A question of harassment
This story should worry anyone. A blogger has been paid a visit by cops after he wrote something that someone else didn't like. Instead of writing back, or defending himself, troublesome vicar Stephen Sizer complained to the fuzz of 'harassment' and the writer in question deleted his blog.
Here is a genuine attack on the freedom of speech. But of course, it's not an attack on the right of some cretinous idiot to be borderline racist and get handsomely paid for it. So I imagine those who came roaring out of their kennels in defence of Rod Liddle's freedom of speech and right to offend will be strangely less keen about this one. After all, it's not as if this blogger might be their boss in a couple of weeks' time, so the incentive to care is much less weighty.
We don't know exactly what was said, so there must be some caution. If people do stuff that verges on the deeply unpleasant, then of course others are entitled to take whatever action they see fit. But you can't help wondering if, in this case, the law appears to be favouring a particular kind of 'thought crime' that didn't exist previously. Is 'harassment' really what's going on here?
Props, then, to Melanie Phillips for exposing this terrible story in the mainstream - though you have to wonder exactly how much she would be reporting it if it were someone on the other side of that Israel/anti-Israel argument and how much their freedom of speech would matter. And yes, when you read what else she's written in the past couple of days, it does tend to weaken the good work she does do under certain circumstances. But still. Someone in the mainstream has noticed that this has happened.
People do have the right to offend, as bigshot journalists in cosy offices do and as we tiny insignificant bloggers do. Other people have the right to complain, to speak out against them, to tell them they're wrong. That's all fair enough. But going to the police about harassment? This sits very uneasily. Other bloggers I know have been accused of 'harassment' simply for trying to get their facts right, and those wailing about the 'harassment' have known that very well, and refused to co-operate, and behaved entirely shabbily. It's not 'harassment' to write something about someone else. It's not 'harassment' as long as it doesn't verge on the intensely personal, or become malicious or stalkerish. Crying 'victim' when others are simply writing about you is a pretty unpleasant thing to do.
Related posts:
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
January 26th, 2010 - 10:10
Frustrated with the complete lack of accountability in my local social services child disability team, I blogged in detail about meetings in which staff behaved abominably, social workers repeatedly lied, and stupid care workers placed absurd phone calls to my disabled son's school.
Some of it was political – about the rather incestuous relationship between my local University and local SS in recruiting undergraduates for a course introduced by a government with the intent of changing SS culture.
I also made it clear I was aware of some less than healthy links between my local SS and a local political party. I've been told by several SS employees that it helps your career to join, and I know of one middle ranking appointment which would seem to support this.
I, too, was bullied in to removing all the posts after accusations that posts on my blog provided evidence that I might be mentally ill and thus an incompetent parent. In effect, they threatened to take my son into care unless I removed them. The primary complaint came from a 'party' member.
I used to be slightly woolly on freedom of speech issues, but not anymore.
Fortunately,I relocated a handful to another, anonymous blog, after changing all names, etc. The new blog is linked to this comment.
January 26th, 2010 - 12:56
I don't know the details of what exactly was blogged, as the original blog was deleted.
As a pro-palestine activist myself I am all too familiar with the slander and false accusations of anti-semitism frequently used by the Zionist camp (these days it seems like there's no such thing as a moderate zionist…). Such defamation is used to intimidate the opponents of ethnic cleansing and critics of Israel into silence. It is a form of censorship itself. If such accusations were what was posted against this Rev Sizer then I have no sympathy for the blogger.
January 26th, 2010 - 21:00
Thanks for the link Anton. I sweated blood to write that article, and I've no idea why it took so long.
Simon
It's actually the other way
Rev Sizer is sceptical about Christian Zionism, and is being called – among other things – a mouthpiece for Iran. The Seismic blog was challenging him.
My take is that it's equally bad whichever way it is: damaging statements in articles are defamation, not harassment, and a matter for debate not the police.
If there are threats, then ir is a dfferent matter.
Matt
January 27th, 2010 - 11:40
Is 'harassment' really what's going on here?
Absolutely. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as amended by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 makes it clear.
Harassment is a course of action that makes someone feel alarmed or distressed, or attempts to persuade them not to do something that they're entiteld to do.
A course of action is approaching an individual at least twice, or a group of two or more people just once.
No surprise the Act's been used repeatedly to get injunctions against people protesting against corporations.
The law – supposedly brought in to protect vulnerable women from dangerous stalker ex-partners and suchlike – defends the poor arms manufacturers from the volatile psychotic people armed with leaflets and banners.
We already have all the laws required for a functioning police state, we only need the will to enforce them to the full.
January 27th, 2010 - 23:56
Richard Silverstein at Tikun Olam has a good account of what happened, here. If that account is correct (and, I'll admit my poltical sympathies and sense of trust are more with Silverstein and Sizer than Phillips and Wiseman), then it seems like the police didn't investigate Wiseman for what he said, but for harassment.
Following someone around (even if you only do so virtually), defaming them, and making it impossible for them to conduct their work or enjoy a private life is clearly different from writing articles disagreeing with their point of view. I don't think it's such a bad thing for that to be illegal.