Freedom of Extremist Speech

Some interesting points came up during Friday's lecture on the journalist's Code of Conduct.

I now know that malice and subterfuge are bad! I'll certainly be vigilant in keeping my eyes peeled for them and my journalistic pen free from contamination.

The Human Rights Act, which encorporates the European Convention of Human Rights into British law, also seems to have had quite an effect on journalistic practice over the last few years.

I've found it's hard to access unbiased info about the Act. The tabloids regularly hold it up as a shining example of the horrors that occur when liberalism and political correctness flourish.

I read Melanie Phillip's Londonistan in the summer which gives a similar viewpoint. It's an interesting read, although very far right of the middle ground and full of controversial views. The book links the rise of terror in the UK to our liberal stance in allowing extremists freedom of speech in the mid to late nineties, most obviously the Finsbury Park mosque era (very loose summary).

On the other side of the fence, liberals seem to use the Act as a badge of honour whenever they mount a soap box in defence of the next good cause.

It's hard to push through all this polarised opinion to an unbiased view of the Act's impact. In journalism, the Act seems to have had most affect on regulations surrounding privacy and freedom of speech.

An aside point about freedom of speech really got me thinking. Under the legislation, individuals and political parties with extreme viewpoints are free to express these and should be given appropriate representation by the press. Apparently the BNP often claims that its politics are not given enough coverage in the British press.

However, am I right in thinking that the UK now also has legislation against inciting hatred?

If so, at what point does it become acceptable to stop someone with an extreme viewpoint from communicating this and who decides what's too extreme to be heard. Do journalists have a responsibility not to give air or paper time to viewpoints that may incite hatred.

(We could be veering back to Orwell terriority here.....)

It's a hard call and I imagine a bit of a grey area at the moment. I am personally undecided about the whole argument. I strongly agree with the principle of free speech for everyone, but perhaps when applying this to real life reporting - less idealism and more practical judgment will be needed.