… when they contain the word faggot? Perhaps that sounds like it warrants an obvious “No” from such a keen subscriber to the Free Speech Fanclub as myself. But not really. To start with, it’s worth remembering that BBC Radio 1 is often heard by children, and denying children access to explicit lyrics is presumably a central consideration. This “censorship” is surely no more heinous than film certification. I also think the “debate” (or rather, collective anti-PC rant) throws up common points of confusion regarding free speech.

Clearly no one has any right to have their song distributed by Radio 1. When I bemoaned the protests after the Oxford Union invited Nick Griffin and David Irving to speak, Colin Rosenthal asked whether I thought anyone had a right to be invited to the Oxford Union. They don’t: the only right at stake was the Union’s right to invite whomever it wants to invite. Likewise, the only free speech “right” at stake here is Radio 1’s right to play whatever it likes.

The free speech debate has two halves and two separate issues: how authority should restrict free speech, and how a private citizen or corporation should practise free speech. This debate really falls into the latter category. The BBC lies on the boundary between the public and private sector, and its public service mandate is presumably why its decisions provoke so much ire. But, ultimately, it does not control radio broadcasting. It offers a handful of channels out of the hundreds available. No matter how much you listen to Radio 1, it doesn’t have any political authority over what you listen to. You listen by choice.

I hate to see strong restrictions on free speech enshrined in law. I’m not a fan of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act - I think we should have a right to offend. So, naturally, I think The Pogues had a right to record Fairytale of New York, and I think all radio stations have a right to broadcast it.

But that doesn’t mean I think any media outlet has a duty to offend, or a duty to ignore all concerns of offending others. On the contrary, they surely ought to at least consider the offence an act of free speech might cause. By way of analogy: all things considered, I was disappointed by the ban on fox hunting. Does that mean I should hunt foxes myself? Or approve of other people doing it? Radio 1 is right to consider the possible consequences of broadcasting explicit lyrics. It has no obligation to broadcast songs just because they are popular.

Filed under: bbc, freespeech, jonathanbirch on December 18th, 2007