I had woken this morning to the news that Alan Campbell MP is to publish a ‘Hate Crime Action Plan’ this month in response to concerns about the Internet being a vehicle for a particular variety of ‘hate crime’. The Parliamentary Under Secretary for State has made clear his distaste for those ‘despicable websites which bring gross misery to family members and friends of the abducted little girl Madeleine McCann and the late Jade Goody’.

I have long been of the opinion that the unrestrained excesses, apparent on some web sites which have crossed the boundary between a reasonable use of free speech to discuss topical issues within the bounds of libel, (the McCann saga being a highly visible case in point), and those web sites which encourage a firmly held conviction that only their view is the correct view and that not only is the apparent reluctance of the authorities to prosecute in line with those beliefs a conspiracy, but also that dissenting voices should be silenced by means of intimidation, threats of outing and other ‘dirty tricks’, would ultimately open the door to regulation which would restrict all users of the Internet and not just those who are unable to accept the right of others to hold a different view.

Sadly, little Madeleine McCann has become the modern day version of the pigs bladder, to be kicked backwards and forwards between rival gangs of ‘howling roughs‘ – an apposite term coined to describe the out of control football supporters back in 1885 who were unable to tolerate the existence of supporters of a rival team – which is equally appropriate to describe the venal depths to which inhabitants of some of the darker recesses of the Internet have descended as they have moved from taking an interest – requested by the McCann family – in the disappearance of little Madeleine, to a firmly held belief that the parents are culpable and that it falls on their shoulders to take both legal and illegal actions to prosecute/persecute her parents in the absence – as they see it – of Government intervention.

Interestingly, no sooner did I start to research the origins of ‘football violence’ as an analogy, than I came upon an advert for ‘Missing Madeleine’ on a site dedicated to research into football violence – apparently I am not the first person to suspect that there might be a link between those organisations which enjoy the camaraderie of ’secret societies’ and a call to arms of tribal retaliation and punitive action against the ‘opposition’ which has marred the game of football in many countries, and some of the more fanatical of the ‘Voices of Madeleine’.

Steven Pinker has long argued that far from the idea of the noble savage disintegrating into the corrupt modern human, violence has in fact declined over the centuries. In this theory he is at odds with intellectuals such as José Ortega y Gasset who firmly believed that ‘war is not an instinct, but an invention’. One of the tenets of Pinker’s beliefs is based on Peter Singer’s theory that Evolution bequeathed people a small kernel of empathy, which by default they apply only within a narrow circle of friends and relations – those intimately known by them. Over time, and by dint of modern technology, this has come to encompass larger circles – the clan, the tribe, the nation, other races. He would say that the more one knows and thinks about other living things, the harder it is to privilege one’s own interests over theirs.

The invention of the Internet has shrunk that circle. It has allowed us to have a false knowledge of each other. For the first time we can communicate from behind a cloak of anonymity that even the telephone could not give us. We appear to know who ’smudge’ and ‘dibsy’ are, we meet them every day, we talk to them, we confide in them, but we do not see them. We do not know where they live, or what sex they are; we have met them only through the invisible circle of Internet friends.

As such, we appear to have stripped away centuries of Pinker’s ’socialising empathy’, and returned to savages with a primal thirst for blood in the inescapable logic of anarchy – any beings with a modicum of self interest will be tempted to invade their neighbours to steal their resources, in the case of the McCann forums – their ‘truth’; the logic of anarchy dictates that you attack your neighbours first in pre-emptive self-defence.

The history of Government intervention is a reasonably noble one whereby the state has a monopoly on violence, retaliation, punitive action, call it what you will, as a ‘disinterested party’ that can inflict penalties and eliminate the incentive for aggression and thus diffuse the need for retaliation and endless feud.

As a Libertarian, I would be greatly saddened by Government intervention into forums and the Internet, but I realise that the Internet has become a new frontier land, and one where we have apparently discarded our hard won ability to empathise with each other and live in relatively peaceful harmony; if we are unable to ‘play nicely’ we may have to accept the heavy hand of a ‘parent’.

1
Vimes September 1, 2009 at 19:05

An Internet forum is no more than a virtual pub discussion, populated by a similar group of individuals that meet down the local – the bore, the know-all, the psycho, etc. As there, it is the licensee who is responsible for keeping order and ensuing than disagreements do not end up in virtual fisticuffs and/or illegal activity – if they don’t, then they may lose their licence. I was a regular contributor to one such forum and make absolutely no secret of my scepticism, regarding the “official” version of events – it was the total failure of the mainstream UK media, to provide a balanced and informed view of the case, that drove me there. I also became very uneasy about the direction in which it was moving and was not suprised to see the plug voluntarily pulled by the owner, which was the right decision, imho – however, to damn that particular forum, on the grounds of the zealotry of some of its members, is to ignore the huge amount of information that was provided there, primarily through the efforts of Portugese members, which was (deliberately?) ignored by the UK media. For Alan Campbell to try and use that as an excuse for a “Hate Crime Bill” is nonsensical, imho, and just more evidence of NuLab control-freakery – it is perfectly reasonable to ask awkward questions and it is equally acceptable to wonder aloud, when answers aren’t forthcoming, which is precisely why blogs, such as this, exist. By all means “play nice” and by the rules, but don’t try to stifle debate, just because you don’t like an opposing view – there are a lot of unanswered questions surrounding this issue (I can think of 48 off the top of my head) and they aren’t going to go away, just because one prefers to ignore them.

2
Anna Raccoon September 1, 2009 at 19:40

I agree with you Vimes, I am equally sceptical of the official version of events, but the important point is to ‘play nice and by the rules’ – if you don’t a forum can quickly degenerate into something quite dangerous in my view, and that is what I am saddened by – the fact that the few who refuse to accept any curtailment on their right to say or do as they please, will ultimately result in us all being curtailed. Totally free uncensored speech has always been an illusion and there is no reason why the Internet should be any freer from the rules of libel than real life. I am aware that there are those who will argue with me on this point, but frankly some of them just want to make a ‘name’ for themselves. As for translating the excellent debates and deductions from the information available into direct action – don’t even get me started, it is a non runner.
I think you know as well as I do, that it is not the honest intentions of some forums to debate that Alan Campbell will have in mind when he takes action, but those who overstepped the mark. Pulling the plug, as you put it was the only option left. The Portuguese members are to be congratulated on the huge amount of time and effort they have put into getting information into Britain which our lousy language skills would not have allowed us to access.

3
Joe Public September 1, 2009 at 20:45

When will a government learn that threatening to ban anything, only provides free publicity & subsequently stimulates interest?

4
Sabot September 1, 2009 at 20:59

I also am grateful for Portuguese translations. Unfortunately far too many of them were of very dubious reports in Portuguese newspapers of “Facts” which can only have come from The PJ. and have since proved to be grossly incorrect. So an awful lot of The Questions are based on false premise. But this does not prevent them from circulating ad infinitum.

This in itself does not worry me all that much. What concerns me is the incitement to violence ahd hatred that inevitably follows.

Some people have a need to belong to a gang and can be driven to excesses by other people. This worries me enormously, and something must be done.

I am very sorry that it has come to such a pass. It was bad enough when people stirred up hatred around The Village Pump. The Internet is fast becoming a Global Village Pump.

5
Vimes September 1, 2009 at 21:38

“As for translating the excellent debates and deductions from the information available into direct action – don’t even get me started, it is a non runner.”

No argument from me there, Anna – certain people are more than capable of making complete Khybers of themselves, without any help from me. As for Campbell, he won’t be happy with an inch, when a mile is available – how do you think he would view your piece on “Princess Emma”, or “Mandelson’s Bum” for example? He doesn’t really strike me as having much of a sense of humour, when it comes to his pals and their progeny.

6
Old Holborn September 1, 2009 at 21:48

I’m all grown up now. If Dad wallops me, he can expect to receive it back again.

7
Anna Raccoon September 1, 2009 at 21:48

There are only a select few who find Mandelson’s bum amusing Vimes………

8
Anna Raccoon September 1, 2009 at 21:49

I’m tempted, Old Holborn – I’m very tempted…….

9
gestalt September 2, 2009 at 03:46

While I agree that successive Government initiatives are not particularly well executed in this area, but it is very difficult to ignore specific and repeated attacks that have been perpetrated by individuals who continue to frequent these sites on not only of those principle names mentioned but others “supporting the opposing team” – laying bare their victims private and business lives without their permission, exposing images of their children and infiltrating and disturbing their very livelihoods. It is clearly necessary to track the culprits of such crimes but shouldn’t some responsibility and culpability also fall on those that organise and attract them, apparently condone and even applaud their behaviour? Of course there are laws such as libel and slander which may be used against the main targets of such sites and perhaps others which may be used to protect ancillary victims from direct attack but none, it seems, to deter or bring to book the organisations that harbour those responsible and perhaps incite their crimes.

10
Majic September 2, 2009 at 08:31

Very interesting and written piece Anna. Raising some very key issues, especially the comparison with the old days of football hooligans running rampant on a weekend and the behaviour of the minority members of a site can ruin and even threaten it for the others.

11
astro September 2, 2009 at 08:37

These are the days when I wonder why Portugal is considered to be a “backward” country by so many English citizens. Creating legislation to suit particular cases, such as the McCanns and Jade Goody (what a curious selection!), sounds strange, to say the least. Does Britain have no courts of law? Can’t the “offended” sue the “offenders”? Apparently not, or they would have done so, by now. Instead, the legislator steps in to protect their interests. How very exquisite!

12
Anna Raccoon September 2, 2009 at 09:16

In fariness Astro, he happened to single out those two cases in his correspondance, but the proposed legislation would be part of a much wider defintion of ‘hate crime’ that will include gender/religeon/race as well. Unfortuantely the English seem to be losing the art of debate, or of moderation in their conversation and views – and extremeism is a problem in a country that is committed to multi-culturalism.

The above doesn’t imply that I am in favour of this legislation, but given the Nu-Labour governments ideology, I can see where it is coming from.

Edited to add – it is a fine example of the arrogance of the English that they dare to refer to any country as third world or ‘backward’. Hundreds of thousands of English flee their country every year, not for higher wages, as so many other people leave their country of birth, but because they cannot stand living in the mess they have created of what was once a great country.

13
rightwinggit September 2, 2009 at 10:08

Majority: 4,143 votes, so here’s hoping…

# Voted very strongly for introducing ID cards.
# Voted strongly for introducing student top-up fees.
# Voted very strongly for Labour’s anti-terrorism laws.
# Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.
# Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.

Tells you all you need to know about this creature, doesn’t it?

14
Ian September 2, 2009 at 10:47

Yet another supporter of the McCanns!

Its incredible, the entire UK press support the McCanns, yet a couple of Websites where anyone who chooses to post any opinion which infers that Madeleine might not have been abducted, is a ‘hate site’ and ‘encourages a firmly held conviction that only their view is the correct view’….isnt that exactly what the Sun, the Daily mail, the Express (once the McCanns silenced its more extreme publishings!) are doing? Isnt it a fact that freedom of expression lives only on these web sites and NOT through the offices of the so-called ‘free press’?

15
astro September 2, 2009 at 11:01

Anna, in my opinion, “hate crimes” are crimes committed against a group of people, not against a particular individual, which falls under the defamation concept. The reference to the McCanns and Jade Goody is, in my view, yet another expression of the ‘populist’ inclinations that have caused the Madeleine McCann case to be irretrievably tainted with political interference.
By mixing up the concepts and by blurring the borders, the British politicians are once again delivering a clear image of what happened in the Madeleine McCann investigation.
In my personal opinion, that is.

16
Anna Raccoon September 2, 2009 at 11:08

Astro,
I agree with you. That is the problem. If forums had continued to debate and discuss this case in a fair and legal manner, then the government would not have been able to take advantage of the situation and use it to their advantage to impose further regulation on the Internet.
It is the ‘hot heads’ who had to go one step further, not the people who merely wished to debate and discuss the case, who have caused the problem. Hence the headline to my piece. Unfortunately, a few people have played right into the hands of a government that was just looking for an excuse to further tighten their control of what was said on the Internet. Unfortuantely, libellous comments and threats were allowed to remain on sites, in apparent homage to free speech, those comments are now going to form the basis of the governments actions.

17
gestalt September 2, 2009 at 11:18

“Freedom of speech is a guiding rule, one of the foundations of democracy, but at the same time, freedom does not imply anarchy, and the right to exercise free expression does not include the right to do unjustified harm to others” – Raphael Cohen-Almagor

18
astro September 2, 2009 at 11:20

Anna, does that mean that the concept of ‘hate crime’ vs. ‘defamation’ is not defined in British law? Does ‘hate crime’ apply to comments made against a single individual? Where does that leave the notion of defamation? Will the British internet police shut down websites, even if the “victim” has not complained? And will a similar provision be applied to the British media?

19
Anna Raccoon September 2, 2009 at 11:20

Ian,
It is not ‘a couple of web sites where anyone who choses to post any opinion which infers that Madeleine might not have been abducted’ that is causing the problem.
It is those web sites which state emphatically as fact that she was not abducted that are the problem. Some web sites have gone further and hosted comments which apparently propose direct action against the McCann’s. That is a long way removed from your statement of ‘post any opinion’.
I know you have legal training, surely you can see the difference?
It is not the ‘McCann’s’ who have silenced the more extreme publishings of the Sun, the Daily Mail, and the Express, it is the libel laws and the fear of further libel action that have silenced them. I grant you that it is the McCann’s who have waved the libel laws in their face, but to say it is the McCann’s who have silenced them is to grant them more power and privilege than they possess. They are using the law that is in existence. Laws that are available to all British citizens, not something that is peculiar to the McCann’s.
I wouldn’t have stated as fact that the ‘entire UK press support the McCann’s’ – I would suggest that the entire UK are exceedingly careful not to waste their present meagre resources on further libel action. You are using the outcome of that caution to support your thesis of thier views, and I don’t believe you can do that.
Until such time as the UK press had irrefutable evidence of Lord Archer’s perjury, they were equally careful not to say anything that might have led to further libel action. Once they had that evidence, the gloves came off – with a vengence.

20
Anna Raccoon September 2, 2009 at 11:22

Astro,
We simply don’t know at the moment, the government are going to publish their proposd legislation this month (September).

21
astro September 2, 2009 at 11:29

Good. I hope the new legislation will put an end to the abuse of adjectivation in the British media, and the xenophobous treatment of anything non-British, by the same British media. I also hope that the British internet police will shut down those websites who commit “hate crimes” against Gonçalo Amaral, on a daily basis.
(I’ll find myself a comfortable chair while I wait… forever)

22
gestalt September 2, 2009 at 11:42

I’m sure you mean those who commit “hate crimes” against anyone Astro. Any room on that chair?

23
Vimes September 2, 2009 at 11:48

I suspect you will find that, as per usual, some websites will be more equal than others.

24
Châtelaine September 2, 2009 at 12:18

“Unfortunately, a few people have played right into the hands of a government that was just looking for an excuse to further tighten their control of what was said on the Internet. Unfortunately, libellous comments and threats were allowed to remain on sites, in apparent homage to free speech, those comments are now going to form the basis of the governments actions.”

If I may offer a paranoid idea: could the mere reason for posting those comments have been to play indeed in the hands of the ones, who want to control internet?

25
Anna Raccoon September 2, 2009 at 13:16

That is a possibility Chatelaine. The responsibility remains with the web site to ‘keep itself clean’ in the face of any number of motives for posting.

26
Elvera September 2, 2009 at 13:36

Double standards in abundance particularly from those who cry the loudest………curious, nothing as it seems!

27
Ian September 2, 2009 at 13:44

With respect to your views, I dont think the UK media is simply abiding by the laws of libel, they rarely do that if they want to make a point, ‘publish and be damned’.

There is an incredible media support from ‘writers’ (i.e. Fiona Phillips)and editors alike.

In my humble opinion, the media is filled with people who share a classification – they are middle class professionals – just like the McCanns.

They have sympathy because, as they see it, there but for the grace of god go they!

Where is the investigative journalism? would it be libellous for at least one paper to publish the list of questions Kate McCann refused to answer when any other mother would be thinking not of self defence but only of retrieving her child by whatever means and asak the question ‘why?’.

Not a single word published questioning the odd behaviour in the McCanns documentary where excessive attention focussed on which sid of the road Gerry chatted to Wilkins, not a single word about Kate in the same documentary recognising that the door was in a different position when she left it – even though Gerry was purported to have visited in between her last view of the door – and even then her reaction was to start to shut it (not to check the children!).

Would it really be a libel to discuss these and many other oddities?

I think not.

I suggest that everyone go take a look at the real motives behind this article about ‘hate’ sites…an open discussion of the Madeleine case is urgently needed, not an attempt to use views which dont match those of the media to shut down free expression….what we need is a constitution which places the people above Parliament, a higher law above the toothless and State caveatted ECHR. Freedom of expression should find its own level, as it will. Any State control can and will be abused and result in the burning of books and warping of truth. We dont need a nanny State, we need a written Constitution – and an end to Parliamentary Sovereignty. If I have learned anything from the McCann case (a situation used to build the fraud of the century in my view) it is that freedom of expression should lie in the hands of the people not in the hands of the media or a ‘web master’!

28
gestalt September 2, 2009 at 13:56

“an open discussion of the Madeleine case is urgently needed” many have tried on the internet Ian, and failed due a large number of those supposed supporters of free speech will not allow it to happen.
Your argument may be valid for the journalists and publishers of the media; thankfully few of them do not actually attack their readers or viewers as far as I’m aware.

29
Anna Raccoon September 2, 2009 at 14:24

Ian, Your views on the media might have been valid two years ago, perhaps even 12 months ago – but you should bear in mind that all the MSM are teetering on the edge of an economic precipice at the moment. Investigative journalism has gone out of the window – and not just in respect of that one case, but in respect of many issues.
You are applying tunnel vision in my opinion and assuming that because it is affecting the case you (and I!) are interested in, that it is some sort of giant conspiracy to keep the truth from the public. In my opinion the media are currently coasting along trying to stay in business from week to week by regurgitating cheap to produce PR releases which can’t cost them moeny since they are the ‘approved version’ from the horses mouth.
It was only the Barclay Brothers backed Daily Telegraph that was prepared to take on the famous MPs’ expenses DVD – a gift at £150,000, and a gift that had been on offer for a few months. That was a far bigger story than the McCann’s with respect.
Any one of the media giants could be sunk by a major libel claim at the moment. I think it is important to keep a sense of perspective and realise that it is not only this story which is not getting the coverage you would like to see. I think this story is the happy recipient of much, much, wider issues.

30
Ian September 2, 2009 at 16:00

I think the PR manipulation of the McCann fraud (my opinion!) is representative of many other such media manipulations – it has been for me an ‘eye opener’.

The idea that the freedom of the press is the big issue regarding freedom generally is an archaic notion which belongs in darker times.

Freedom of expression is something beyond the press and beyond the written word. Society is repressive – as it has to be to keep ‘order’.

The idea of freedom as it is expressed in the US constitution is also an archaic vision as far from reality as is the idea of natural justice is from our laws.

The fraud that is democracy – at least in our first past the post system – is just another element in the whole warped picture.

The web meister philosophy of ‘You can say what you like as long as I agree to allow you to say it’ is not freedom, the idea that their are those who have some kind of parental status to the rest of us is abhorrant to me.

I dont know what the answer is, but it sure isnt repression and censorship according to the rulers standards of freedom and morality.

31
Vimes September 2, 2009 at 16:21

With respect, Ian, we are guests in Anna’s house and it’s ultimately up to her how much freedom she’s prepared to allow us – compared to other sites, she’s been more than generous, so far, and we have a responsibility not to abuse her trust. The alternative, of course, is to create one’s own site, subject to one’s own conditions – you may have done, for all I know, and good luck to you , if you have. I’m not that bothered, to be honest – I much prefer to join debates, rather than start them.

32
Anna Raccoon September 2, 2009 at 17:29

Not sure that I’m happy with the phrase ‘freedom she’s prepared to allow us’ Vimes, though I think I understand and appreciate the sentiment!

There is always an issue over libel becasue it is invariably the blog owner who ‘carries the can’ for any libel spouted by posters, so naturally I’m not prepared to allow posters to libel on here.
There is also the problem of personal abuse towards other posters. The problem with personal abuse is that a) it can seriously upset some people, and b) it has the effect of silencing the less confident voices who are afraid to voice their opinion for fear of being rdiculed. That in itself is a form of censorship, but not one being excercised by me – so if I was to find myself in the position again of having a poster who hurled abuse instead of debating – yes, I would silence them. They have a choice, they can debate reasonably, but the person in the background who is frightened to speak up, perhaps English is not their first language, or even their spelling and grammar are not brilliant – why should they be cowering in the corner unheard? – and given the choice between that person being silenced by fear or an abusive bully being silenced by me, then I would opt for the abusive bully being silenced every time.

33
gestalt September 2, 2009 at 18:13

“The web meister philosophy of ‘You can say what you like as long as I agree to allow you to say it’ is not freedom, the idea that their are those who have some kind of parental status to the rest of us is abhorrant to me.”

If anyone doesn’t like the rules imposed by the person who has the soapbox, they should find their own soapbox.

34
Vimes September 2, 2009 at 19:22

Mea culpa, Anna – a poor choice of words on my part. I totally agree about abuse, but I do think that ridicule is acceptable, when deserved – with respect, isn’t that one of the cornerstones of your own brand of commentary?

35
Anna Raccoon September 2, 2009 at 19:34

Actually yes- Vimes, with spades on! Nowt wrong with gentle ridicule, I was of course, referring to the vicious variety.

36
Meejician September 2, 2009 at 23:35

Anna, I support what you say, although I have to say that I am a strong left libertarian, rather than right, and that I actually despise the right, as would anyone who had to live through Thatcher’s and ERA’s destruction of human kindness and education. My favourite Thatcher quote was ‘No one would have heard of the Good Samaritan if he hadn’t had money’. That is now my definition of crass stupidity, unreconstructed autistic thinking, and the failure of religion to deal with analogy, albeit trading in it.

I also have to say that free speech has its limits. These are well defined in law. However, the internet, on the one hand the defender of the right of all of us to have a say – libertarianism – falls too easily into the hands of the right wing which is dominated by psychos and egocentrics, who actually don’t care about the harm they do, provided they get what they want out of the process. Possibly fame. Possibly money. Possibly just a jerk-off.

The McCanns, Jade Goody, Kerry Katona – who the hell are they in real life? They milk the media system, and when it doesn’t work out right for them, and make money, they bleat.

I have no time for these people. But, on the other hand, they have a right to access the law of the land. Currently the internet is Dodge City and is not protecting those honest citizens who may be just passing by in the gunfire.

This is not what it’s about. Speaking as a devoted libertarian leftist, every single one of us has the right to say what we feel and think with a few provisos:

1. We are not making money out of offering our heartfelt opinion.
2. We deliberately hurt no one by what we say.
3. We abide by the law of the land regarding libel, slander and copyright.
4. We have empirical proof on which our opinion is based.
5. We have not accessed a ‘publicist’, a ‘legal representative’, a ’spokesperson’ or anyone else to say what we want to say.

The internet is hurting people, every day. Not the people it can’t get to, in truth, like the McCanns, and the late Jade Goody. But REAL people, passers-by with valid opinions intending no harm, who are ‘outed’, ‘cloned’, harrassed, hurt, threatened, and become the victims of the psychos, who, can we be honest?, live and breathe and only exist on the internet.

My opinion, for what it’s worth (little, I imagine!) is a combination of my own subversive/leftist/libertarianism and pragmatic common sense. It is the route taken by some Far Eastern countries, that in order to access the internet you should have to give your National Insurance number.

Wheeewww – don’t like it for many reasons (can list them if you want me to!) But there is one over-riding reason that I DO like it. It means that socks can be traced. It means that those who make threats against other users can be tracked, and it means that those of us who can defend what we say, and have the imperative that we should not hurt, will use this facility wisely.

Those without a superego, are running riot in Internet Dodge City. This can damage people, and even kill them. Columbine, anyone? And the hurt continues, every second of every day.

37
Sabot September 3, 2009 at 19:42

Fortunately I am afraid of no one, but I mind very much for those who are not as blase as I am.

Many people cannot afford to protect themselves by use of existing laws, or are afraid to try.

No, I have never wanted Government interference, but we sure as hell are going to get it.

Goncalo Amaral has used his spurious knowledge of The McCann Affair to make money, in which case he must expect his misdemeanours to be discussed. This does not mean that I advocate lies being told about him, anymore than I expect people to tell lies about The McCanns.

Please feel free to correct my grammar.

38
Meejician September 3, 2009 at 23:48

“Goncalo Amaral has used his spurious knowledge of The McCann Affair to make money”

And… others like the McCanns haven’t? Please make media sense.

It’s all about money. Always.

39
snoop September 20, 2009 at 12:46

‘the freedom of the internet’? do people ever wonder if too much ‘freedom’ is a bad thing? especially in a society that seems to have given up expecting its members to exercise any sort of personal control…

the main use of the internet is to view pornography. and it is ever more extreme. where once, personal shame, social approbrium and some sort of understanding that one manages one’s baser desires would have limited people’s behaviour, now its all just a click away, and an online ‘community’ of like minded others loosens boundaries and reinforces deviant behaviour.

and that is exactly what happened with the anti mccann fora. a tiny minority of frankly self indulgent and self opinionated, distorted personalities with little grasp of or respect for prinicples of knowledge, judgement or respect have been allowed to collectively massage their own inadequacies, and materially impact on the lives of other people.

the idea that some sort of righteous campaign for free speech is going on here is laughable.

40
val September 28, 2009 at 13:01

Why am I not surprised that it took the Mccanns to prompt an overhaul of the web? Pornography on there has been rife for years, celebrities are trashed daily yet nothing quite gets the ire of the politicians than the Mccanns being upset. Jade Goody seems to have been thrown into the mix so as it doesn’t appear too obvious.
There WERE one or two haters on the forums and blogs but the vast majority were anything but. Just ordinary folk who wanted to have the news without spin, the facts of the case and not some sentimental idolatry of the parents. It was the media spin that drove the forums, where were the facts? Only found on the internet.
The ‘haters’ were also found and I would say with even more venom on the pro parents sites. Laughing at the thought of anti Mccanns burning and foul rants spring to mind. There didn’t seem to be any rational debate there at all, just pure hatred, particularly against Snr. Amaral and Mr.Bennett but this hasn’t been mentioned as a reason to ‘clean up the internet’.
However, the web has been filled with many blogs and forums such as this about other subjects, so why now, with the reason being the Mccanns, is it considered so shocking? I do jot intend, in my lifetime, to worship at the alter of Mccann. Sorry.

41
Anna Raccoon September 28, 2009 at 13:08

No need to be Sorry Val, I thought your was a very balanced comment, and I do agree with it.

When you have people like James Macintyre in the Spectator abusing his commenters ‘I bet you don’t have a job’ etc, it would seem that rational objective debate is becoming a lost art.

We try to keep it going in this little neck of the woods, so welcome!

42
val September 28, 2009 at 23:24

Thank you for the welcome Anna!
Snoop, although I agree with your comments concerning the internet being full of dubious sites and blogs I disagree vehemently that it is only the ‘anti Mccanns who have caused any problems. I read a ‘pro’ forum the other day and was shocked at the hatred expressed there. Not even an attempt to debate issues either. What do you say about this?