Blaise Tapp: Freedom of speech is a right we cannot afford to lose
To say we are living in worrying times would be to utter the mother of all understatements, although the same could be said of almost all eras during the history of mankind.
Wars, famine, oppression and economic strife have never been far away from front pages or, more recently, news bulletins in recent centuries but right now, in the 2020s, there is a real sense that we are living in a period where it could all become that much worse, very quickly.
This shared sense of instability has much to do with the fact that much of global politics is dominated by self-proclaimed strongmen (they’re all men), although you and I might call them autocrats or in some cases, dictators. Which is where news organisations and journalists come in - to hold these people to account, or so you would hope.
Perhaps what’s most worrying about the age we inhabit is the seemingly relentless assault on free speech, particularly in America, which seems to be more polarised than at any point in recent memory. The senseless murder of Charlie Kirk, who was credited with playing an instrumental role in getting President Trump back into the White House, was, as well as being a tragedy for those who knew and loved him, a direct attack on freedom of speech. It ought to be a given that nobody’s life should be at risk for their beliefs or how they express them.
In the aftermath of this shocking killing, the right to freedom of speech has been tested even further with the removal from the air of one of the best known US talkshow hosts, Jimmy Kimmel, after he questioned the widely accepted narrative about the political beliefs of the suspected murderer. Fellow hosts and comedians have queued up to support his right to expression.
This is an issue that should concern us all on these shores too, particularly when one famous old local news title was recently banned from speaking to the leader of a county council as well as receiving official updates because he disagreed with how the authority’s policies were portrayed. This really is the thin end of the wedge and if these types of decisions are not challenged, there is a real danger they could be repeated elsewhere by those politicians who dislike dissent. During my 20-odd years as a journalist, I enjoyed plenty of colourful discussions with irate public figures, who had taken umbrage at something I or colleagues had written but I never seriously felt at risk of being censored.
Being able to challenge those in power is a right we’ll mourn if it is ever taken away from us.