Seen and Heard Editorial
EDITORIAL: Freedom
of speech, or a license to censor?
An important court case is due to be heard in the United States;
it is one which does not relate directly to music journalism,
but it does have far-reaching implications beyond its seemingly
narrow scope. It involves Apple Computers Inc and three independent
websites. The issues involved are Herculean, though not overly
complex, and even though the judgment itself will only be binding
within the jurisdictional borders of the United States its impact
will be global, and probably counter-productive. Beyond the arguments
specific to this case lie a far greater one: should online journalists
be offered the same protection – and by implication status
- as print journalists?
It is perhaps inevitable that the sheer scale of the Internet
and the power it wields would at some point be challenged and
Apple’s case against these three websites has not really
been viewed in the wider context of what it means; a ruling in
favour of the computer company will create a quite complex problem
– probably an insoluble one – for all Internet websites
which purport to advance the cause of quality journalism will
find themselves having to defend themselves more rigorously than
perhaps they have hitherto been made to do. Apple’s contention
is that the First Amendment does not universally protect an individual,
and in the case of online journalism it doesn’t apply at
all. It is, of course, arguable whether this case would have even
reached the stage it has if the leaked information had been sourced
through, say, the New York Times. But with the growth
of blogs, newsgroups and the such it is becoming increasingly
clear that everyone considers themselves a journalist. Beyond
the crucial issue of the right of any journalist to protect their
sources, something enshrined universally in every democratic country,
the case’s significance – and this will have implications
beyond the US borders – is whether Internet journalism should
have the same distinction given to it as print journalism.
An ideal outcome will be for the judgment to state that the three
websites deployed legitimate standards of journalism and that
they should be accorded the same protection as newspaper journalists.
This has, in fact, recently been argued by the Chief Political
Correspondent of CNET News who said that, “no significant
difference exists between the news-gathering techniques used by
traditional reporters and the publishers of Apple news sites Think
Secret, Apple Insider, and PowerPage... Apple claims that the
Web writers are not ‘legitimate members of the press’
when revealing details about forthcoming products. Those actions,
though, describe exactly what good journalists do - writing articles
that serve their readers, rather than the parochial interests
of a single corporation.”
And this is the point: Web writers, by and large, do supply a
wealth of well-written, well-sourced information, whether it be
through news-gathering or features or reviews. A ruling in favour
of Apple will endanger that, and, damagingly, threaten freedom
of speech. Since I have edited this website I have had to deal
with at least three complaints (including one from a world renowned
singer) which I have justified for publication on the grounds
that my reviewers have had an enshrined freedom to write freely
of their opinions about concerts. I cannot imagine the editor
of a single newspaper in either this country or the United States
who would have been approached in such a way and been asked to
either amend or remove the review. It is, in part, the sheer scale
of the Internet and the fact that reviews exist well beyond the
sell-by-date of a newspaper that causes such difficulty for online
editors; put simply, a single line of criticism is enshrined for
Web eternity, for prying eyes everywhere to read, sometimes years
beyond the initial date of publication. That is simply not the
case with newspapers. Egos are more likely to be pricked and damaged
through online reviews, and one should not discount the possibility
of some artists using, unscrupulously, any ruling against online
journalism that will protect their own reputations.
But a ruling in such an important market as the United States
that online journalism does not offer the same integrity as print
journalism does shift the balance. Not only is my right as an
editor to publish what I want threatened, so is my reviewer’s
right to write without fear of reprisal reviews which may well
be highly negative. There are already instances of some artists
and some conductors requesting press officers not to supply online
journalists with press tickets. One opera house in Paris –
until very recently – refused to allow online publications
to illustrate reviews of their productions with photographs. Problems
like these will increase if the outcome of a judgment in favour
of Apple is taken to its logical conclusion. Restrictions may
well be applied by record companies as well as concert halls and
opera houses; with that, a loss of editorial protection with hinder
the progression of serious online journalism. This might seem
a hysterical reaction to something that has yet to be decided
legally, but the probability of it happening isn’t one that
can be excluded.
Reporters Without Borders has called for online journalists, as
well as those website operators and bloggers whose work constitutes
real journalism, to be accorded the same legal protections as
journalists with the traditional press. It is something we should
all welcome. Apple’s case has its merits – and even
the most trenchant editor in support of the freedom of speech
would not argue that all Web writing constitutes real journalism
– but any decision must carefully weigh up what the far-reaching
implications of an adverse judgment might be. Without really knowing
it, Apple has perhaps begun the most important debate in the past
20 years on what the qualities of online journalism are and how
it is to be viewed.
Marc Bridle
