The Broadcasting Standards Authority’s recent report Freedom of Expression and Harms Impacting Diverse Communities offers no definition of ‘harm’, but the self-selecting respondents tell us it's happening when they hear controversial ideas. The report demonstrates the unavoidable subjectivity of picking who gets to speak. The BSA should stick to bright lines, and not play wanna-be-censor, says Jonathan Ayling, Chief Executive of the Free Speech Union.

“The report presents ‘voicing particular viewpoints’ and exposure to ‘controversial’ views as problematic and ‘harmful’. It also equates exposure to offensive and controversial views with exposure to discriminatory ones.

“Issues over controversial perspectives is about how the topics and opinions are discussed, not the views themselves. Equally, there is a demonstrable difference between offensive and controversial views (which are inherently subjective), and those that advocate for discriminatory treatment of others.

“Discrimination is an action, not an opinion. Asserting that differences of opinions are discriminatory is ideological, not logical. If freedom of speech is stifled in the name of respecting views, we will eliminate debate and discussion from society. And we do not progress ideas without the ability to do that.

“The report states that ‘a majority felt that freedom of expression should be tempered by the need to respect the views of others.’ While it may sound noble, it’s people that need to be respected, not views. Many views, nonsense and erroneous as they are, deserve no respect. Every individual, however, deserves respect as a human.

“We’re concerned that this report will lead to unpopular views being censored on the basis of them being ‘harmful’. Who will define what is a ‘harmful’ view?

“When speech incites imminent violence, we have appropriate laws in place. But censoring unpopular views doesn’t get to the root of difference or division. Human dignity is harmed by being unable to think and speak freely.”

© Scoop Media