Jon Gaunt / Liberty / Ofcom issues…

A few thoughts on the Jon Gaunt situation:

– From a 50,000 ft perspective, the big issue here is whether TV and radio are special social institutions.  The Communications Act 2003 and Ofcom (acting as the government’s agent) think they are.  I do not.  Gaunt could have called someone an ignorant pig in almost any other setting (eg, at a bus stop, on a blog, in a newsletter, on a placard) and no government agency would have been bothered.  In modern life you can expect to be insulted and offended several times a week.  Except on TV or radio.  Ofcom attempts to foster this increasingly unreal and out-of-touch space called broadcasting where offence is discouraged, adjudicated and mediated or punished.  Good luck with that.

– Ofcom are partially correct in defending their actions.  If you don’t like rules or regulations that silence certain types of commentary on television or radio, the first organisation to blame is Parliament.  In large part, Ofcom merely enact regulations that reflect the intent behind the Communications Act 2003.  Now, Ofcom go too far in many situations — eagerly considering complaints that should be rejected.  I would also like to see Ofcom advise the UK government that the entire broadcast content regulatory system is fragile and in need of revision.  Overall, though, the problem is with the Communications Act 2003 — a piece of legislation that the UK government at the time could not certify was in compliance with human rights obligations.  Says it all, right?

– Shami Chakrabarti / Liberty have generally been silent on the illiberal provisions of the Communications Act 2003 as far as I can remember.  Odd they did not put up a fight during the legislative phase, or even bother to raise this issue when Ofcom created its regulations that make up the Broadcast Code.  I’ve always thought that organisation was pretty useless in the domestic, freedom of expression context.  Hopefully this is a sign that Liberty can mean something to ordinary people not associated with the war on terror.

– Closely allied with Jon Gaunt’s legal campaign is the issue of political advertising, whether by candidates, people that want to comment on candidates (for good or ill), or people that just want to sound off on the issue of the day.  Ofcom’s rules (again, faithful to Parliament’s will) ban those types of political expression on television and radio.  The only permitted exceptions are party political broadcasts and party election broadcasts.  There is a pending case (Animal Defenders International) that would seek to overturn that ban and the signs from the European Court of Justice are encouraging.  But for now, the power to have your say on television or radio is restricted to political parties.  Nick Griffin can have his say but animal rights charities, eurosceptic groups and anti-poverty campaigners are silenced.

– During this entire time the internet and its generally unregulated discourse (eg, Guido Fawkes) have thrived whilst at the same time UK residents have generally tuned-out news and current affairs on television.  The rules and regulations governing offence and political advertising are bifurcating the media space:  (1) television shows dance competitions, DIY programmes and quiz shows and (2) the internet is where people turn to for real, hard-hitting political discussion.  It’s almost unreal:  the UK’s next general election will be hard-fought really everywhere but on television and radio.  Obama’s dramatic strategy would have been banned in the UK.

Stay tuned…