I have previously admitted to being one of the few people apparently on planet Earth with little interest in the Royal family or the continuing travails of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. (No, I did not even tune into the wedding). However, the coverage is now pulling some of us into this vortex with legal and media developments. One such issue arose this week after Piers Morgan, the co-host of ITV’s “Good Morning Britain, committed the apparently unpardonable sin of declaring on air that he didn’t believe a word of what Markle told Oprah in her recent interview. Markle herself filed a complaint with ITV. For that transgression, Morgan is now reportedly under investigation by United Kingdom’s “Ofcom,” or Office of Communications, for violation of its “harm and offense rules.” It is another example of how both rights of the free press and free speech are under assault in the United Kingdom.
Morgan has long been a critic of Markle and received international attention this week by abruptly walking off the show’s set in a sharp exchange with a co-host Alex Beresford. Beresford was critical of Morgan’s remarks: “I understand that you don’t like Meghan Markle, you’ve made it so clear a number of times on this program, a number of times. And I understand that you’ve got a personal relationship with Meghan Markle, or you had one. And she cut you off. She’s entitled to cut you off, if she wants to.”
That set off Morgan who interrupted and declared “OK, I’m done with this.” He then stormed off.
Since Markle described psychiatric (and potentially suicidal) problems during her time at the palace, Morgan’s remarks were taken by some as dismissive of such crises. Morgan seemed to recognize that when he returned to the set and state:
“Let me just state for the record on my position on mental illness and on suicide. These are clearly extremely serious things and should be taken extremely seriously and if someone is feeling that way they should get the treatment and the help they need every time. And if they belong to an institution like the royal family and they go and seek that help they should absolutely be given it. It’s not for me to question if she felt suicidal, I am not in her mind and that is for her to say. My real concern was a disbelief frankly … that she went to a senior member of the royal household and told them she was suicidal and was told she could not have any help because it would be a bad look for the family. If that is true a) that person should be fired and b) the royal family have serious questions that need to be answered.”
After the show, Morgan was effectively fired. ITV issued a statement that “Following discussions with ITV, Piers Morgan has decided now is the time to leave Good Morning Britain. ITV has accepted this decision and has nothing further to add.” This followed a complaint from Markle. Consider that complaint for a second. She filed a complaint because a media personality said that he did not believe her. ITV then later showed Morgan the door.
One can clearly disagree with that take but one would think that the matter would be left to broader debate. However, people immediately reached out to Ofcom to demand punitive action against Morgan for expressing his views. By that I mean, over 41,000 people. Ofcom then announced a formal investigation “into Monday’s episode of ‘Good Morning Britain’ under our harm and offence rules.”
The Ofcom Section 2 rule is undefined and subjective:
Principle
To ensure that generally accepted standards are applied to the content of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material.
Rules
Generally Accepted Standards
2.1: Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services and BBC ODPS so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material.
2.2: Factual programmes or items or portrayals of factual matters must not materially mislead the audience.
(Note to Rule 2.2: News is regulated under Section Five of the Code.)
2.3: In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context (see meaning of “context” below). Such material may include, but is not limited to, offensive language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation, and marriage and civil partnership), and treatment of people who appear to be put at risk of significant harm as a result of their taking part in a programme. Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence.
Morgan also attached to a picture of former Prime Minister Winston Churchill with his famous quote, “Some people’s idea of [free speech] is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.”
I have written for years on the crackdown on free speech in France, Germany, and England though hate speech laws and speech regulations. As many on this blog know, I am unabashedly against limits on free speech and have opposed most public and private forms of censorship for decades.
My problem is with the investigation which is based on the same type of sweeping, generalized language used to curtail free speech in the United Kingdom ( here and here and here and here and here and hereand here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws.In the United Kingdom, free speech continues to be eroded, including speech directed at political and social issues like the death of George Floyd or “misgendering” during interviews We have also seen this type for ill-defined language used to regulate advertising.
Rather than speak out against Morgan’s comments, tens of thousands of people demanded that the government punish him — and silence him. It is working. He was effectively fired and he is now going to be subject to an investigation. People have developed a taste for censorship and we have seen how that taste becomes an insatiable appetite. That is why this is not Markle or Morgan. It is about free speech and the free press.
Just to follow up on my last comment, the Republicans are justifying their attack on voting access by relying upon the Big Lie that the election was stolen by massive voter fraud. Turley is on the record stating that *he* did not believe that the election was stolen nor should have Trump repeated this claim since it was detrimental to his legal efforts in court. However, Turley has never stated- to my knowledge- that Trump lied in making this claim nor that it was wrong for Fox News to run with it, much less condemn Fox and Trumpists from continuing this false narrative to this very day…
Jeffrey, everything you write is a “Big Lie”.
The data clearly shows that the election was stolen.
Likewise, the overt actions clearly show that the election was stolen.
Never has vote counting been stopped simultaneously at 9:30 PM on election night.
Walworth, you’ve been had, and it’s getting embarrassing. No one believes Trump’s big lie about the election but his marks. He’s been selling the idea since before the first vote was cast because he knew from polling he;d probably lose. Quit buying it.
Joe’s right, Walworths. By your 9:30 reference I’m guessing you were talking about Georgia and the talking points that arose there. Funny thing about that one: 9:30 election night still saw in the lead in Georgia because the votes from Metro Atlanta hadn’t been counted yet.
https://patch.com/georgia/across-ga/ga-election-results-2020-trump-biden-await-vote-totals
It’s funny how you trumpers will make excuse after excuse for him…, and here’s the thing…, even L’Orange doesn’t believe the excuses. He’s always just played for traction in any way he can get in the process of losing another popular vote.
Elvis Bug
“Never has vote counting been stopped simultaneously at 9:30 PM on election night.”
Correct. That didn’t occur in 2020 either.
“the election was stolen.”
No it wasn’t.
JS:
Tell us exactly what “their attack on voting access” means? Photo Id, verified ballots? Just what exactly bothers you besides the unedifying and wholly editorialized conclusion of the word “attack”?
Mespo, should we be surprised that JS couldn’t provide any type of response?
Demonkroutz justify their attack on “one person one vote” by relying on the big lie that minorities are “disenfranchised.” The first of a thousand lies in this attack was the claim that millions of minority voters do not own and can not get a Federally validated picture ID card.
Anyone lacking the aforementioned ID can can not legally prove their identity nor even their legal status as an American citizen. Beyond the inability to vote, such person lacks the ability to have a bank account, can not cash any check ever, can not by a plane or Interstate bus ticket.
Just more pure unadulterated Demonkrautz BS.
For every big legal and political subject facing the US, the paid Demonkraut trolls just come out of the woodwork spreading their Demonkraut disease at this blog, and this is just another example.
Why has Turley been AWOL on Fox News of late? When was the last time he has been called upon to contribute his slanted legal opinion? I suspect we will hear from him on Fox once Trump is indicted for any state or federal crimes.
However, I am shocked that Turley has not seen fit to express an opinion on the Republicans’ efforts in the States to disenfranchise Democratic voters by restricting voting access. I would like to know what he thinks about these recent laws. As a self-styled Free Speech absolutist, you would think that he would have some commentary regarding this attack on the freedom to vote in American rather than concerning himself with the free speech implications of the angry rhetoric of a broadcaster in England.
Moreover, we are still waiting for Turley to react publicly to the billion dollar defamation lawsuit brought against his employer, Fox. It must be somewhat embarrassing to work for a broadcaster which has been sued for propagating falsehoods and even more so if it loses in court (or more likely settles out of court).
As the legal predicaments continue to mount against Trump, Turley will be hard-pressed to walk the fine line of providing false hope to the viewers of Trump TV that Trump will be ultimately exonerated while at the same time not disparaging the integrity of the legal system which he took an oath to serve.
+10
+ (-110) = (-100)
Quite the dilemma, Jeffrey. Hard times in Turley/Fox land. +10
EB
“However, I am shocked that Turley has not seen fit to express an opinion …”
I’m sure Turley will be devastated to learn of your opinion.(sarcasm off) LOL
LOL
TDS victims like the classic case above have been promising for 4 years continuously that Trump would be criminally charged. As big a lie as is Trump’s lie that he won the election.
“However, I am shocked that Turley has not seen fit to express an opinion on the Republicans’ efforts in the States to disenfranchise Democratic voters by restricting voting access.”
Let’s do a thought experiment.
Bob decides that all voting should be phone in, that all government offices like the DMV should register everyone who checks a box that they are eligible to the voter rolls, that the voter rolls should never be audited for duplicates, dead or ineligible voters, and that no one should verify eligibility with supporting documentation upon registration, or require ID to vote, and that phone in voting should be accepted up to 10 days after the election.
Bill says that this is a perfect storm for voter fraud. Anyone should telephone up and vote, and it would be impossible to detect or prevent fraud. It would in fact encourage fraud. Allowing votes to be accepted 10 days after an election would give people 10 days to come up with how much fraud they need to commit to steal an election.
Bob says that mail in voting is too hard. It requires too much effort. If you can’t get to a post office, or read the form due to cataracts, that it unfairly disenfranchises voters. Vote by phone helps minorities vote, and if you oppose it, you are racist, and seek to disenfranchise voters.
Luis claims that we need to go a step further. We need to call everyone on the voter registration list, and just ask them how they want to vote. Democrats can appoint people to man these phone lines, and they will check a box that they will truthfully and accurately transcribe each vote. Verifying identity will consist of asking the person who answers if they are the registered voter. They will continue to try to reach all registered voters at all phone #s they have ever used up to 10 days after the election. Having to call in to vote is too hard. It requires too much effort. What if you don’t have a phone? What if you’re too busy? What if you forget? If you oppose calling registered voters and taking their votes over the phone, then you are racist and you seek to disenfranchise voters.
Bill says that this just blatant voter fraud.
Bob and Luis call him racist. Then Luis calls Bob racist for wanting to require that registered voters make the call themselves. That’s effort. Voting shouldn’t require any effort or exertion at all on the part of voters.
Jonathan: Like you I have very little interest in the goings on inside the British monarchy. I did not pay much attention to the marriage of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. But their interview with Oprah Winfrey has caused quite a stir and highlighted the long history of racism inside the Royal family and in Britain generally. The Royals long history of involvement on the slave trade is well known. They became wealthy buying and selling slaves. So when Meghan and Prince Harry decided to get married and were accepted into the Royal household a lot of Brits thought the Monarchy had finally put its racist past behind. I guess not. That’s clear from the Winfrey interview. We should not be surprised. Even today in Britain there is still the practice of “colorism” that applies the “brown paper bag” test to those who aspire to be accepted in polite British society. If your skin color is that of a brown paper bag you might be accepted. Racist views are quite prevalent in the British press–especially in the tabloids like the Sun, owned by Rupert Murdock, which should tell you all you need to know how Murdock views the “news”. Even while Meghan and Prince Harry were dating the Sun published a salacious article entitled: ” Harry’s girl on pornhub”. The article was false so the Sun had to publish a retraction.
This is where Piers Morgan comes in. He has been the sort of “Tucker Carlson” of ITV in Britain. He delights in mocking people of color he interviews. Just ask Jameela Jamil, the British actress and radio presenter and the daughter of a Pakistani father and Indian mother, who came to LA to escape the prevalent racism of people in the press back in Britain. Meghan and Prince Harry have also moved to LA where discrimination against mixed marriages is less accepted. When Morgan says “I don’t believe almost anything that comes out of her mouth (Markle) and I think the damage she’s done to the British monarchy and to the Queen..is enormous and frankly contemptible” you can understand where he is coming from. He reveres the monarchy and will attack anyone who might reveal its racist underbelly. I don’t think many in Britain will miss Piers Morgan. He is a neanderthal .
Now Fox News, Murdock’s tabloid in the US, has also defended Pier Morgan, like you. In a piece on Fox News Edmund DeMarche used the same quotes from Morgan and Churchill you quoted in your column. I don’t know which came first—your column or what appeared on FoxNews. But you and Fox appear to be in lockstep–acting as echo chambers on the same subject–defending Morgan’s racism. Frankly, I think we need a US version of Britain’s “harm and offensive rules” for people like Tucker Carlson, et. al., at Fox who spew out all sorts of lies every day!.
Oh yes Dennis, (on your 6:48 comment) once again you reveal yourself. You call for “harm and offensive rules. Your vision is so short sighted that you can’t see that the egg shells that you want us to walk on are the same eggshells that will force you to tread lightly in the not so distant future. According to Dennis, anyone who does not agree with him should not just shut up but should be forced to shut up. He lets us know that if we don’t shut up there are places with iron bars where he can put us. In this nation Dennis can say whatever he wants no matter how myopic it is. I want him to speak even more.
Google search results overwhelmingly link to Jameela Jamil’s claim that she nearly killed herself due to Piers Morgan’s campaign of “lies and harassment.”
The best I can discover is that he made this Tweet:
“Jameela Jamil is having a lot to say about online harassment, so in the interests of balance, here is a message Caroline Flack sent me last October after the same Jameela Jamil led an online pile-on against her regarding a new TV show she was doing.”
Caroline Flack had complained about the hate that Jamil was aiming at her. Flack later committed suicide.
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1231665910609371136?s=20
Was it racist to call out Jameela Jamil’s hypocrisy about online harassment? Has she been kind towards Piers Morgan?
He got into it with Jamil again over Meghan Markle’s comments about the 2020 election.
Now, I don’t care for Morgan, in general. I find him acerbic and I disagree with most of his positions. He does seem to have a personal grudge against Markle because they were beginning an acquaintance when she cut off all contact upon meeting Prince Harry. So it’s entirely accurate to say that Morgan allows his personal bias into his coverage of Markle.
However, if you accuse someone of being a racist, you should provide proof. The word has been misused to the point it is meaningless. Don’t agree with Obama on everything? Racist. Criticize the anti-police and pro-crime rhetoric of BLM? Racist. Don’t believe in identity politics where everyone’s value is based on skin color? Racist. Are you color blind? Racist. So many innocent people are being lumped in with the KKK that when someone is called a racist, many people doubt it right off the bat. Was it for real racist, or just used against someone you disagree with?
So did Piers Morgan get into one of his infamous spats with Jameela Jamil because he’s racist, or because he vehemently disagreed with her the way he vehemently disagrees with people of many different races and ethnicities?
It’s getting to the point that people are afraid to criticize a black person for any reason, because they’ll be called racist.
You just called the entire Monarchy racist because hundreds of years ago they participated in and condoned the slave trade. Do you have anything more recent? Prince Philip is 99, so the body of his quotations would of course cover the pre civil rights movement. He almost pre-dates the Ford Model T. Do you have evidence that the entire monarchy is currently racist? Do you find it responsible to on the one hand, scold Piers Morgan for his rhetoric, and then to make an unsubstantiated aspersion against an entire family?
One more correction. Harry and Meghan did not flee racism in the UK. They fled the constraints of being a working member of the royal family (MRF). You can’t dress how you want, wear the nail polish you want, comment on politics, because you’re not a private citizen in the MRF. You represent the whole Commonwealth, not for 4 years, but for life. Harry chafed under the constraints, and the schedule. Meghan Markle, political activist, was never going to live out her life crossing her ankles demurely in the Duchess cross and staying mum on political issues. First they went to Canada, and then they went to the US. The US, which Meghan Markle has accused of systemic racism.
So, it begs the question, if she believes what she says, then why would she “flee racism” to a country she said is racist?
Marky Maypo would find true happiness in Africa, I just know it.
Illegal emigration is as moral and legal as illegal immigration.
America has become irredeemably lawless (e.g. nullifying free speech) since lawlessness began to benefit the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).
Why not reap the benefits?
_____________________
“Just Do It!”
– Nike
_____
Why not?
Lincoln did (e.g. Lincoln never met a constitutional point of law he liked)!
________________________________________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and
to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
_____________________________
Let’s get this party started!
Teapot tempest. There are countless problems in the world that demand immediate attention and affect vast numbers of lives. This issue is not one of them.
So, free speech is not an important issue as far as you’re concerned?
Death to free speech. The liberal cancellers are doing us all a favor. One day the table will turn, and then, It will be all that much easier one day for us to ban all this talk about trannys etc.
I don’t particularly like Piers Morgan. It’s rare that I agree with him on any given topic. Yet, I’d sign a petition to reinstate him, and boycott a show I never watch in the meantime. I’m 100% with Piers Morgan on this, regardless of whether Meghan Markle’s accusations pan out or not. Journalism could use a little skepticism and researching stories before taking them at face value.
Cancel the cancel culture.
Piers Morgan is entitled to his opinion. A journalist or talk show host should meet accusations with fair scrutiny. While Morgan has suffered a personal falling out with Meghan Markle, simply stating that she needs to back up her claims is being responsible. Ideally, he would have made an unbiased statement that such claims should be investigated before taken as whole cloth and castigating the Royals, and that she should have named the perpetrator(s) so as to avoid painting so many people with the same brush. He did let his personal upset show, but it’s a talk show, not a straight news segment.
Cancel culture is a pitchfork mob, not justice.
Race is not a shield from criticism. Whether someone is full black, 1/4 black, or not black at all, their statements should be judged on the merit, not on the state of tan of the speaker. Criticizing someone’s statements because you disagree with them is not racist. She brought up bridesmaid dresses. Bridesmaid. Dresses.
Honestly, I think that Meghan Markle should not have bashed her family in public. I took issue with Markle’s own relations doing just that to her. You don’t go on Oprah and talk about how your sister-in-law allegedly made you cry over bridesmaid dresses, painting yourself as a blameless saint. It’s so incredibly petty. And if you think your in-laws are racist, then either speak to them privately, or if you feel they should be removed from positions of authority, make a full and complete disclosure to the world. Unless she comes out with exact details, these vague accusations and BRIDESMAID DRESS disagreements seem petty and vindictive. If she wanted her husband to regain the close relationship he used to treasure with his brother, then maybe he shouldn’t have criticized her sister-in-law and the rest of the family on international TV in an Oprah interview.
She said a royal wondered what her unborn child would look like and what that would mean. Well, that’s what everyone who is thrilled about having diversity, and finally someone not related to the Habsburgs or Bourbons is doing. What would it mean to have a child born to the royal family who is darker than his cousins? It would mean that the Royal Family has opened up its lineage. Great. New blood is healthy to heavily intermarried royal bloodlines. So was the question racist, clumsily worded but sincerely interested, or just the same question asked by ardent supporters of the Sussexes?