Freedom of speech is under relentless attack in the UK today.
Social media trolling, the cancel culture, and on-line threats of violence, are intimidating the public and professional journalists alike. With Orwellian prescience, if opinion or the news agenda does not conform to 'group think' it will be snuffed out.
Social pressure to avoid public interest stories that might be perceived as inciting hatred against ethnic or minority groups in the UK also has a chilling effect on legitimate public concerns being aired. The Rochdale child sex abuse ring is a good example. Police and social work departments failed to act when details of the gang emerged for fear of appearing racist, and vulnerable white teenagers being groomed by Pakistani men were ignored. They were afraid to speak out. It took courageous and time-consuming journalism to expose the truth.
The accelerating dominance of tech platforms and the state funded broadcaster compounds the issue in two critical respects. Not only do their algorithms and policies prioritise, promote and confine the flow of information and comment to their undemocratic agendas but their financial clout and monopolistic abuse is crushing the plurality of media in local communities. Google and other platforms are sucking revenues out of the commercial media landscape in a wholly anti-competitive manner (as the CMA digital advertising study of 2020 proved) while the BBC uses taxpayers' money to dominate local websites with ad-free fast upload experiences. The result is to destroy the commercial foundations of diverse local journalism.
Legal restraints on freedom of speech have not been more severe since Tudor times. While the 2013 defamation act provided new protections these were more than offset by the utterly corrosive rise in data and privacy laws. Privacy should be fairly balanced with freedom of expression - but courts have been too willing to give undue weight to privacy which means that journalists are often intimidated from pursuing a legitimate story especially when a solicitor's letter from a top London firm is syndicated in advance.
This obsession with privacy and data control means that vast swathes of public interest information is now restricted - especially in the sphere of the rich and powerful with something to hide and the reporting of crime. The improper and over-use of discretionary reporting restriction orders, not only in the courts but also in inquests and police disciplinary tribunals alongside the centralising of judicial processes and the random availability of data means so much of British justice is now opaque.
Political momentum to control free speech requires constant vigilance not least at local councils where an abuse of exclusion orders can bar journalists and the public from meetings of critical interest. Meanwhile, the Online Safety Bill - while welcome in a number of respects - is likely in reality to close down huge tranches of legitimate debate as algorithms are made more cautious to avoid potential prosecution.
Small newsrooms navigate all these restrictions against the backdrop of the most severe regulation in the history of the profession. While journalists welcome the code of conduct and the regulatory body, in reality it can be so time-consuming dealing with complaints - often spurious and malicious ones as our successful record of defending them shows - that the temptation is to avoid content which could provoke an investigation.
“I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This quote, wrongly attributed to Voltaire, is nonetheless the principle of our modern democracy which has never been more savagely undermined.
We need a Freedom of Speech Editor to write and campaign on freedom of speech and the public's right to know - making best use of data and research, and articulating the issues with courage, conviction and sometimes profound sensitivity through text, audio and video.
It is not a job for the faint-hearted if they are to do it properly.
The scope of the role will include investigating and challenging -
Social media, global tech platforms and our state-funded broadcaster - and the algorithms and policies which they use to control the agenda-
Trolling; group-think; the cancel culture; social and cultural inhibitors which have a chilling effect on public interest journalism
-
Monopolistic abuse by state funded broadcasters and global tech platforms which crush plurality of media and expression in local communities
-
Legal restraints which are abused to silence the public's right to know - notably data and privacy legislation where freedom of expression has not been fairly weighted
-
The over-use of discretionary reporting restriction orders, not only in the courts but also in inquests and police disciplinary tribunals
-
Political abuse of exclusion orders - barring journalists and the public from meetings
Of course, our coverage must be rooted in real life examples - so that readers can relate to and clearly understand what the issues are and how they directly impact both their right to speak out and to be informed.
Please note this role is remote however there is a requirement that you must be residing in the UK
National World is committed to creating a diverse and inclusive environment as an equal opportunity employer. All applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age. Consideration will be given to flexible working options for all roles.