Index on Censorship CEO Jodie Ginsberg debated Evan Harris on Sky News on 9 May ahead of the UK’s House of Commons vote on amendments to the Data Protection Bill that would reintroduce into law restrictions on the press that the current government has rightly said it will not implement, namely forcing any publisher who refuses to sign up to a state-approved regulator to pay the legal costs of any data protection case brought against them, even if they win.
Ginsberg spoke in defence of a “free, vibrant, independent and troublesome media” that provides us with the information big business and the corrupt would rather remain concealed.
Index on Censorship is pleased to hear the amendments to the Data Protection Bill are likely not going ahead. This amendment had serious consequences for a free press, a cornerstone of democracy[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1526037704389-09ad51e7-e052-6″ taxonomies=”6564″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Comics Dara Ó Briain and Dave Gorman and scientist Professor Brian Cox joined Index and the Libel Reform Campaign at Downing Street to demand a public interest defence in the defamation bill
On Tuesday the Guardian ran a letter urging Waterstone’s to cancel its book-signing on 8 September for Tony Blair‘s memoirs. Iain Banks, AL Kennedy, Moazzem Begg, John Pilger, Michael Nyman and others described the event as “deeply offensive to most people in Britain.”
In today’s Guardian, Index editor Jo Glanville, Article 19 trustee Dr Evan Harris and Jonathan Heawood, director, English PEN respond.
We respect the writers of yesterday’s letter (18 August) and share their view on the illegality of the Iraq war and Tony Blair‘s nefarious role in engineering this country’s participation in it. But we can not share their call for Waterstone’s to desist from promoting it on the grounds that the event “will be deeply offensive to most people in Britain”, even if that were the case.
When it comes to literature, drama, journalism, artistic expression and scientific publication we must be consistent in our support for free speech. How can we defend the right of the Birmingham Repertory to put on and advertise a play like Behzti, despite it being deemed offensive to some Sikhs, and then call on a bookseller not to promote one of its books – or a library not to stock it — on the grounds of offence? The answer, in a liberal society, is to not read the book if it offends you, and to not buy a copy if you don’t wish royalties to go to the author.
While Iain Banks and colleagues say “Waterstone’s will seriously harm its own reputation as a respectable bookseller by helping him [Blair] promote his book”, we think its reputation would now be harmed by caving in to this sort of pressure.
The ballots are in, they’ve been badly counted and the winner of last night’s completely unscientific poll is Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrats science spokesman*
1. Who do you think defended freedom of speech the best?
Michael Wills — Labour 2
Evan Harris — Liberal Democrat 55
Dominic Grieve — Conservative 12
2. Whose proposed reforms of our libel laws were you most favourable to?
Michael Wills —- Labour 2
Evan Harris — Liberal Democrat 58
Dominic Grieve — Conservative 9
3. Whose arguments did you find the most convincing?
Michael Wills —- Labour 3
Evan Harris — Liberal Democrat 52
Dominic Grieve — Conservative 15
***This is in no way an endorsement of any political party by Index on Censorship
