I welcome today’s judgment today this judicial review, in which the radio talk show host Jon Gaunt failed in his challenge to Ofcom’s finding that an interview he gave in late 2008 breached the broadcasting code. And I’ve written about it at Comment is Free’s Liberty Central:

The real question is not whether it’s OK to call someone a Nazi. I find that pretty outrageous unless you’re actually dealing with someone whose views resemble Hitler’s, but context matters, and I wouldn’t want broadcasters to feel it could never be justified. The real question is whether or not we back effective media regulation. Because a cowed regulator, whose criticisms of the media are routinely vilified and subject to legal challenge may end up as toothless as the Press Complaints Commission.

Jon Gaunt and Kelvin MacKenzie have been giving interviews today arguing that the judgment is in some sense a victory for Jon Gaunt – but of course it’s not. It’s true he won the argument that his broadcast attracted a high level of protection in freedom of expression. But the court did not, as Gaunt has said today on Radio Five Live (from 1 hour 8 mins 30), find his use of the word “Nazi” justified (it just said it may be that his first use of the word had some justification), it did not “dismiss” Ofcom’s findings at all, and it did not find in Ofcom’s favour on a merely narrow, technical point. What the court actually said (see paragraph 50 of the judgment) was that

we accept Mr Anderson’s submission that the [Ofcom finding] constituted no material interference with the claimant’s freedom of expression at all.

This is not the free speech cause célèbre Jon Gaunt makes it out to be. What this is really about is whether British broadcasting should be coarsened by anything-goes presenters routinely insulting and shouting down their guests – subject only to the fear of legal action from the rich – or whether some independent body should be able to uphold ordinary people’s complaints when they do.

I’m surprised Liberty thought this a good case for them to support. In contrast, when the Dutch MP Geert Wilders was unlawfully excluded from the country in early 2009 because of his views on Islam, Liberty said nothing. Why the difference of approach?

2010-07-13T18:25:23+00:00Tags: , , |