The price for free speech?

There is a standard response to something as obfuscatingly offensive as Julie Burchill’s recent _Observer_ article lambasting the transgendered for getting offended when people insult or negatively stereotype them. It is to question whether free speech is really worth it when we have to listen to imbecilic bigotry like this; a reaction usually engendered by YouTube comments and twitter abuse. In fact, the article was more reminiscent of a hateful YouTube comment than competent journalism.

Of course, we always decide that free speech is worth it: that occasionally having to confront ideas that clash with our own—however vile they might be—is worth not having the regime in a position to surgically remove a ligament of their choice and then use it to sew up our mouths. This article is not about that. Nor is it particularly about the trans-phobic slurs of Burchill’s tirade, I’m sure there will be people queuing up to write about that, all of them much more qualified than me – a straight, white, cis-male.

My issue is how did such an article as this end up on such a site as the _Observer_’s? It certainly wasn’t on its artistic merit. “(See what I did there?)” isn’t really that funny even when done well. You’ll notice I refrained from doing something similar after ‘engendered’ in an article concerning gender. Because it would have been shit. I’ll keep it at one example, because otherwise the entire article would just be criticism of her writing.

Okay, two. I seriously cannot believe that a published journalist would stoop to taking umbrage with the prefix ‘cis’, a term used simply because it is the scientific opposite of ‘trans’ and which has no etymological roots in common with the “nasty stuff” that Burchill claims justifies her slurs. She then names what she will not be calling transsexuals, thus calling them it anyway.

Platitudes are platitudes for a reason. The article is there because all publicity is good publicity. Never mind that it reads like a _Mail_ columnist got drunk and lost all their inhibitions, it’s creating more traffic than a rush-hour jack-knife on the M25. It’s like a circus sideshow. Roll up! Roll up! See the two-headed monkey that walks like a man! Read the most offensive opinion piece of recent times with your very own peepers!

People are flocking to the site to be offended. One thing left and right have in common is that they enjoy being indignant. They are commenting, creating accounts so they can comment. Maybe clicking ads and generating revenue. Maybe clicking onto other articles at the side, like I did to the one praising Quentin Tarantino for snapping at Channel 4 news. The circus metaphor is apt again – come for the freaks, stay for the clowns! They can put out an apology, even take the article down, but that won’t undo all the site traffic.

This isn’t at all new. A former _Boar_ editor suggested to me that half the _Mail_ and the _Sun_’s online traffic is outraged lefties. This of course isn’t restricted to news media. I had an odd conversation with housemates recently on how self-aware Joey Essex is. As in surely he must know how stupid he is (this was brought up by someone claiming he’d been asked to locate countries on a map and got all but the UK wrong), or at least be aware of it and play it up because that’s what the cameras want. Because despite what the Moral Guardians may fear, a decent proportion viewers probably don’t view the cast of TOWIE as role models – despite Joey Essex having a county named after him. I don’t watch TOWIE, but I’m aware that many do simply to laugh at the cast’s stupidity. I personally find their stupidity depressing – they are offensively stupid; and I can imagine there are some who watch to get indignant at how these people exist and blunder through life succeeding when all of them could be beaten at Trivial Pursuit by a four year old. Or an amoeba.

We’re ok with this kind of muck-raking from the _Sun_ or the _Mail_ or _ITV_ – we expect it and it’s fine when they do it since it’s at least in part being made for the stupid and/or bigoted and we’re being all clever and sneering at it, yet as liberals we also like to think we’re above it all. But it’s likely that left-wing intellectuals don’t consider the _Sun_ or the _Mail_ valid sources of news (yes, I know it’s an opinion piece). It’s troubling when a source you did consider trustworthy shows that they are perhaps no better. Sure, you can argue that it’s from the Observer and that the _Observer_ and the _Guardian_ aren’t the same thing but the fact is Burchill’s article still appeared on the _Guardian_ site. And when our newspapers descend to this kind of thing we feel cheapened, and the moral high-ground we’re so fond of starts to look kind of shaky.