To state that one is against censorship while still advocating a voluntary system of self-censorship strikes me as hypocrisy. Few should be surprised, however, that this is the position taken by the director of the Press Complaints Commission. Speaking at a ‘free speech’ session at the Commission for Racial Equality’s big conference, Tim Toulim addressed concern around the absence of a mechanism for redress, for those ‘angered at content’ on the internet. Referring principally to blogs, Mr Toulim said a voluntary code of ‘self-imposed regulation’ would be the best solution.

To substantiate his case, he asked the audience to imagine the newspaper industry if it was as free as the internet. I, for one, would be quite happy with that situation. The beauty of the internet is that anyone with a computer can publish what they like and have equal access to ‘the public’ – unlike in the newspaper world, where access is very often unequal and skewed. So why is the PCC proposing further regulation of the web? Mr Toulim’s sole motivation seems to be to limit people’s potential to ‘cause offence’ to others. Alastair Campbell, chairing the session, was explicit on this point: while blogs are seen as a positive development, ‘some of the most offensive stuff’ also comes from them, he said.

Unfortunately, Mr Campbell doesn’t seem to realise that offensive speech should be as free as inoffensive speech. When did this imaginary ‘right to not be offended’ appear anyway? It might be worth reminding Mr Campbell that such liberties allow people freely to make public statements, however spurious they might be. A freedom Mr Campbell surely has never take advantage of...?

Alex Hochuli