Standing in the way of control

The starkest image from the 1992 general election was undoubtedly the front page of the Sun newspaper showing Neil Kinnock’s head inside a light bulb, with the headline asking the last person to leave Britain, in the event of a Labour victory, to turn out the lights. The following day the paper claimed that it was "the Sun wot won it" for the Tories. More recently in 2007, election day for the Scottish Parliament saw the Sun front page with the SNP symbol transformed into a noose and the matching headline: "Vote SNP today and you put Scotland’s head in the noose". Thankfully for the SNP, there were no "Sun wot won it" headlines to follow - after an incredibly tight vote.

In countries where there is freedom of expression, very few people running for elected office will not have cursed the newspapers or other media. Arguably they have enormous power to influence and shape debate, and often we feel they are doing us down unfairly. Even Napoleon remarked: "I fear the newspapers more than 100,000 bayonets". Headlines such as the ones written above do give rise to legitimate arguments about the ethical duties of journalists and editors, balanced reporting, and questions about plurality of press ownership.

The recent controversy at Edinburgh Napier University over distribution of The Journal seems a very straightforward matter to me. The removal of thousands of copies of the newspaper from campuses by the election committee strikes me as a clear infringement of the right to free speech and the freedom of the press.

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers." I have absolutely no knowledge of the candidates involved in the Student Association elections at Napier, nor any idea of whether a vote of no confidence in any current office holder is appropriate: that is entirely a matter for the students of Napier. But the students at the University should be fully informed and aware of the arguments. As far as I can see, that is precisely what The Journal was trying to do in its reporting of events.

One of the important ideas underpinning the idea of freedom of the press is the notion that people are able to think things through for themselves, distinguish good arguments from bad, and reach their own conclusions. Only by coming up against other ideas, pitting your arguments against others, and developing your views as a result, can a democracy truly flourish. We look toward freedom of speech and expression in order to provide this "marketplace of ideas". The response to arguments and allegations, that someone believes to be unfounded, should not be to try to bury them so that nobody sees. It should be to meet them head on and to prove why they should be rejected.

Clearly freedom of speech is not an unlimited right. Across the world limits have been imposed to protect individuals and institutions from lies and unwarranted attacks on character. In Scotland and elsewhere, the press is subject to the laws of defamation - and in this case there has apparently been a claim made that the article was defamatory. However, it’s one thing to claim that an article is defamatory, and quite another to take the law into your own hands and prevent the newspaper from being properly distributed. The law is there to be enforced by the independent judges in our courts. The notion that an institution, feeling aggrieved at the contents of a newspaper story, can simply decide for itself that it is defamatory and proceed to enforce its own view without any independent adjudication, is decidedly authoritarian. So, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the article which has caused such controversy, the most disturbing aspect of the affair is the issue of who gets to act as judge and jury.

It’s a great pity to see The Journal and the Napier Students' Association at loggerheads, and in the cool light of day, I suspect that the removal of the newspapers will now be a matter of regret for those involved. There is no doubt that The Journal should be returned to the university. Those upset by an article will then be the in the same boat as the rest of us - we do our best to contradict the arguments and allegations where we can, or if laws have been transgressed, we have recourse to the courts. We might not always feel 100 percent happy with the result, but the alternative doesn’t bear thinking about.