EDITORIAL - On freedom of expression

In Barbados, we occasionally confront issues relating to freedom of information, such as the recent banning of calypsos by Sir Ruel on two broadcast stations. This is not the first time controversy has erupted over a calypsonian’s lyrics deemed unsuitable for airplay nor, we suspect, will it be the last. In the past, defamation concerns were not the only reason for bans; lewdness and vulgarity kept some calypsos firmly off the air.

The fact is some form of censorship is exercised by all media practitioners. This might be in the form of blocking part of a contributor’s comment on a call-in programme; blocking material that contains profanity or lewdness, or alternately broadcasting specially edited versions; and in editing letters for suitability in print and online publications.

These forms of restriction are utilised by media houses because of the codes and laws followed to uphold agreed-upon, basic standards within the profession.

So serious is this belief in appropriateness of expression, that governments around the world have banned or revoked invitations to foreign artistes. Barbados and other governments in the region have banned artistes known for violent, profane lyrics such as Vybz Kartel and Movado from entering their countries. Around the world, especially in the United Kingdom, artistes with anti-gay lyrics have been prevented from performing at events.

In the past if one wanted to hear uncensored versions of music, one could purchase the album that was appropriately coded under the ‘parental advisory’ label; get a copy from a friend; go to a fete or ride on public service vehicles that played the unedited cuts. Digital and online improvements in technology have meant easier access to anything on the internet. It has resulted in a more open society, perhaps more open than those who have grown up with private matters kept behind closed doors are willing to entertain. And despite the ‘new’ Information Age, this discomfort over full and complete access to the arts has been debated for thousands of years. Plato’s treaties urged for censorship of the arts to protect children and society, and that children should be ‘exposed to good material and shielded from bad material’.

This is the catch-22 of freedom of expression. Pushing the boundaries of what is considered ideologically acceptable is not in and of itself a bad thing since it can be used to expand knowledge of our world; for instance, when Galileo challenged the prevailing theory at the time that the planets revolved around the Earth.

However, the gateways of cyberspace have opened access to data far beyond our imagination, and it has also meant that those whom one would want to prevent accessing inappropriate material are also more vulnerable than ever before. In this small society, we have to wonder at the result of such unfettered access. Will it promote more critical thinking and engagement of political, economic and social affairs among youth? What kind of society will we have if nothing is sacred? Or are we already witnessing the answers to these questions?