. It
stigmatises and demonises any dissenting opinion, seeks to censor and
silence it, and manipulates information in order to balkanize society
into alleged “victim” groups who provide tribalistic
bases for the exercise of political power – and the extraction
of economic profit – by that class.
(v) “Protecting Children”
The issue of “protecting children” is one perennially
raised by reactionary conservatives, socialist and statist
authoritarians and health fascists. No restriction of free expression
in any form of media can be morally justified by this specious ploy.
In so far as children should be “protected” from
allegedly harmful expressions that is the sole concern of parents,
who will certainly have diverse and incommensurable views as to what
that protection should be, and, indeed, regarding what children
should be protected from.
(vi) “Due Impartiality”
Moreover, the proposed OFCOM Codes’ alleged commitment to
regulate in favour of “due impartiality, due accuracy and undue
prominence of views and opinion” is mere camouflage of the
reality of broadcasting in this country. That reality has been, and
clearly will continue to be under the proposed Code, not one of free
expression, but the dissemination of a small range of permitted and
permissible views within the boundaries deemed acceptable by
Establishment. In actuality “unpopular” ideas (or, to be
more accurate, ideas unpopular with the hegemonic class) and their
spokesmen are largely kept off the broadcast media, ignored, or, when
mentioned, vilified, ridiculed, or mischaracterized. Although
occasional “dancing bear” appearances might be allowed on
minor programmes, serious media access is routinely denied to
dissident viewpoints. For example, the propaganda and junk science of
the health fascists is repeated endlessly, and critics given barely a
token voice. The anti-life and anti-human values, and the scientific
lies and distortions, of the “Environmentalist” movement
are now an unquestioned and unquestionable secular religion and
reported and portrayed as both the ne plus ultra of morality and as
scientific fact. In sociological terms they represent a socially
constructed body of falsehood and legitimation ideology, and a
hegemonic discourse. The golden circle of commentators, presenters,
critics, writers, journalists and programme makers that dominate the
British broadcast media is closed and tediously predictable.
(vii) The European Convention on Human Rights
We note that the OFCOM consultation document both reprints [Annex 6,
p. 127], and is clearly influenced by, Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (full text at: http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html).
That Article reads as follows:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Now clearly, this formulation of “rights” is
risible and quite blatantly Orwellian in character. Clause 1 declares
the alleged existence of the right of free expression, whilst clause
2 asserts that the state may abolish that right whenever it sees fit!
Indeed, every clause of the Convention is of this sort. Unlike the
many revolutionary declarations of rights created during the liberal
revolutions of previous centuries the European Convention on Human
Rights is not a Convention on Human Rights, but a Convention on the
State Destruction of Human Rights.
The ideology of the Human Rights Convention is basically that of the
OFCOM consultation document itself. Whist older forms of statism and
authoritarianism such as Fabian Socialism, Marxism, National
Socialism, Fascism or High Toryism generally were quite frank in
their rejection of such “bourgeois” and liberal values as
free expression, modern, “politically correct”, statism
is more insidious. It dresses up censorship in the touchy-feely
language of “offense” and sensitivity, of
“harm”, of choice, vulnerability and children, in
references to diversity, balance, and human dignity. It adopts part
of the language of liberalism in order to destroy liberalism and
liberty. But words cannot actually conceal reality. The choice now is
the choice that has always confronted humanity: freedom or slavery,
individual liberty or the state, freedom of expression or regulation
and censorship.
III: Conclusion
Just as there is no OFPUB (Office of Publications), regulating the
publication and contents of books, so there should be no OFCOM
(Office of Communications). All broadcasting should be free of any
form of regulation or control and censorship by the State.
The Libertarian Alliance and the Libertarian International thus urge
the abandonment of the proposed Code and the immediate closure of
OFCOM. In their place a totally unregulated, that is, a really free
market in broadcasting should be allowed to come into existence.