In a recent poll appearing on the Rasmussen Reports Internet site it states 72% put freedom of speech ahead of not offending other cultures

“Voters overwhelmingly rate protecting freedom of speech as more important than not offending other nations and cultures despite claims that the latest outbreak of anti-American violence in the Middle East is due to an amateur YouTube video that mocks Islam.

“A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 72% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it is more important for the United States to guarantee freedom of speech. Only 15% consider it more important for the United States to make sure that nothing is done to offend other nations and cultures. Thirteen percent (13%) are undecided.”

I found it very interesting in listening to the views from some of the demonstrators in both Egypt and Libya re the YouTube video mocking Islam on the BBC World Report. When asked, “Why are you demonstrating against free speech when you were demonstrating for it?” the reply was the same. “Not when it attacks religion.”

I was hoping the reporter would have asked, “Do you mean ALL religions?” I strongly suspect they mean Islam because in their minds that is the ONLY religion.

They forget the meaning of “free speech” means exactly that. It cannot have blocks put against it no matter how unpalatable – or should it?

Does anywhere in the World have exactly “free speech?” The answer is “no”, especially when it comes to “freedom of speech of the press”.

Yes, as journalists we can publish anything we like, but there are certain laws, e.g. libel, that can get you into trouble.

In the “Federalist Blog” website it makes this statement:

“The biggest modern error over freedom of speech and press comes from not treating it as a freedom from government defining what shall be a criminal libel against it but as a right to be heard or seen. Newspapers have never been under any obligation to publish whatever you have to say no more than a shopping center or town was viewed obligated to provide you with a public soapbox. It is all about government defining and being the judge of the facts of what speech or publication it considers a libel.

“Freedom of speech and of the press served one purpose in America: To remove the fear of the common law doctrine of seditious libel so citizens could freely speak or publish without license their grievances against public policy or conduct of public officials. One of the distasteful things found under the common law was the government practice of criminalizing or shielding itself through requiring license to publish of any criticism it felt made people dissatisfied with their government or government established religion.

“Seditious libel (or criminal libel as it was sometimes called) was generally defined as “the intentional publication, without lawful excuse or justification, of written blame of any public man, or of the law, or of any institution established by law.” (Stephen, History of the Criminal Law)

“In England, it could be dangerous to criticise government, or peaceably assemble or petition government for redress of grievances because anything one might speak or write could end up being used against them under the charge of seditious libel where truth would be of no defense.”

Here, in the Cayman Islands, Premier McKeeva Bush, has law suits pending against Cayman News Service and Rooster/Hurley’s Entertainment and has threatened similar action against the Caymanian Compass.

Mr. Bush has tried and has done so, to bar certain press outlets, including ourselves, by not inviting them to Press Conferences and physically barring them from entering the room of the press conference when they found out when it was being held.

Unfortunately, the world press on the whole, does become too powerful and manipulative by slanting stories one way, depending upon how much money the media house receives from the entity that has an interest in the story.

Some media houses have paid police sources like the exposed Rupert Murdoch News Corp scandal and our own Tempura Investigation was into a Cayman newspaper that had a supposed police informant.

Our so called “freedom of speech” is further eroded by governmental powers who decide that if we are told the facts it could be harmful for us and our country. “I know about it but you mustn’t”. An example is, the already mentioned, the “Tempura” situation when documents Chief Investigating Officer, Martin Bridger, took with him and would help him (he believes) in his lawsuit with ex-Commissioner of Police, Stuart Kernohan, and Cayman’s attorney general wants to block them from being used.

Then there is the 185 page report that reviewed, in detail, complaints filed against certain members of the Cayman Islands judiciary and the attorney general’s office. Governor, H.E. Governor Duncan Taylor commissioned the report and the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) said afterwards:

“Disclosure would be prejudicial to the effective conduct of international relations between the United Kingdom and the Cayman Islands, which depends upon maintaining trust and confidence between the governments.”

So where is the “Freedom of Speech” in that? Freedom of Speech does not mean you can say or have the right to know what someone says or has said. It should, but it doesn’t.

And finally back to Mr. Bush. He is so against the “bad” reporting by the news media here and he wants everyone to “be educated” in his version of “freedom of speech” and “truth” he is going to operate his very own government television station.

I hear that the 6pm Evening news show is going to be called “News from the Bush”. I hope that isn’t true.  “Bush News”?