Rivals could misuse the opportunity  While the leader suffers from an illness, rivals can use the opportunity to ease the leader out of office. A period of illness is a period of vulnerability in which the government is less able to respond to external and internal threats. Not telling the public about the leader's health during an illness helps prevent such attempts. The same is the case with a leader's death; a few days of secrecy allows for smooth succession as the appointed successor has the time to ensure the loyalty of the government, army and other vital institutions. In 2008 when General Lansana Conte of Guinea died power should have been transferred to the president of the National Assembly Aboubacar Sompare with an election within 90 days. Instead a group of junior military officers took advantage of the quick announcement to launch a coup. 1  1 Yusuf, Huma, ‘Military coup follows death of Guinea’s President’, The Christian Science Monitor, 23 December 2008,


free speech and privacy health general international africa politics

Damages diplomacy to be too open  Diplomacy can be very personal; diplomatic initiatives are often the result of a single person, and the individual leader is necessary to conclude negotiations. Transparency about a leader's health may therefore prevent deals being done; Nixon went to China despite Mao's ill heath meaning the supreme Chinese leader contributed little to the historic change in diplomatic alinements. 1 Would such a momentous change in alignment have been possible if both the Chinese and American public knew about Mao's ill health? The Americans would have considered any deal unreliable as they could not be sure it was Mao who made the decision, while opponents in China could have argued that it was advisers like Zhou Enlai who made the deal not Mao himself potentially enabling them to repudiate or undermine the deal.  1 Macmillan, Margaret, Seize the Hour When Nixon met Mao, John Murray, London, 2006, p.76


Markets like stability  Business and the markets prize political stability. Clearly when the leader of a country is ill this stability is damaged but the damage can be mitigated by being transparent. The markets will want to know how ill the leader is, and that the succession is secure so that they know what the future holds. Secrecy and the consequent spread of rumour is the worst option as businesses can have no idea what the future holds so cant make investment decisions that will be influenced by the political environment.  Leaders do matter to the economy; they set the parameters of the business environment, the taxes, subsidies, how much bureaucracy. They also influence other areas like the price of energy, the availability of transport links etc. It has been estimated that “a one standard deviation change in leader quality leads to a growth change of 1.5 percentage points”. 1 The leader who follows may be of the same quality in which case there will be little difference but equally it could mean a large change.  1 Jones, Benjjamin F., and Olken, Benjamin A., 'Do Leaders Matter? National Leadership and Growth Since World War II', Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 2005,


Denial of privacy to the leaders  The leaders of states deserve privacy in exactly the same way as anyone else. Just like their citizens leaders want and deserve privacy and it would be unfair for everyone to know about their health. Leaders may suffer from diseases such AIDS/HIV or embarrassing illnesses which could damage a leader.  The people only a need for the people to know when the illness significantly damages the running of the government. The government can function on its own without its leader for several days; only if the illness incapacitates the leader for a long period is there any need to tell the people. Clearly if the President is working from his bed he is still doing the job and his government is functioning. William Pitt the Younger, Prime Minister of Great Britain was toasted as 'the Saviour of Europe' while he was seriously ill but still running the country during the height of the Napoleonic Wars. 1  1 Bloy, Marjie, 'William Pitt the Younger (1759-1806)', Victorian Web, 4 January 2006,


If the leader in-charge is in illness, to avoid any repudiation, the representative from the other side could meet the leader in order to confirm or even have a video conference with the leader in charge. The leader only needs to set the overall policy, not negotiate the fine details. When Nixon went to China the Americans knew Mao was ill but realised that he still set the overall direction of policy.


Transparency is still better than secrecy. There are several reasons why the opportunity of instability is as present when keeping the leader's health a secret. The first is that it is likely that at least some of the leader's rivals are in government so are likely to be in the loop on any illness. In this case secrecy simply gives these individuals more opportunity to do as they wish. Secondly a lack of transparency creates uncertainty which can be filled by a rival wanting to seize power; if the leader is just ill and there is a void of information it is simply for rivals to seize the narrative and claim he is dead enabling their takeover.


y free speech debate free know house believes western universities

A bargaining chip, by definition needs to be part of a bargain. Using it to demand a change in the structure of the state as a whole is hardly reaching a bargain – it’s dictating a fiat. An invitation from a country to a university is a big step in expressing an interest in how that institution works and the values it promotes. Using that as an opening to demonstrate the strength of those ideas is an opportunity that should not be dismissed.


A bargaining chip  In much the same way that material investment in countries can be used as a bargaining chip to secure improvements in areas of legislation, so cultural investment can be used to secure rights associated with related fields of endeavour. Free speech is merely the most obvious. It is reasonable for a western university to insist that its graduates will need to have access to the fruits of a free press and democratic speculation of experts and the wider public [i] .  The cases of the lecturer, Chia Thye Poh who is arguably the world’s longest serving prisoner of conscience or the political opposition leader, Vincent Cheng who was barred from addressing a talk organised the History Society of NUS at the national library [ii] both give examples of how Singaporean government actions impact directly on university life and academic freedoms. In the light of this, it seems the height of reasonableness for Western universities to say that they will only operate in areas that offer the same academic freedoms they would expect in their home country. If the Singaporean government wants that benefits that Yale graduates can bring, they should be prepared to accept such a change.  [i] Stateuniversity.Com. western Europe – Educational roots, reform in the twentieth century, contemporary reform trends, future challenges.  [ii] Ex-detainee Vincent Cheng barred from speaking in history seminar, The Online Citizen, 28 May 2010


Employers measure degrees by the academic results they indicate. The level of political engagement of the individuals is not critical – or even relevant – to that measure. In a global market of tens of millions of students graduating every year [i] an increase of a few thousand in those graduating from top universities will do little to dilute their iconic brands while taking advantage of communications technologies to justify their global reputation. University Senates determine whether degrees can be awarded in their name and it is scarcely in their interest to damage their own reputation. [ii]  [i] There are approximately 150 million students in the world and for the purposes of this debate, that number has simply been divided by three. Source material can be found here .  [ii] Jones et al., ‘The Academic Senate and University Governance in Canada’, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol.XXXIV, No.2, 2004, pp.35-68, p.50, 57


The academic tradition of the West  The growth of universities as beacons of free speech has been a fundamental part of their history in the West; notably during the renaissance, reformation and enlightenment. The democratisation of that process with the expansion of the university sector in recent decades is merely the latest stage in an ongoing process.  However, that entire process has been driven (along with the artistic, cultural and scientific changes they have inculcated) on the basis that universities allow for the free exchange of ideas and flourish in environments where that approach is standardised throughout society [i] . Marxist scholars have gone further in calling for a critical pedagogy in which perspectives other than academic orthodoxy are normalised within universities.  Such institutions produce the best graduates because they have the best academics and the best academics will stay where they are free to publish whatever their research is and express their own views. For example in the 1990s 55.7% of those who had immigrated to the USA from the USSR described themselves as academics, scientists, professional or technical workers. [ii] Those academics in turn respect the intellectual tradition of dissent and critical scrutiny of which they are the inheritors. To take something else and slap the name ‘Yale’– or for that matter Oxford, Harvard or ETH Zurich – on it and pretend that nothing has changed devalues the qualification. Without the intellectual dissent and freedom of academic inquiry it is intellectually dishonest to call the degree the same thing.  [i] The Nebraskan. Doug Anderson. Learning depends on the free exchange of ideas, Nebraskan says.  [ii] Harvard, ‘Russians and East Europeans in America’


Universities also survived the inquisition, the French revolutionary terror and the tyrannies of twentieth century Europe. The issue being discussed here is not in the same league as any of those. There is, as a result, clearly nothing innate that requires an appreciation of free speech for universities to operate. Furthermore universities do not locate or relocate en masse depending on the direction of the political wind.


Maintaining the value of the degree  Employers and others expect certain degrees to mean certain things; they are more than just an expensive badge. In the case of elite western universities part of what that means is a critical approach to the world and the willingness to challenge ideas, regardless of the authority that holds them. Part of their exclusivity derives from their admission standards, partly from the academic rigour of their scholars and partly from the simple fact that there are only a relatively small number of graduates.  In other areas universities are all too aware of selling their reputation – impartiality, avoiding plagiarism and so forth – the same should be true here. If a degree from a western university does not mean that it recognises issues such as creativity and free thinking then it devalues the degree itself.  As a result the very governments that are so keen to acquire the creative, critical skills offered by graduates of western-style education will end up undermining the very thing that they seek. This impacts not only the graduates from Asian campuses of western universities but also their peers at the home institution [i] .  [i] US-China Today. Jasmine Ako. Unraveling Plagiarism in China. 28 March 2011.


There is gradualism and then there is inertia. Refusing to cooperate with governments where individuals can be banned from addressing a group of students would seem to be setting the bar relatively low. In this particular instance, the bar doesn’t appear to have been set anywhere. The example given by opposition is of one between states, this is between state actors and organisations who rely on the free expression of ideas as part of their raison d’etre.


‘Separation of town and gown’  There are two parties involved in this interaction, the state and the university. To pretend that is an entirely one way process is to ignore reality. Contrary to the belief of many Senior Common Rooms, states do not exist for the convenience of universities. Indeed universities quite happily accept the political and economic stability provided by states at exactly the same time as criticising the methods they need to use to maintain it.  However, ultimately universities are service providers from the point of view of the state, training and skilling the workforce. The university provides its expertise in exchange for funding and student fees. Where, exactly, the opinions of the faculty enter into such an equation is not clear and appears to have been assumed by proposition. Of course individual academics and students have the right to their own political views but the idea that a university as an institution has rights distinct from, say, a supermarket chain is impossible to justify. If a supermarket announced that it should be free to ignore local laws and adopt those of its base state instead, that would clearly be rejected. Just as when a food chain invests in a country for, say, beef, the arrangement is predicated on the understanding that both parties benefit and each has a little room for negotiation. [i] The same should apply here. If prop were to argue that Asian nations should relax there approach to cannabis so that it students could enjoy a more genuine ‘Western student experience’ the statement would be the subject of ridicule, so should this be.  [i] Smith, David, ‘Tesco should give us some of these billions’, guardian.co.uk, 15 May 2009,


Universities should exchange ideas not impose them  Of all possible institutions, for a university to suggest that it is not open to defending its ideas rather than insisting that they be artificially imported seems counter-intuitive. As Asian and European intellectual traditions increasingly interact as a result of economic interaction there are going to be clashes between and attempts to integrate the Confucian and Socratic approaches [i] . Part of that is the relationship between academia and the state. Western institutions seeking to establish themselves as a presence in Asia should at least be open to the idea that a different approach may have something to offer. After all a willingness to accept new ideas and attitudes is key to the ethic of any university – the assumption that such an exchange would only flow in one direction is astonishingly arrogant.  [i] This is true at every level, including simple things such as the approach taken by students to their studies. Inevitably, universities have responded to these in different ways in the two traditions.  Paton, Michael, ‘Asian Students, Critical Thinking and English as an Academic Lingua Franca’, Analytic teaching and philosophical praxis, Vol.32, No.1, pp.27-39 p.28


Argument One: Contact leads to the dissemination of values  There is certainly some evidence to suggest the view that trade with a country can benefit human rights as increased wealth provides many with more choice and better standards of living. [i] Certainly that argument has been made by governments and multi-nationals based in the West. It is not unreasonable to suspect that this may relate to academic cooperation as well, as Richard Levin suggests in the introduction. However it seems likely that in this latter case, as in the former, that a gradualist approach is the sensible one to take. We build on existing strengths while agreeing to differ in certain areas. To extend the trade example, China, the US and the EU all manage to trade with each other despite differing approaches to the death penalty. They trust that through cooperation over time, changes can be achieved. This will happen slowly in some instances – as with the ‘drip, drip’ affect in China - or quickly in others as has been the case in Burma [ii] .  On key difference to note with the shift towards establishing elite universities around the world rather than shipping the world’s elite in to attend them in the UK and the US is that it opens opportunities to a much wider social group. For decades a small handful – children of the wealthy and political elite - have had the opportunity to have a Western education before returning home as well-educated tyrants and sycophants. Expanding the learning opportunities to the rest of the nation seems both just and reasonable.  [i] Sirico, Robert A., ‘Free Trade and Human Rights: The Moral Case for Engagement’, CATO Institute, Trade Briefing Paper no.2, 17 July 1998  [ii] Education has long been seen as a critical starting point for the development of human rights in any country as is examined in this UNESCO report .


Singapore in this particular instance is securing far more than a ‘service provider’ from a university whose foundation precedes that of the state by over a century. Yale is an internationally identifiable brand, as would any other major university be, and Singapore and NUS benefit from that association. Yale is in a strong position here to argue for things that stretch well beyond the lecture theatre.


living difference house would ban music containing lyrics glorify

It is usually the task of movie classification organisations such as the MPAA and the British Board of Film Certification to judge whether the content of a film should be cut or altered. In most cases these groups will be politically independent, but may be politically appointed. They will make the decision to cut content based partly on the criteria described above. A movie will only be censored if it contains shocking or offensive images used in a way that suggests that violence is glamorous, entertaining or without consequences.  There is a broad consensus in western liberal democracies on what constitutes a highly shocking or offensive image. For example, in even the most permissive societies, open and public images of sexual intercourse would be considered problematic. Similarly, graphic depictions of violence against vulnerable individuals would be open to wide condemnation. The thing that unifies each of these categories of image is that they can be easily understood and interpreted by the majority of people. Even a casual observer can understand that pornography is pornography. This is part of the reason why some states try to control extreme images – because they are both powerful and emotive, and easy to produce, display and distribute.  However, music and lyrics are different from images. Language contains a degree of abstraction, depth and nuance that only the most unconventional (and non-commercial) film could replicate. This is problematic, because it is much harder for censors and members of the general public to agree on an exact definition of an offensive statement or form of words. Complex legal processes are used to determine whether or not offensive statements are sufficiently offensive to be classed as hate crimes. Even more complex are the legal procedures used to determine when an individual’s reputation has been damaged by allegations published in books or periodicals.  It will be much harder for ratings or certification boards to decide when a particular song is violent or offensive due to the range of meanings and ambiguities that are built into language. For example, the verse  “Got a temper nigga, go ahead, lose your head/ turn your back on me, get clapped and lose your legs/ I walk around gun on my waist, chip on my shoulder/ ‘til I bust a clip in your face, pussy, this beef ain’t over,”  can either be seen as a series of boastful threats, delivered directly by the musician, but it could also be reported speech – a lot of hip hop music is based on narratives or performer’s accounts of past events. It could also be intended to invite condemnation of the behaviour of the character that the speaker has assumed. Hip hop artists frequently use alternative personas and “casts” of characters to add depth to the narrative dimension of their tracks.  Under these circumstances, the process of classifying and censoring potentially violent lyrics is likely to become laborious. More important than the expense that this process will entail is the possibility that the chilling effect of a prolonged classification process will cause music publishers to stop promoting hip hop, metal and other genres linked with violent imagery. Lack of funds will curtail innovation and diversity in these genres.


Hate speech  The enforcement of the laws proposed in this article will be fraught, complex and difficult. However, the difficulty of administering a law is never a good argument for refusing to enforce it.  The censorship of the written word ended in England with the Lady Chatterley and Oz obscenity trials, but this liberalisation of publication standards has not prevented the state from prosecuting hate speech when it appears in print. It is clear that, although we have more latitude than ever to say or write what we want (no matter how objectionable), standards and taboos continue to exist. We can take it that these taboos are especially important and valuable to the running of a stable society, as they have persisted despite the legal and cultural changes that have taken place over the last fifty years.  Hate speech is prosecuted and censored because of its power to intrude into the lives of individuals who have not consented to receive it. As pointed out in Jeremy Waldron’s response [1] to Timothy Garton Ash’s piece [2] on hate speech, hateful comments are not dangerous because they insight gullible individuals to abandon their inhibitions and engage in race riots. Hate speech is harmful because it recreates- cheaply and in front of a very large audience- an atmosphere in which vulnerable minorities are put in fear of becoming the targets of violence and prejudice. Additionally, hate speech harms by defaming groups, by propagating lies and half-truths about practices and beliefs, with the objective of socially isolating those groups.  Gangsta rap does all of these things, yet legal responses to the publication of songs containing such lyrics as “Rape a pregnant bitch and tell my friends I had a threesome,” have been timid at best. Even if we maintain our liberal approach to taboo breaking forms of expression, we can still link hip hop to many of the harms that hate speech produces.  Gangsta rap gives the impression that African-American and Latin-American neighbourhoods throughout the USA are violent, lawless places. Even if the pronouncements of rappers such as 50 cent and NWA are overblown or fictitious they enforce social division by vividly discouraging people from entering or interacting with poor minority communities. They damage those communities directly by creating a fear of criminality that serves to limit trust and cohesion among individual community members. Finally, violent hip hop is also defamatory. It propagates an image of minority communities that emphasises violence, poverty and nihilism, whilst loudly proclaiming its authenticity. It is completely irrelevant that these images of minority communities are produced by members of those communities.  It is on this basis, however protracted the process of classification must become, that the content of hip hop songs should be assessed and censored. Liberal democracies are prepared to go to great lengths to adjudicate on speech that could potentially promote racial or religious hatred. The same standards should be applied to hip hop music, because it is capable of producing identical harms.  [1] Waldron, J. “The harm of hate speech”. FreeSpeechDebate, 20 March 2012.  [2] Garton-Ash, T. “Living with difference”. FreeSpeechDebate, 22 January 2012.


Banning one type of hip hop is not an effective way to intervene in a market that is in danger of dismantling itself.  Governments are not record companies. They are not in a position to make nuanced judgements about the content, meaning and themes of singles and albums. In short, the state cannot be relied on to understand when a musician has produced a work of violent fantasy, or a piece of social commentary with broad appeal.  The state can perform a positive correction for inequalities and failures in the hip hop market by subsidising niche or experimental performers, in the same way that is provides financial support to opera, theatre and the fine arts.  The policy that proposition side seem to be advocating, however, would only do further harm the reputation of hip hop. Once officially censured by the state- which is still seen as a significant moral authority- it is likely that the public profile and popularity of hip hop will be further damaged. The ambivalent position of hip hop in popular culture, as both a commercially successful medium and the subject of wide scale condemnation, is a significant opportunity for the medium, rather than a spectre of its imminent demise. However, larger record companies will be more likely to disengage from hip hop culture if they believe that their businesses affairs might be compromised by intrusive government legislation.


Classification, not censorship  We should expect fans of an art form that is subjected to public criticism and vilification to leap to its defence. Some of these aficionados- whether the medium in question is cinema, fine art or pop music- make the case for the value of their favourite mode of expression by overstating its positive effects.  Hip hop has long been the focus of controversies surrounding violent music. Hip hop is closely associated with low-level criminality, as noted above. A number of highly successful hip hop artists have been attacked or killed as a result of feuds within the industry and links between managers, promoters and criminal gangs.  As the academic John McWhorter has pointed out in numerous [1] publications [2] , the positive political and social impact of rap music has been massively overstated, as a result of highly charged media coverage of hip hop-linked violence. As a result, attempts to address some of the hips hops most objectionable content- lyrics that are misogynist and blankly and uncritically violent- have been condemned as unjust assaults on the right to free expression. Attacks on negative content in hip hop have been made all the more emotive, because they appear to be an attempt to restrict the speech of members of vulnerable and marginalised communities.  Side proposition agrees with McWhorter that listening to music that contains violent themes will not, in the absence of other factors, cause individuals to behave in a violent way. However, the content of rap, and its strong links with the youngest inhabitants of marginalised, stigmatised urban areas mean that it damages the developmental opportunities of teenagers and young people, and harms others’ perceptions of the communities they live in.  Hip hop trades on its authenticity – the extent to which it faithfully portrays the lived experience of the inhabitants of deprived inner city areas. The greater the veracity of a hip hop track, the greater its popularity and cache among fans. Musicians have gained public recognition as a result of being directly involved in street crime and gang activities. 50 Cent, a high profile “gansta” artist owes his popularity, in part, to a shooting in 2000 that left him with 9 bullet wounds [3] . This supposed link to reality is the most dangerous aspect of contemporary hip hop culture. Unlike the simplistic make-believe of, say, action films, the “experiences” related by rappers are also their public personas and become the rationale for their success.  Rap, through materialist boasting and sexualised music videos tells vulnerable young men and women from isolated neighbourhoods that their problems can be solved by adopting similarly nihilistic personas. The poverty that affects many of the communities that hip hop artists identify with does more than separate individuals from economic opportunity. It also confines the inhabitants of these communities geographically, politically and culturally. It prevents young men and women from becoming aware of perspectives on the world and society that run contrary to the violence of main stream rap. With television dominated by the gangsta motif, marginalised youngsters are left with little in the way of dissenting voices to convince them that hip hop takes a subjective and commercialised approach to the lives and communities that rappers claim to represent.  In effect, controversial hip hop is capable of sponsoring violent behaviour, when it is marketed as an accurate portrayal of relationships, values and principles. Under these circumstances, adolescents, whose own identity is nascent and malleable can easily be misled into emulating the exploits and attitudes of rappers [4] .  Side proposition advocates the control and classification of controversial forms of music, including but not limited to hip hop. Consistent with principles 1 and 10, classification of this type will follow similar schemes applied to movies and videogames. Assessments of the content of music will be conducted by a politically independent organisation; musicians and record companies will have the ability to appeal the decisions of this body. Crucially, the “ban” on music containing violent lyrics will take the form of a categorisation scheme. Content will not be blocked from sale or censored. Instead, as with the sale of pornographic material in many liberal democratic states, music found to contain especially violent lyrics will be confined to closed off areas in shops, to which only adults (as defined in law) will be admitted. Its performance on television, radio and in cinemas will be banned. Live performances of restricted music will be obliged to enforce strict age monitoring policies. Online distributors of music will be compelled to comply with similar age restrictions and intentionally exposing minors to violent music will be punishable under child protection laws.  This approach has the advantage of limiting access to violent content only to consumers who are judged, in general, to be mature enough to understand that its “message” and the posturing of singers does not equate to permission to engage in deviant behaviour.  [1] McWhorter, J. “How Hip-Hop Holds Blacks Back.” City Journal, Summer 2003. The Manhattan Institute.  [2] McWhorter, J. “All about the Beat: Why Hip-Hop Can’t Save Black America.”  [3] “What’s In a name?” The Economist, 24 November 2005.  [4] Bindel, J. “Who you calling bitch, ho?” Mail & Guardian online, 08 February 2008.


Crime and deviance existed in marginalised communities long before the creation of pop music or hip hop. Side proposition is attempting to claim that a particular genre of hip hop is harming efforts to improve living standards and social cohesion within these communities.  Many of the problems associated with poor socialisation and a lack of social mobility in inner city areas can be linked to the closed, isolated nature of these communities – as the proposition comments correctly observe. However, these problems can be traced to a lack of positive engagement between these young people and wider society [1] .  Violence may be discussed or depicted in popular culture for a number of reasons, but it is still comparatively rare- especially in mainstream music- to celebrate violence for violence’s sake. Violence is discussed in hip hop in a number of contexts. Frequently, as in British rapper Plan B’s single Ill Manors, or Cypress Hill’s How I Could Just Kill A Man, descriptions of violent behaviour or scenarios serve to illustrate negative or criminal attitudes and behaviours. These forms of conduct are not portrayed in a way that is intended to glorify them, but to invite comment on the social conditions that produced them. As the opposition side will discuss in greater detail below, the increased openness of the mainstream media also means that impoverished young people can directly address mainstream audiences.  Proposition side contends that the impression of the world communicated to potentially marginalised adolescents by pop culture is dominated by the language and imagery of gangsta rap. Proposition side’s argument is that, in the absence of aggressive and negative messages, a more engaged and communitarian perspective on the world will flourish in schools and youth groups from Brixton and Tottenham to the Bronx and the banlieues. By controlling access to certain hip hop genres, young people made vulnerable and gullible by the desperation of poverty will supposedly start to see themselves as part of the social mainstream. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why? Because efforts at including and improving the social mobility of these young people are underwhelming and inadequate. Social services, youth leaders and educators are not competing to be heard above the din of hip hop – they are not being given the resources or support necessary to communicate effectively with young people.  The nurturing environment that proposition side fantasises about creating will not spring into being fully formed if hip hop is silenced and constrained. The existence of an apparently confrontational musical genre should not be used to excuse policy failures such as the disproportionate use of the Metropolitan Police’s stop and search powers to arbitrarily detain and question young black men.  [1] “Keeping up the old traditions.” The Economist, 24 August 2003 .


Defending hip hop artists’ right to free speech  The intervention of the state is necessary in order to ensure that aggressive forms of hip hop remain accessible only to adults, especially in neighbourhoods and home environments that are not part of a cohesive, caring community. Some degree of public control over the content of hip hop will also help to preserve the diversity, accessibility of the genre in the face of commercial dominance by violent forms of rap.  Mainstream success in hip hop has become synonymous with gangsta rap, and with artists who have backgrounds that lend veracity to their lurid verses. However, many of these supposedly “authentic” experiences consist of little more than exaggeration and invented personas. When being interviewed about the controversial content of her son’s single “Fuck tha’ police”, the mother of rapper Ice Cube commented that “I don’t see [him] saying those curse words. I see him like an actor.”  The existence of pornography attests to the market for forms of media that fulfil base and simplistic human fantasies. Much the same can be said for the violent and cynical content of rap singles. Unlike the relationship between cinema and pornography, however, many commentators appear to regard gangsta rap as being synonymous with hip hop – a position as deceptive as a film critic claiming that all movies are inevitably tied to pornography.  The significant public profile and poor regulation of hip hop have meant that gangsta rap fans have become the genre’s dominant class of consumer. The amount of money that fans are willing to spend on singles, albums, concert tickets and associated branded goods means that labels that cultivate relationships with gangsta rappers have become the gatekeepers of the hip hop genre in general. “Conscious” rappers, who do not glorify violence, along with musicians working in other hip hop genres must work with labels that promote acts containing violent lyrics in order to publish their own music.  Either consciously, or by design, the terrain of contemporary hip hop is hostile to musicians who are not prepared to discuss “guns, bitches and bling” in their work. This constitutes a significant barrier to rappers ability to communicate novel messages and listeners’ ability to receive them. It could be called a market failure – the pervasive public presence of gangsta rap has effectively denied an audience to other rappers.  Classification has the potential to maximise the freedom and effectiveness of musical expression by hip hop artists who choose not to trade in brutality and misogyny.  The alternative is to allow hip hop to continue to be dominated by businesses such as Death Row Records, Low Life Records and Machete Music. This will lead to hip hop as a medium becoming inextricably linked with violent lyrics and the dubious businesses practices of gangsta labels’ bosses. Popular disengagement is much more likely under these circumstances, and will actively deny a voice, and opportunities, to musicians with a different perspective on hip hop.


This argument makes a claim of bias against academics and commentators who portray the audiences that hip hop music is targeted at as vulnerable. Unfortunately, this is a viewpoint that is closer to the truth than the aspirational narrative provided in the opposition side’s case.  Hip hop emerged from environments that were extremely poor and that had been pushed to the margins of society. This situation has persisted until well into this century. The cyclical effects of racism and discrimination continue to be felt in minority communities. Although anti-discrimination laws now protect access to employment and government services, inequalities in cultural capital and high-impact policing have led to the exclusion of large numbers of young men from the social economic opportunities that are made available to middle class society. Under these circumstances, it is entirely appropriate to describe the adolescent inhabitants of impoverished urban communities as vulnerable.  Poverty- either financial or of opportunity- breeds desperation. An individual placed in a situation of urgent need will not have the ability to reason clearly. This is especially true of young people undergoing the difficult transition to adulthood. Adolescence is characterised by a desire to test the boundaries of social norms and parental authority. Therefore, expression that legitimatises and encourages ever more dangerous forms of rebellion should be kept out of the hands of young people. They are unusually susceptible to the behavioural distortions that side opposition goes out of its way to deny.  We limit the content of the media that children and young people can consume all the time, recognising that the process of education and socialisation changes the individual’s relationship to wider society and their ability to which forms of behaviour will best help them to live freely and happily.  Children and teenagers are more impressionable than adults. Similarly, the rate at which individuals mature and develop can vary wildly. We recognise that, for example, exposure to pornography or violent cinema could have serious behaviour consequences for young children. Objections to the restricted availability of pornography are nonsensical, given that they do a great deal to protect children, and present only a minor inconvenience to an adult’s attempts to access such material.  Although we do not place onerous restrictions on the ability of adults to access media of this type, we can be strict in regulating children’s access. This does not constitute a permanent form of censorship, but instead fulfils the broad remit that the state is granted to protect its citizens. Moreover, classification of expression that is geared toward protecting the vulnerable also aids in protecting the primacy and utility of free speech itself. Free expression- as has been restated throughout this exchange- can harm as easily as it liberates. In some instances, the state must temporarily restrict the access of certain classes of people to certain forms of free expression, in order to ensure that free, frank and controversial discussion and expression can take place in society in general.


Hip hop is a diverse genre. The quote that opened this discussion is taken from a song by the English surrealist rapper Scroobius Pip. His albums cover themes entirely different from those found in “gangsta” rap. Similarly, artists such as MIA, Optimus Rhyme and the Wilcania Mob have used hip hop to discuss the conflict in Sri Lanka, computer games and life as a member of the aboriginal community in Australia. Each of these artists share a single common link. They all cater to a relatively niche market and have encountered little in the way of mainstream success.  Rappers who write lyrics about cynicism and aggression- from Slim Shady to JayZ- have recorded numerous number one tracks and attracted a wide range of industry accolades. In 2006 the founder of Death Row records, a major gangsta rap label, was found to have assets valued at $7 million. It is clear that rap discussing crime and violence is the dominant genre within hip hop. It is clear that there is a significant popular and public appetite for rap of this type.  As the comment opposite notes, there will always be a need for classification boards, as gratuitous or pornographic content will always form a significant part of the media landscape. Moreover, despite efforts to control access to such content, pornography and wilfully violent movies continue to make money. Hip hop appeals to a similar market – individuals seeking to indulge violent fantasies via the safe, sanitised environment of their iPod’s headphones, as discussed above.  There are no nuances of context and meaning to discuss in gangsta rap, only potentially damaging content that, at best, should be regulated and monitored.


A ban will be ineffective  A new legal prohibition on any type of behaviour or conduct can only be set up by investing large amounts of political capital in order to transform vague proposals into a legislative document and then into a fully-fledged law. This expense can only be justified if the ban is effective – if it is seen as a legitimate use of a state’s power; is enforceable; and if it brings about some form of beneficial social change. The change being sought in this instance is a reduction in the violence, criminality and social disaffection that some people associate with hip hop music and its fans.  Laws do not create changes in behaviour simply because they are laws. It is unlikely that the consumers of hip hop will refrain from listening to it. The ease with which music can be distributed and performed means that any ban on violent songs will, inevitably, be ineffective. File sharing networks and cross border online stores such as eBay and Silk Road already enable people to obtain media and controlled goods with little more than a credit card and a forwarding address. The total value of all of the music illegally pirated during 2007 is estimated to be $12.5 billion. The same network of file sharing systems and data repositories would be used to distribute banned music if proposition’s policies became law.  Current urban music genres are already defined and supported by grassroots musicians who specialise in assembling tracks using minimal resources before sharing them among friends or broadcasting them on short-range pirate radio stations. Just as the internet contains a resilient, ready-made distribution network for music, urban communities contain large numbers of ambitious, talented amateur artists who will step into fill the void created by large record company’s withdrawal from controversial or prohibited genres.  Although a formal ban on the distribution of music has yet to happen within a western liberal democracy, similar laws have been created to restrict access to violent videogames. Following widespread reports of the damaging effects that exposure to violent videogames might have on children, Australia banned outright the publication of a succession of violent and action-oriented titles. However, in several instances, implementation of this ban led only to increased piracy of prohibited games through file sharing networks and attempts by publishing companies to circumvent the ban using websites based in jurisdictions outside Australia. Similar behaviour is likely to result in other liberal democracies following any ban on music with violent lyrics.  If banned, controversial music will move from the managed, regulated space occupied by record companies and distributors- where business entities and artists’ agents can engage in structured, transparent debate with classification bodies- to the partly hidden and unregulated space of the internet. As a consequence it will be much more difficult to detect genuinely dangerous material, and much harder for artists who do not trade in violent clichés to win fans and recognition.  As discussed in principle 10, effective control and classification of controversial material can only be achieved if it is discussed with a high specificity and a nuanced understanding of the shared standards that it might offend. This would not be possible under a policy that effectively surrenders control of the content of music to the internet.


A ban will further marginalise young members of impoverished communities  Hip hop is an extremely diverse musical genre. Surprisingly, this diversity has evolved from highly minimal series of musical principles. At its most basic, raping consists of nothing more than rhyming verses that are delivered to a beat. This simplicity reflects the economically marginalised communities that hip hop emerged from. All that anyone requires in order to learn how to rap, or to participate in hip hop culture, is a pen, some paper and possibly a disc of breaks – the looped drum and bass lines that are used to time rap verses. Thanks to its highly social aspect, hip hop continues to function as an accessible form of creative expression for members of some of impoverished communities in both the west and elsewhere in the world.  Point 7 suggests that free speech flourishes when we respect believers but are not forced to respect their beliefs. Free Speech Debate discusses this principle in the light of religious belief and religious expression. However, it is also relevant when we consider how our appraisal of an individual’s background, culture and values affects our willingness to accept or dismiss what she says.  The positive case for banning- or at least condemning- hip hop often rests on its ability to reinforce the negative stereotypes of impoverished and marginalised communities that are propagated by majority communities. Critics of hip hop note that black men have often been stigmatised as violent, uncivilised and predatory. They claim that many hip hop artists cultivate a purposefully brutal and misogynist persona. The popularity of hip hop reflects the acceptance of this stereotype, and further entrenches discrimination against young black men. This line of thinking portrays hip hop artists as betrayers or exploiters of their communities, reinforcing damaging stereotypes and convincing adolescents that a violent rejection of mainstream society is a way to achieve material success.  Arguments of this type fail to recognise the depth of nuance and meaning that words and word-play can convey. They are predicated on an assumption that the consumers of hip hop engage with it in a simplistic and uncritical way. In short, such arguments see hip hop fans as being simple minded and easily influenced. This perspective neglects the “recognition respect”, the recognition of equality and inherent dignity that is owed to all contributors of a debate. Moreover, it also bars us from properly assessing the “appraisal respect” owed to the content of hip hop and other controversial musical genres. When hip hop is seen as being inherently harmful, and as being targeted at an especially impressionable and vulnerable part of society, we both demean members of that group and prevent robust discussion of rap lyrics themselves. Academics such as John McWhorter see only the advocacy of violence and nihilism in lyrics such as  “You grow in the ghetto, living second rate/ and your eyes will sing a song of deep hate”.  But these are words that can also be interpreted as astute observation on the brutality that is bred by social exclusion. In point of fact, there is little in the previous verse, or those that follow it,  “You’ll admire all the numberbook takers/ thugs, pimps and pushers, and the big money makers”,  that could be interpreted as permitting, popularising or endorsing violence. That is, unless the individual reading the verse had already concluded that its intended audience lacked his own critical perspective and understanding of social norms and values.  Even if an observer were ultimately conclude that a particular hip hop track had no redeeming value, a broad interpretation of point 7 suggests that he should, at the very least, credit its artists and listeners with a modicum of intelligence and reflectiveness. When we approach music with a custodial mind-set, determined to protect young listeners from what we see as harm or exploitation, we prevent those individuals from access a form of speech that may be the only affordable method of expression open to them.  Just as we allow individuals the right to be heard in a language of their choosing (see point 1), we should also accept that perspectives from marginalised communities may not appear in a conventional form. Under these circumstances, it would be dangerous for us to curtail and marginalise a form of speech geared toward discussing the problems faced by impoverished young people that has, against the odds, penetrated the mainstream. We are likely to deepen existing prejudices by viewing rappers and their fans as infantile, impressionable and in need of protection.


Violent imagery can serve different purposes.  Calls for a ban on music that references or glorifies violence are frequently based on an overly simplistic understanding of contemporary and popular musical genres. It is instructive that the loudest voices of protest raised against violent content in hip hop and rock music are, overwhelmingly, white, middle class, middle-aged newspaper columnists. Any ban created under these circumstances would reduce the diversity and depth of popular musical genres, by preventing musicians from commenting- in any way- on violent events.  Banning particular musical tracks due only to the fact that they discuss violent acts would be damaging to the creative industries and would not reflect methods currently used to classify and restrict content appearing in other media. Criminal acts are punished when an act results in a damaging outcome and because that act is performed with a particular dishonest or malicious intention. Generally, someone cannot be found guilty of murder if they did not intend to kill their victim. Similarly, it is unusual for films or videogames to be censored or banned because they happen to depict violent acts. The intention that underlies the use of graphic images or words must also be examined. As BBC director general Mark Thompson noted when discussing the controversial religious content of Jerry Springer: The Opera with freespeechdebate.com  “… Jerry Springer I saw without feeling that it was offensive to me because the intention of the piece was so clearly a satire about an American talk show host and his world rather than the religious figures as such.”  Classification boards will look at the context in which an offensive act is shown. The violence of war is portrayed vividly in Saving Private Ryan, but the film has not been banned on this basis. Private Ryan portrays violence and suffering in order to remind us of the inhumanity that pervaded the Second World War. It uses violence to make a didactic point, to move its audience to sympathy and disgust. If a film were to use images of extreme violence or suffering as a form of entertainment, inviting the audience to take pleasure in brutality, a classification board would try to restrict or censor its content.  Comparably, “violent” music can use brutal language and themes to make moving and engaging observations about the world. Violent music does not automatically glorify violence, nor does it cause its audience to see violence as something that is glamorous.  Listened to out of context, without any attempt to critically analyse the imagery of the song and the intentions of the artists, it is easy to condemn many acclaimed examples of popular music as containing violent lyrics. By giving into the populist pressure that is represented and generated by newspaper columnists and talk show hosts, we risk creating a chilling effect, not only on mainstream hip hop culture, but on any other musical form that dares to discuss themes that fall outside narrowly and arbitrarily defined limits of social acceptability.


Modern policy making does not rely on the force of law to bring about social change. This is an archaic approach to addressing the harms and deficiencies that might appear in communities.  We can reasonably assume that any ban on violent lyrics will be linked to wider reaching education and information campaigns that attempt to address misogynist attitudes and violent crime. Concerns expressed above that other hip hop genres, and musical innovation in general, might suffer could be adequately countered by offering subsidies and support to non-confrontational forms of hip hop. In this way legal regulation and policy interventions could help the music industry to address the more pernicious aspects of hip hop, while promoting its more innovative side. This reflects the state’s role in promoting and safeguarding free speech, by giving those who do not have access to public forums the means to have their voice heard, while ensuring that the principle of free speech is not abused or used to limit the liberal freedoms of others.  These contentions adequately address the problems that the opposition side links to the distribution of illegal and unregulated content via the internet. The implication that a ban on music containing violent lyric might increase piracy is irrelevant – states will still act to address all forms of piracy, and measures taken against the violation of copyright online will be just as effective against prohibited content.


living difference house would penalise religious hate speech

Nobody is being forced to perform acts of violence by the words of another; it is their choice to do so. Equally, there are plenty of people who would hold views that could be considered homophobic but would be appalled by acts of violence. It is fundamental to the principles of respect for the individual that I cannot be held liable for the actions of others. There is no dividing line between the incitement Proposition claims exists and my jokingly suggesting to a broke friend that they rob a bank. Ironically, perhaps, the defence of “The Devil made me do it” is not one that is taken seriously by any credible framework of laws.


Because religion promotes certainty of belief, divinely inspired hatred is easy to use to justify and promote violent actions and discriminatory practices.  Free speech must come second when there is the potential for that speech to cause harm. The mantra of “With God on our side” has been used, and continues to be used, to justify massacre and barbarity throughout history. Although it is rarely the prelates and preachers who do the killing the certainty they promote gives surety to those who do.  The purpose of the Act [1] used in this particular case was an entirely practical one. It’s main role was to tidy up existing legislation on rioting and public disorder but one section recognised that homophobic and racist language do lead to violence. It is all well and good to talk of freedom of speech but the reality is that homophobic speeches, particularly those of a religious nature, may well lead to violence. For example in New York there were a series of homophobic attacks after anti-gay statements by republican politicians. [2] Preventing hate speech helps prevent that violence from occurring so justifying restrictions on freedom of speech.  [1] Legislation.gov.uk, ‘Public Order Act 1986’, The National Archives, 1986 c.64.  [2] Harris, Paul, ‘US shaken by sudden surge of violence against gay people’, The Observer, 17 October 2010 .


Homophobia should indeed be confronted but penalising it is not the solution – just as it wasn’t for racism and sexism. These views should be confronted and challenged, which doesn’t happen by banning their expression. Indeed using legislation in this way is more likely to make the homophobe feel justified. Freedom of speech and equality have generally worked hand in hand and will do so in the case of homophobia as well. Banning ideas doesn’t threaten bigotry; indeed historically it has tended to be the tool of the bigot, not the liberal.


Religion simply justifies reactionary views which many find offensive. There is no reason for vitriol to be tolerated just because it presents a mask of religion.  Views on issues such as abortion, women, and what constitutes an acceptable family expressed by those who are extremely religious are simply bigoted views which are given credibility by being wrapped in a cassock.  It is in the nature of religious belief that any set of views can adopt a religious justification and there is no objective measure against which to hold the views. For example the homophobic views which have common currency in many churches can be contrasted with a gay liberation trend discernible in others. In the light of this, it makes sense to judge the views on their own basis, regardless of the religiosity surrounding them.  The views expressed by Harry Hammond, and others [1] , need to be stripped of their religious veneer and shown that at their heart they are simply offensive. There is absolutely no reason why LGBT people should have to endure vitriol and condemnation as they go about their daily lives. It is a useful exercise to consider how we would respond to a secular speaker saying that the actions of two people who were in love with each other should condemn them to torment and suffering. Oddly however, the moment this is done in the name of God, it somehow becomes acceptable.  [1] Blake, Heidi. “Christian Preacher Arrested for Saying Homosexuality is a Sin”. The Daily Telegraph, 2 May 2010.


Religious belief is the most widely used and historically enduring framework for discussion of the universe around us and our place and role within it. Pretending that it not part of civic discourse is simply living in a fantasy world. The views expressed by Hammond are widely and genuinely held and deserve to be heard. Those who oppose them should, of course, be free to do so. Simply banning their expression doesn’t make the views go away. However impossible opposing sides in this argument may believe it to be, the other side could be right, that gives them the right to be heard [1] .  [1] Tatchell, Peter, ‘Lords are right to limit homophobic hatred law’, 10 July 2009.


Ill-informed prejudice has no place in society. The veneer of religion has been used to justify hatred, prejudice and division and should be confronted.  Homophobia is the last respectable prejudice [1] and should be tackled with the same passion and force that others have been, and continue to be, confronted. If the speaker had been condemning black people or women they would have been arrested for public disorder if they represented an organisation that was overtly racist, it would be quite likely to be banned.  For some reason Churches that hold views on homosexuality that are comparable in their vitriol to those on race held by neo-Nazi groups are not only tolerated but frequently supported by the state.  Hatred is hatred and there is no reason why homophobia should be given a free pass that would not be given to racism or sexism.  All of the Abrahamic faiths have, at their core, an authority focussed on maintaining ‘the natural order’. From the fourteenth century on – although interestingly less so before that point – homosexuality has been singled out as one of the gravest of sins [2] , with the Catechism identifying it as one of four sins that “calls out to Heaven for vengeance”. That is not merely offensive but dangerous in a modern society.  [1] Maguire, Daniel C., ‘Heterosexism in Contemporary World Religion’, The Religious Consultation.  [2] Boswell, John, The Marriage of Likeness, Harper Collins, Chapter Eight.


Issues of sexuality tend to raise great passion but to accept that people should be harangued, threatened or intimidated for just getting on with their lives, quite legally and posing no threat to others is absurd. A liberal society should be free to defend that liberalism, if people wish to change that reality then there are democratic ways of doing so that do not incite hatred on the streets. Homosexuality has been legal in the UK for over forty years; it is absurd that gay people should still have to face this kind of barracking on a regular basis.


It is simply unfair to ask people to be the victims in a societal experiment on the basis that it will all be okay in the end. In a context like this the language used is not only offensive but also threatening. This legislation may not be great constitutional theory but provides very real protection of people’s safety and quality of life.  In addition to which, homophobia long enjoyed the sanction and protection of the state it is interesting that when that is reversed just a little it becomes an assault on free speech.


There is no right not to be offended, enforcing what is acceptable to be thought or said places far too much power in the hands of the state.  It is impossible to ensure that nobody is ever offended and it is questionable as to whether it is even desirable [1] . There is simply no way of protecting against offence. The state clearly has a role in protecting the physical safety of citizens and in other relevant areas such as preventing dismissal from employment on the grounds of sexuality but this is not the case with speech that may cause offense.  Governments that attempt to lead, ahead of public opinion, on matters such as this do little to resolve the problem. In doing so in this manner, they may well pour fuel on the fire of the very prejudice they are aiming to combat as well as creating additional problems by justifying the idea that it is okay to silence views simply because you happen to disagree with them.  Banning the expression of ideas has, historically, be the recourse of those who have run out of arguments to defeat them; doing so is an acknowledgement that the proposal is a weak one. Admitting that – or appearing to do so – for the principle of equality set a dangerous precedent.  [1] Harris, Mike, “It shouldn’t be a crime to insult someone”. Guardian.co.uk, 18 January 2012.


Silencing views that are considered offensive is self-defeating and would be detrimental to those attempting to advance gay rights.  If freedom of speech is to mean anything then it needs to be a principle that is universally applied. Unless speech represents a direct and immediate threat to public safety then it should not be curtailed. The overwhelming majority of the world would agree with Hammond. Globally this is a significant, possibly a majority, view. Certainly the 24% of people in the UK who believe that homosexual sex should be illegal [1] could be assumed to be sympathetic. These people might well consider gay pride marches to be offensive and a threat to public order but these are allowed to go ahead and so should Hammond’s protest and those like it. The freedom of expression must be allowed equally in both cases.  [1] The Guardian. “Sex uncovered poll: Homosexuality”. 28 August 2008.


Regardless of the views expressed, freedom of speech means that all opinions should be heard.  Allowing politicians to regulate what it is acceptable to say – or think – is not something that has a happy history. This isn’t the result of a purely intellectual construct but one of altruistic self-interest; once people start banning ideas, they tend not to stop at one.  Voltaire’s comment that “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is a statement of the very same principle that that demands equality for all groups in society.  In exactly the same way that all views are, at the very least, worthy of a hearing, so are all lifestyles acceptable. Locking people up in the name of liberty makes no sense at all. Equally, banning statements on the basis that it might be offensive to some people has been used as an excuse to prevent social and cultural developments, the process of being offended usually made society and culture stronger for it. We tend to fear or hate that which is hidden or unspoken. The emancipation and liberation of other groups has tended to suggest that open debate is a more productive answer than trying to ban opinions and views.


This is simply a myth. Society routinely legislates to prevent offence with restrictions on what can be said or done within a broadcast or in print. This particular case does not relate to a private conversation between friends but to a public address. As such the response of the police officers was not some Orwellian nightmare but a responsible protection of public order and a show of respect for those who, quite rightly, had taken offence at the remarks. We are rightly cautious of the state intervening too far into the private sphere but this was a public event – by the speakers own choice.


reputation and defamation house believes spear should have remained

Just because groups and individuals have a Freedom of Expression, does not mean it can be used without proper consideration of whom maybe hurt and offended by connotations implied in the image. A White artist portraying the Black leader of the country and the ANC as someone who leads with their genitals goes someway to dehumanising him, launching into character assassination that fails to actually examine policy.  Pluralism can exist without needlessly causing offence in the way Murray has done in this painting. The Constitution protects Freedom of Expression; however the grave offence causedto many people by dehumanising President Zuma in this way can justify the protests against the artworks installation and replication in the news media. No constructive criticism is meted out in the painting, thus justifying counter-protests against it.  While there were supporters of the ANC and COSATU, who are allied with the government, who took part in protests, it is a stretch to suggest that this is political overreach in action. The image attacked the President in ways that evoked previous allegations against him that were later disproven in court. The President took legal action in a personal capacity, whilst other exhibits created by Murray which highly critical of the ANC were not targeted in this manner, hinting at there being a free platform for criticism and satire in South African Political discourse.


Pluralism and Political Interference  The removal of ‘The Spear’ from the Goodman Gallery and the City Press also hints at a threat to pluralism, especially when one considers the political nature of the campaign to have such images removed.  While Jacob Zuma attempted to have the image banned in a personal capacity, the intensive campaigning by both the ANC and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) against both the Goodman Gallery and City Press [1] hints at a dangerously political action taken by those with close access to power over the South African state.  This should be cause to worry. Chapter Two of the Constitution of South Africa, in place since 1997, protects freedoms such as Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association. [2] The intimidation of Art Galleries and Newspapers threatens the free exchange of ideas that occurs in these areas, as well sending an implicit image by its supports that criticism of the Government cannot be tolerated.  If neither the Gallery nor City Press removed the image of ‘The Spear’ from public view, then a clear message would have been sent that the principles of Free Speech, Free Association and Freedom of Intimidation outlined in the Constitution is to be upheld at all times, regardless of who may take offence at what is being said. It is important in the South African context to protect the right to criticise the government and voice opinions that vary from the ideals of the majority. It is worrying what kind of message is sent by those close to the South African Government that intimidation seems to be the appropriate response to criticism such as this rather than asking why such criticism is there in the first place.  [1] Mthembu, Jackson, ‘ANC calls on all South Africans to boycott buying City Press Newspaper and to join the protest match to the Goodman Gallery’, African National Congress, 24 May 2012,   [2] ‘Constitution of the Republic of South Africa’, Statutes of the Republic of South Africa, 4 February 1997,


To somehow state that racism is the motivation to criticisms of ‘The Spear’ is fanciful and far-fetched. People were massively offended by the piece and as such used their right to protest to demonstrate the fact. The artwork itself was vulgar, displaying images that would be offensive to anyone, regardless of race.  No-one is accusing Murray of being in favour of restoring Apartheid; indeed his early works in the 1980’s attacked the government of the day, highlighting their crimes. But when a public gallery and a newspaper releases an image that is seen as offensive to many people on many levels, provoking angry responses in the process, then it is only right that such images are removed to prevent further protest and controversy for those involved.  It is also erroneous to accuse the ANC of race-baiting. It is a multi-racial organisation and has had prominent non-Black members leading the organisation during the struggle. If any criticism of White Opponents including the Democratic Alliance is seen to be racialised, then it is probably a reflection upon the DA’s ineffectiveness in gaining the support of poor black voters, remaining a party for privileged whites as a result. Criticism of Murray was not based on race, rather the shocking and offensive artwork that hurt so many people, not least the President himself.


Artistic Freedom  A core principle of art is that it should be free from any form of inhibition, as the particular artwork is an expression of the particular views and ideals of the artist. The subject matter in many instances is their own choice; therefore they have the right to say what they want about the subject matter, safe in the knowledge that is their opinion alone being portrayed.  The artist that painted ‘The Spear’, Brett Murray, created the piece as part of an exhibition that reflected his own discontent at the lack of major progress since the ruling African National Congress took power in South Africa after the end of Apartheid in 1994. Murray used his work to promulgate an idea that he has, allowing for others to see the art work for themselves and make up their own minds about President Zuma and the ANC. [1]  Art Galleries have a right to display any artist they feel will attract visitors as well showcase the forms of art that they believe is suitable. The Goodman Gallery saw no issue with Murray’s work to the extent that they prevented any particular works from being displayed. As it was their venue which was the setting for ‘The Spear’s display, The Goodman Gallery had the right to take decisions independently of external pressure. The removal of the exhibit sets a dangerous precedent whereby government can unduly censor artworks, threatening the free actions of artists and the galleries that display their work in turn affecting plural, democratic discourse. [2]  [1] Du Toit, ‘Artist Brett Murray explains why he painted ‘The spear’, 2 Ocean’s Vibe, 2012,   [2] Robins. P, ‘The spear that divided the nation’, Amandla, 2012,


While public art is valuable, it can serve a purpose to educate and send a message, influencing discourse. Criticism of a political figure, when expressed via an art form, can change perceptions of that figure, particularly when their policy is under scrutiny. However, the image portrayed in ‘The Spear’ does not do these things. It does not focus on the policies of President Zuma, but rather relies on innuendo surrounding the President’s personal life, graphically represented by Zuma’s exposed penis, which is a prominent feature of the painting.  While artists have a right to criticise those in authority and galleries have a right to display any art it wants, such rights are balanced by responsibilities over how such artists conduct themselves when they choose to enter political discourse. A provocative image such as ‘The Spear’ flouts those responsibilities by relying upon graphic innuendo instead of policy criticism to get the point across. This is damaging for a number of reasons specific to the South African context which will be explained in the Opposition Arguments.


Racialised Opposition  Some critics of ‘The Spear’ have criticised the artwork on the grounds that it ‘dehumanises’ black people in general [1] and President Zuma in particular and criticises him based upon his personal life rather than policy, using vulgar means to do it. This line of opposition is part of a dog-whistle tactic that the ANC has consistently used against white critics of its government in the past. [2]  ANC criticisms of its white critics, including the opposition Democratic Alliance have made discreet reference to the injustices of the past as a means of creating distrust in the minds of poor, black voters who maintain ANC support as a result. Some politicians within the ANC, most notably the former President of its youth wing Julius Malema, have made incendiary statements that could be seen to stoke up hatred against whites.  It is against this back drop that the double standards over criticism of Murray should be viewed. Murray, a white artist, has been criticised roundly for ‘The Spear’, while black artists have created works that could be seen to denigrate President Zuma in a similar manner to ‘The Spear’. A noticeable example is ‘Ngcono ihlwempu kunesibhanxo sesityebi’ (Better a fool than a rich man’s nonsense) by Ayanda Mabulu, that carried a much more graphic depiction of the President and other leading politicians of the past and present with barely a murmur raised. [3]  By bowing to the pressure exerted by the ANC and its followers, the Goodman Gallery and City Press have bowed to pressure, denying criticism of the government and accepting the implied view that White South Africans are unable to criticise the government without seeking to re-assert any forms of superiority that had existed under Apartheid. Whilst there may still be underlying problems of Far-Right activity in South Africa, to smear anyone who criticises the government based on their race does nothing to help move the country on from autocracy and institutionalised racism. The Goodman Gallery and City Press should have stood by displaying the image as it represented the opinion of Brett Murray, free from intimidation or race based slander.  [1] Dana, Simphiwe, ‘The 'Sarah Baartmanisation' of the black body’, Mail & Guardian, 12 June 2012,   [2] Hlongwane, Sipho, ‘The ANC's best friend: Brett Murray & The Spear’, Amandla,   [3] Ndlovu, Andile, ‘'Spear' sparks hot Twitter debate’, Times Live, 23 May 2012,


What is termed a decent or otherwise is largely subjective and depends on an individual’s viewpoint. Those who use the cause of ‘public decency’ to call for ‘The Spear’s removal fail to understand the point of the artwork. Murray created such a visceral image in order to trigger debate and cause South Africans to look at the political class and their antics. Such a debate over Zuma’s fitness for office would not have been possible without an image that brought home the seriousness of the personal accusations against him and whether such allegations make him incompatible with the office of President. Murray was free to depict an image that at best a plurality of people would disagree with, and given the subject matter, that image was appropriate to use.


Jacob Zuma had a right to sue, which he made use of before dropping his claim for defamation. However, for his supporters inside and outside the ANC to attack The Goodman Gallery, City Press and Brett Murray personally is irresponsible and stifles debate over the credibility of Jacob Zuma for the office of President. Zuma has done controversial things before and during his time in office that are worthy of criticism and ‘The Spear’ amongst the rest of the exhibition reflects this. No one should be above criticism, especially if their actions will have an impact upon many people.


Infantilisation and Prejudice  Those who dismiss the reaction to ‘The Spear’ forget the historical context which may trigger the sorts of responses seen to the artwork. [1]  South Africa’s past problems can be seen to derive from the gross caricaturing of Black people and Black Men in particular as lascivious, overtly sexual and threatening, playing into a narrative of Blacks as ‘inferior beings’ justifying inhumane treatment over a number of centuries.  Portraying the President with his genitals exposed could also be seen to pass negative comment upon his polygamy, which is permitted in his Zulu culture. Such comment upon something which can determine social standing can also be viewed as offensive by many, triggering such reactions. [2]  With this in mind then the right action for both The Goodman Gallery and City Press to take would be to remove such offensive art to avoid any hurt caused and to quell the protest which were borne out of genuine offence, not political grandstanding as opposition seem to imply.  [1] Hlongwane, Sipho, ‘The Spear: Millions of people were insulted’, Daily Maverick, 28 May 2012,   [2] Dana, Simphiwe, ‘The 'Sarah Baartmanisation' of the black body’, Mail & Guardian, 12 June 2012,


Masculinity  The problem with leaving the painting, the spear, up is that to many young men President Zuma symbolises what excessive wealth can ‘buy’ you. He is the figure head of the nation, the pinnacle of capitalism and masculinity, of which the penis and sex are instrumental in this image. By leaving the painting up, it encourages hyper-masculinity (which is inherently violent), [1] because it assumes there is an inherent link between power and the penis. This is unhelpful, both for women and men who are trying to live in equity.  [1] Scheff, Thomas J., ‘Hypermasculinity and Violence as a Social System’, Universitas, Vol.2, Issue 2, Fall 2006,


Public Decency  Freedom of Speech is something that is highly valued, particularly in a country such as South Africa, where it was in short supply for a large part of its history, but surely for such speech to be worthwhile, it has to be able to convey a message that actually enriches the public domain. Such messages can be critical of government, but it must be best if they do not cause widespread offence in the process.  The problem with ‘The Spear’ is that is causes widespread offence with the graphic depiction of the male genitalia. As a result, the underlying message that Brett Murray is trying to convey is lost in the offence image of the exposed penis, causing needless controversy in the process. [1]  The utilisation of an exposed penis in ‘The Spear’ breaches all notions of public decency, not only causing offence in the public domain, but also personal offence, by depicting President Zuma in such a lewd manner. As such, it is right to ask for the removal of the artwork from public display to prevent further offence from being caused.  [1] Robins. P, ‘The spear that divided the nation’, Amandla, 2012,


Defamation  While South African Law does allow for freedom of speech, and the constitution is one of the most liberal in the world for protecting such freedoms, it must be measured against the need for responsibility in the use of such freedoms to prevent offence.  Whatever one believes about ‘The Spear’ it is clear that Murray attacked President Zuma based upon his personal life rather than any critique of policy. The depiction of the President with his penis exposed is a reminder of the accusations of rape against him, of which he was acquitted in 2007.  To remind those who view the painting of the accusation is to hint at Zuma’s guilt in the case despite it being proved otherwise in a court of law. This is effectively libel and as such defames Zuma’s character. As such, Zuma was right to sue for defamation and it was right for the artwork to be removed as it implied and spread a falsehood in the public domain that is damaging to Zuma.


The painting should remain hanging as a reminder to young men that society is noting the particularly high prevalence of cases of rape, that are committed by all peoples within society, from the bottom to the top. This is not to argue that the President has ever necessarily raped anyone, although his defence in his rape-trial in 2005 was flimsy and without doubt he abused his power, as the girl he is supposed to have had consensual sex with was like a daughter to him. It is to critique his infidelity, and his lack of support in the AIDS pandemic. Just because he is the president does not mean he should be above being publically ridiculed for putting his own sexual desires above the safety of others.


To attach historical abuses to the symbolism of ‘The Spear’ is outlandish, irresponsible and fully indicates the way in which the ANC and its supporters use the past to excuse its poor record in government. ‘The Spear’ followed a theme criticising Zuma and his actions as a public figure. Criticism of the piece is welcome as part of debate based on facts, not emotion like what was seen during the controversy. Maintaining ‘The Spear’s display is part of this, triggering a debate over ANC policies in the here and now, as opposed to referring to past injustices. Removing ‘The Spear’ prevents that rational debate and instead sends a message that merely shouting down opponents is a suitable solution to an argument, harming South African political discourse in the long term.


free challenge house believes julian assange journalist

A free press can only function if it is also a responsible press. Journalists are allowed a leeway not enjoyed by most because they act responsibly and within boundaries. Realistically, the test of whether the risk posed to third parties is balanced by the public interest is a difficult one. Although much has been made of the risks to Assange himself – at least he has made a lot of it – he has less to say on the dangers posed by the impact of his actions on military and, especially, diplomatic operations. Endangering U.S. relations with other nations by making public the opinions of Western diplomats about their hosts may be good copy but scarcely serves the cause of peace or the national interest. Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon for example said he had lost confidence in the U.S. ambassador to the country as a result. [1] Equally, the information disclosed on Guantanamo or in the Iraq and Afghanistan diaries of soldiers revealed little that wasn’t either known or widely suspected and so it is difficult to see how the public interest was served at the cost of operational efficacy.  [1] Sheridan, Mary Beth, ‘Calderon: WikiLeaks caused severe damage to U.S.-Mexico relations’, The Washington Post, 3 March 2011,


Governments have always struggled with the idea of press investigation and freedom of information, claiming Assange is not a journalist is simply a stunt.  We know that most governments struggle with the idea of not having control over information and are suspicious of the media. In a pre-Internet age working with a handful of proprietors made controlling information far easier.  Since the creation of the Internet, the idea of controlling the media has become harder, now there are those who can broadcast themselves directly; a mass of information and opinion that doesn’t rely on the patronage of publishers or political favour.  Assange has simply taken a journalistic position that makes sense for the new media age.  In contrast to the opinion driven mainstream press and much of the blogosphere, Wikileaks actually breaks new stories [1] . New media requires new skills and attitudes of its journalists because the relationship with their readers has changed dramatically but the core of the role, speaking truth to power, remains the same. Furthermore they do so in such a way as allows them to publish their source material and allow the reader themselves to make a judgement as to whether their story really reflects that material. This ability, reflecting effectively limitless capacity for providing textual information, meets the frequently heard desire for news without spin – routinely featured in research into people’s views on the press. This may be a new approach, just as Assange is a new type of Journalist but he is still a journalist.  [1] John Pilger and Julian Assange discuss citizen journalism here .


Historically, journalists have been protected from prosecution for espionage (Assange is threatened with prosecution under the Espionage Act) whereas their sources were not. Assange is providing the information which he has acquired illegally. The fact that he, in turn, had a source does not qualify him as a journalist. Surely it makes more sense to view him as a source, someone simply providing information to the journalist of the Guardian, Times and elsewhere, who subsequently used the data in actual journalism. Assange doesn’t seem interested in Freedom of information as much as he is in simply causing trouble.


The concept of what is a journalist needs to be clarified to deal with the reality of new forms of mass communication. Assange gathers, collates and disseminates information, ergo, he is a journalist.  Few industries have been changed more radically by the advent of the Internet than journalism. The traditional role of the journalist, disseminating information to which they had special or privileged access, has changed beyond recognition. Now readers and viewers have direct access to much of that information and can access it at their own convenience and through their own choice of media. Sales of newspapers are in freefall and the stranglehold of a handful of broadcasters on political access has been lost forever. There are still extraordinary journalists finding news and genuinely affecting the society around them. For the most part, however, journalists increasingly comment on the news rather than directly collecting it. In many ways, Assange has taken journalism back to basics – acquiring information to which most people do not have access and making it public. The very fact that the powerful and the privileged dislike what he is doing so much could even be taken to suggest that he has to be doing something right as one of the roles of the fourth estate is to act as a check on government. [1]  At a time when much of the traditional media seems to have lost its sense of what its role is, Wikileaks is providing a timely reminder [2] .  [1] Hume, Ellen, ‘Freedom of the Press’, Issues of Democracy, December 2005,   [2] The Guardian. Julian Assange Wins Martha Gellhorn Journalism Prize. Jason Deans. 2 June 2011.


Journalists fulfill a multitude of roles. Of course revealing information is part of that but only one part. Further, journalists do not reveal information, as Assange does, purely because it’s secret but within a wider narrative. It is however difficult to see what wider narrative Assange is pursuing. Realistically, there are some things that need to be confidential; diplomatic and military communications would come high up that list. Assange seems primarily interested in reveling things purely because they are secret. One of the curious things about Wikileaks is that, while some of it has been embarrassing, it has been published indiscriminately. The US Diplomatic Cables, the most famous of the leaks and the ones that caused the most debate, have mostly been described as embarrassing rather than reveling corruption or illegality. It’s difficult to see what journalistic goal such voyeurism could fulfill.


There is a difference between actual journalists and those who like having their names published in newspapers. Assange has far more claim to the description than many of them.  One of the things that the Leveson Inquiry [1] has made all too apparent is that simply working for a newspaper or broadcaster is not a satisfactory definition of journalist. In terms of maintaining a professional ethic, the difference between those who hacked into phones – including that of murdered schoolgirl Millie Dowler – and the journalists who broke the story, Nick Davies and Amelia Hill [2] could not be starker. Equally many popular blogs that focus exclusively on opinion or areas of news far more specialist than has traditionally been considered the role of the daily media.  A more useful definition, it would seem, relates more to the ethics and aims of the individual or organisation involved. This has the advantage of ruling out those organisations devoted to advertising (such as listings magazines or shopping channels) or those focused purely on entertainment.  A Journalist should therefore have a commitment to revealing and disseminating information that is held by those with power to those over whom they wield that power. This means that the journalist gains access to information through various sources and then publicises that information as a story. Anonymous sources such as those used by Assange are a key part of journalism with many of the biggest stories such as Watergate only being published because of anonymity. [3]  By such a definition, Assange would clearly qualify [4] . This was clearly felt to be the case by the New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde and others who reprinted his original material and drew conclusions from it. It would come as something of a surprise to such publications to discover they were not staffed by journalists.  [1] For a link to the inquiry’s website, click here  [2] The Guardian. “Missing MIlly Dowler’s Voicemail was Hack by News of the World”. Nick Davies and Amelia Hill. 5 July 2011.  [3] Myers, Steve, ‘Study: Use of anonymous sources peaked in 1970s, dropped by 2008’, Poynter.org, 9 August 2011,   [4] The Spectator. “Yes, Julian Assange is a Journalist”. Alex Massie. 2 November 2010.


The fact that Wikileaks specialises in one form of news gathering is hardly revolutionary – a little like saying magazines specialise in features or blogs tend to be dominated by opinion pieces. The idea, however, that journalists should provide their source material so that readers can make a decision for themselves is one that constantly finds praise from audiences and many journalists regret they cannot provide because of the pressures of printable space or broadcast schedules.  At the time of writing, the lead item on Wikileaks’s front page read;  WikiLeaks: 542 days of banking blockade - no process  Assange: 539 days detainment - no charge  Manning: 737 days in jail - no trial  Grand Jury: 622 days US secret Grand Jury into WikiLeaks - no transparency  If the purpose of a news organisation is to hold account the powerful and act as an independent check on the use of that power then Assange would certainly seem to be having an impact.  By contrast, on the other side of the Atlantic, the Leveson Inquiry is now months into an investigation focussing on the largest media organisation in the world, which stands charged of breaking not so much the basic principles of good journalism but, rather, those of simple humanity. Surprisingly, the publisher of this group, Rupert Murdoch, remains at liberty on the basis that he had no idea what was going on in his empire.  The first group pointed out the failings of the powerful, the latter invited them to parties. It is interesting to consider which one comes truer to the spirit of journalism.


It is worth noting the people who are happy to say that he is a journalist – in addition to many other journalists around the world. He has received the 2008 Economist Freedom of Expression award, the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award, La Monde Person of the Year (2010) [1] and the Martha Gelhorn Prize for Journalism in 2011. [2] Wikipedia’s media partners include Der Spiegel, The New York Times, Le Monde, The Guardian and El Pais. If we accept the idea that ‘by his works shall you know a man’ then the fact that Wikileaks has produced game changing information – and stories that have changed policy - on extra-judicial killings in Kenya, the dumping of toxic waste in Cote d’Ivoire, the Church of Scientology, procedures at Guantanamo bay [3] and the financial dealings at Kaupthing and Julius Baer [4] – all before the revelations about the State Department imbroglio that is suddenly of interest to … well, to the State Department.  There are few other journalists in the word that could make such claims.  [1] AFP, 'Assange named Le Monde Man of the Year', ABC News, 24 December 2010,   [2] Deans, Jason, 'Julian Assange wins Martha Gellhorn journalism prise', guardian.co.uk, 2 June 2011,   [3] Chivers, Tom, 'Wikileaks' 10 greateststories', The Telegraph, 18 October 2010,   [4] The Economist, 'Be afraid' 9th December 2010,


It is a basic principle of journalism that sources should be checked and verified by another, independent, source.  British Foreign Secretary William Hague has pointed out that the actions of Wikileaks put British lives at risk. [1] Congressman Peter King described the mass leaking of documents as “Worse even than a physical attack” on America and Assange as “an enemy combatant”. [2] Vice-President Joe Biden refers to him as a “High-tech terrorist.” [3]  He has condemned governments, endangered operations and undermined diplomatic activities, all without knowing the identity or motives of his sources. For all we know the information could be quite false or released only in part by someone with an axe to grind. Those parties who are damned by the revelations are hardly in a position to say, “No that isn’t one of our cables and here’s the real one to prove it."  Furthermore, as the site itself proudly proclaims, it has no way of knowing who the source is and, therefore, no way of knowing the accuracy of the information published beyond the educated guesswork of their editorial staff [4] . Who is it making these guesses? It is impossible to say as only Assange’s name is associated with the site.  It’s an interesting exercise – how many other Editors-in-Chief could you name? How many star reporters can you name? Wikileaks must be the only media organisation – or such is its claim – where the only name that is widely known is that of the publisher.  It is a fairly basic principle of journalism that not only should more than one person know the identity of the source but that the information should be possible to ratify. To prove the confidence that journalist has in the source, they are prepared to put their name to it.  Assange cannot say whether he has confidence in the sources because he has no way of telling whether that is really a person with access to information or whether it is the agent of and unfriendly power, a disaffected employee or is simply making the whole thing up  [1] BBC News, 'Julian Assange ready to meet police says his lawyer', 7 December 2010,   [2] James, Frank, 'Wikileaks Is A Terror Outfit: Rep. Peter King', NPR, 29 November 2010,   [3] The Sydney Morning Herald, 'Joe Biden calls Julian Assange a 'hi-tech terrorist', 20 December 2010,   [4] The Slate. “The Wikileaks Paradox: Is Radical Transparency Compatible with Total Anonymity?” Farhad Manjoo. 28 July 2010,


Wikileaks is not a news organisation, it exists exclusively to disseminate classified information, no genuine news organisation has such an agenda.  News organisations provide a variety of functions, from reporting the weather to breaking news. Even the most hardened investigative outlet does not dedicate itself exclusively to revealing classified information. It appears to have no interest in what that information is or whether its disclosure causes more harm than good, the sole interest is that it is classified.  That isn’t journalism, at best it’s prurience and, at worst, egocentricity – ‘I know something you don’t know’. The fallout for people’s jobs, liberty and safety appears not to interest those involved.  Their own ‘About Us’ section makes a point of stating that “We accept (but do not solicit) anonymous sources of information [1] .” Interestingly, the whole of the rest of the page talks about maintaining anonymity for both readers and sources and little else. It provides screeds of text about themselves, a free press and the importance of releasing classified information. Unusually for a media organisation, there are no details about how to complain if a reader feels they or someone else has been misrepresented. This means that Wikileaks is denying someone’s freedom of speech by not giving them a right to reply and have corrections published.  In an age where even the most stentorian paper of record enshrines such rights, one might assume that such devout proclaimers of free speech would shout it from their mast head. Instead, their Chat page is mostly full of dire warnings that security forces are watching the reader’s every keystroke. Hardly encouraging for the little guy wishing to clear their name.  [1] The link to the page is here .


Assange is mostly interested in self-promotion, not being a serious journalist.  Journalists are judged by far more than their ability to acquire and disseminate knowledge or information. The quality of their writing, the skills and contacts developed to acquire it, the training used to enter the trade (which incidentally would have included the difference between the legitimate use of privileged information and espionage) and many other characteristics.  Assange doesn’t seem to have taken any interest in any of this. He undertook no formal training – he studied but did not graduate in Physics – and worked as a computer programmer and hacker before founding Wikileaks. His interest in data seems to do with the technological side of the process rather than the ideas.  Were a printer in the same situation to attempt the same defence, it would be ignored. Assange is an irresponsible geek, self-proclaimed hacker and someone who clearly has no interest in, or understanding of, the notion that there are occasions when a responsible journalist does not release information, frequently out of concern for those whose lives it might engender.  His entire background has been in hacking, he is described as a cryptographer in articles written by or about him before the launch of Wikileaks. This sudden commitment to journalism seems awfully convenient in the event of the threat of a trial.