Free speech
![[Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5362d4ea31c9bdff8fd4602ac345f488.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 9,667 Forum Member
✭
In the light of the Leveson enquiry, the current situation and indeed what has just occurred here, I thought it relevant to post this. Results of a survey taken on the attitude of the public and how in fact we rate the importance of free speech.
i found it quite interesting.
Any thoughts?
i found it quite interesting.
Freedom & Enforcement Of Existing Law vs. Further Regulation
London, 18th November 2012: On behalf of the Free Speech Network, British Polling Council members Survation conducted a public opinion poll of 1002 UK adults on November 12th and 13th on issues of press freedom and regulation. Full data tables can be viewed -
http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=e17762efe2cccb1f0ed943c1f&id=4de0062729&e=09b8eda8f2
Key Findings:
Less Than 1% Of The Public Rank Press Regulation As A Number One Priority For MPs Attention
Almost Nine Out Of Ten People Do Not Consider Press Regulation A “Top Ten” Issue
Public Rank Press Regulation 19th Out Of A List Of 20 Priorities With Only Constitutional Reform Of Less Interest
When asked to list in order their top ten priorities for MPs’ attention, “regulation of the press & journalism” was the number one priority for only 0.5% of respondents. Only 12% of respondents selected press regulation anywhere in their top 10 issues, suggesting that for almost nine out of ten people this is not an issue of pressing concern. Overall, after all rankings were taken into account, “regulation of the press & journalism” came 19th out of a list of 20 issues, with only “Constitutional reform” scoring lower in terms of importance. The top five issues, “Economic growth / Recession”, “Unemployment”, “Inflation / Cost of living”, “Immigration / Overpopulation” and “Healthcare / NHS”, all scored over 10 times higher on level of importance than “regulation of the press & journalism”.
91% Of The Public Express Support For Free Speech
Two-Thirds Of The Public Are Proud Of Britain’s Regard As A Model Of Press Freedom
Freedom of speech, on the other hand, seems to be an issue that people care considerably about – 91% of people expressed support for a statement that “people in Britain should have the right to say or write whatever they think on matters of public debate”, subject to libel laws. And 64% said that they were “proud that the United Kingdom is regarded by some around the world as a model of press freedoms and freedom of speech” compared with 36% who did not feel it was relevant or important to them.
Only 24% Of The Public Believe The Government Should Focus On Introducing New Laws And Regulation, 71% Believe Government Focus Should Be On Ensuring Existing Law Properly Enforced
When asked what they thought the government should focus on to stop bad practices by the UK press, a strong majority, 71%, thought the focus should be on ensuring that existing laws are properly enforced, compared with 24% who thought the government should focus on introducing new laws and regulations. When further pressed on whether there were any specific journalistic practices that they would like to see outlawed or regulated, other than those that were already illegal, support for additional regulation dropped still further, with only 7% of people able to think of anything else they would like to see outlawed or regulated.
62% Of Public Supportive Of Journalists Exercising Judgement As To When Publishing Confidential Information In The Public Interest
People were also broadly supportive of journalists exercising their judgements as to when the publishing of confidential information was in the public interest, as opposed to having automatic prosecutions, with 62% in favour of this arrangement, compared with 31% who wanted all such disclosures to result in prosecutions and 7% who wanted no law against publishing confidential information at all.
Local Newspapers Are Considered A Positive Force In The Community
Overall respondents were reasonably well disposed towards their local newspapers, with 39% saying they were a positive force in their local community, more than double the 15% who thought they were a negative force. More troubling for local newspapers, however, is the finding that an overwhelming 92% of people thought that any new system of press regulation should also apply to local journalism as well as major national newspapers. Combined with the fact that 86% of respondents thought that any new regulatory body should be funded by the newspapers that it regulates and any resulting system may well involve a portion of the financial burden falling on local journalists.
65% Of The Public Believe Any Press Regulation Should Extend To Websites And Blogs
41% Of The Public Believe Any Press Regulation Should Also Extend To Twitter
A Majority (55%) Would Circumvent Tighter UK Newspaper Regulations, Going Online To Access Information
As well as local newspapers, almost two thirds of people, 65%, thought that regulation should extend into the online world applying to websites and blogs, including 41% who thought it should also apply to those using twitter. This increasing blurring of the distinction between traditional journalism and online media is further highlighted by the fact that over half of people surveyed, 55%, said that if a story was not allowed to be published in UK newspapers due to press laws, they would simply go online and look it up on Google or Twitter. The same proportion, 55%, said they would access the websites of American newspapers to get hold of information not being revealed in the UK.
68% To 9% Believe Any New System Of Press Regulation Should Include Provision To Allow Libel Actions To Be Settled More Cheaply And Quickly
78% of respondents want to see any new system in place within the next year
Two thirds of respondents, 68%, thought that any new system of press regulation should include a provision to allow libel actions to be settled more cheaply and quickly, compared to only 9% who disagreed with the idea, indicating perhaps a broader interest in reforming media law beyond simply restricting unethical journalistic practices. As for the timing of a reforming regulation, 78% of respondents wanted to see any new system in place within the next year, including 28% who want it introduced within the next 3-4 months, suggesting a general desire to see things resolved relatively quickly, a year and a half on from the phone hacking scandal.
Public Swayed By Issues Dominating Headlines
Finally, 55% of respondents said they were more concerned by allegations of a cover up at the BBC surrounding Jimmy Savile than were concerned by either phone hacking allegations (13%) or allegations of payments to police and public officials (32%); a likely indication that people’s concerns are significantly swayed by issues that are currently dominating the headlines, but tend to fade over time.
Full data tables can be viewed here; A graphical report is available here
A graphical report is available here:
Any thoughts?
0
Comments
I'm not sure what, but I've seen the idea floated that if there's a story that contains anything outside of objective reporting of facts, then it should carry a box saying, "This is editorial opinion only."
Also, retractions should be printed on the front page.
Yes agreed.
I have read that we are the most restricted country in Europe when it comes to civil liberties, I can't remember where I read it or what/who we are compared with, but I think it likely it is true.
There is a climate of fear just now, and I don't think there should be any restriction on free speech - or the semblance o free speech, within the law, but people -papers journalists should be responsible for what they write and say and should take the consequences if they overstep the mark.
Tricky one though.
Stop abusing English, the word is "speech" as the title of the thread clearly states. No way does a phone get that wrong using predictive text. It's all about discussion, not your personal style.
I'm not being a spelling/grammar Nazi, I'm cool with typos, I'm just brassed off with "flow of consciousness" rants.
Yes. I'm bored. Move it to Politics
so i have a problem with spelling (so what) you seem to be quick to 'pounce on the slightest error. thats Judgemental (in my view) i didn't intend to abuse the english language, self education sometimes produces errors like that, sorry I haven't got a degree but I wasn't aware I needed one to speak here.
I am aware of the 'irony' in your statement but i thimk my point has been confirmed. abuse is everywhere. some of it less serious but I will try to change from speach to speech if you'll try to stop attacking 'little errors you see in others (splinter and plank, splinter and plank)
what happened where?
this seems to happen on here people [post] a statement that isn't connected to anything [even the quote] and as for calling people names like dyslexic (I am appalled) My sons have struggled for years with this difficulty. This is abuse.
as for the (apparant) CHANGE OF SUBJECT. look to your own.
You don't have a problem, it's not yours! Spelling has only been standardised for a relatively short part of our timeline, recent century for purely commercial reasons.
It's what you say and what you mean that actually matters, if you are able to make yourself understood and man has always communicated successfully strangely without the anal nazi's correcting them - I think they are just on a power trip in their own sad little world, but at least they provide some entertainment!
Thank you for your post, you are worth 100 times the people who go around rudely correcting others, because they actually don't have anything to say, nothing to actually input into a conversation. Whereas you do, who cares how you say it!
(& I do have a degree - one semi self taught).
Yes, I agree. I think we are in danger of going too far the other way, I was surprised to read that we are the most restricted nation in Europe when it comes to civil liberties.
Yes, there should be boundaries, but that is what libel laws are for, and a more efficient PCC is clearly needed,
Retractions too should be given bigger space and higher profile, the same with apologies, but we should not sacrifice our freedom
*...skips off to paint face blue....*
:eek:
That is incorrect.
Take Turkey for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World#Western_Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World#Central_and_Eastern_Europe.2FEurasia
Interactive map.
http://www.democracyweb.org/new-map/
It's interesting that they are saying that everyone will be pursued, not just the ones who named names, the ones who re tweeted too...guilty by association? It will be interesting to see if they can manage to restrict the internet any, I think it could be too late.
It's the third stat - only 24% feel the govt should focus on introducing new laws and regulation. The Malicious Communications Act as it stands is woefully inadequate to contend with the reality of the internet, and the more vague a law is the worse it is for Free Speech.
Not according to Liberty.
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/index.php
Secret Court legislation going thru at the moment. Trials in secret, cctv coverage is the highest in Europe.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/nov/21/secret-courts-house-of-lords
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/activists-step-up-campaign-against-secret-justice-bill-8305002.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/press-regulation-a-minority-concern-according-to-poll-8326434.html
It's debatable how much Turkey is actually "European". For some purposes yes, for others, definitely not.
Turkey is in Europe. That is not debatable. They even want to join the EU, which by definition only includes European countries.
Two things people keep forgetting about the freedom of speech:
1. it was primarily designed to protect our right to the freedom of speech from our government, e.g. they cannot control or restrict our right to speak by imprisoning or killing us to silence us.
2. Everyone's free to exercise this right for as long as they remember that the freedom of speech requires responsibility and accountability. As in, being 100% willing to deal with the consequences or reactions.
No one can control others' reactions so they can't whine about political correctness, or how "sensitive" and "easily offended" people are when their comments weren't well received. It's ridiculous, stupid and naive to assume that one can say whatever one can say without being held accountable for it. In short, no one should whine like a baby if someone found their comment offensive. It'd be a lot more productive to find out why the person finds it offensive and learn from it.
This is partly why I believe we need to create an 'oversight' of some description to assess what the newspapers and TV news say in their delivery of 'information' to the country. I don't want it to control what is written or said so much as to "make the reporter/editor accountable for his/her words. so much of what is reported today is 'speculative' 'interpretative' 'analyses' and conjecture of what was done/said or implied by the party/individual or spokesperson. What the 'real story' and 'the truth' gets 'lost in the telling' I believe this needs addressing and compensation/fines levying on the paper/reporter/editor/ when they don’t report accurately or they report in a distorted or bias way. I often think when watching the news "I wish that reporter would shut-up and let the (whoever) speek for himself" I get really cross that the reporter thinks I need him to 'translate' what (whoever) is saying. Then a little later they have a 'spokes-person' talking about something and their accent is so strong that it is nearly impossible to understand them. (The reporter doesn't 'interpret' then) perhaps that might be seen as discriminatory or racist.
Leveson report is due tomorrow and they are backing off from extensive limitations of press freedom.
It looks like nothing will change much. i think they have to be made accountable for any damage that is done by mis reporting though.
will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow.