Regulating free press - friend or foe?

Everyone has heard of the Leveson inquiry. Everyone who has any inkling in finding out about the world, that is. Lord Justice Leveson was given an important task in the matter of whether or not the press needs an independent body to slice and dice. The inquiry followed the demise of News of the World, after their royal editor and a private investigator were convincted of illegal interception of phone messages. It seemed to transpire that the media was going rogue in attempts to sell.

Free press. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers". This concept is also covered by the same laws as freedom of speech, which gives equal rights to published and spoken opinion. It's probably worth noting that not all states are considered to have freedom of press, as it is a democratic concept not widly popular in totalitatian states such as China or Nepal. That, of course, leads to the concept of censorship, seeing as you can't have one without the other. The democratic ideology of freedom of speech dates back from the Ancient Athens, but it has its limitations, even in the 21st century.

In the case of the result of the Leveson inquiry, introducing an independent royal regulatory body in a country that has valued freedom of speech since the 17th century would probably end in disaster. Sure, the idea behind this is a respectable unbiased organisation, supposedly there to protect people's basic rights to privacy and freedom of speech. But seeing as it has been agreed among the country's main political parties, that is sufficient proof to understand how biased this ideal body would be. Like in any other country, independent of the regime, politics is a source of power and that means that people at the helm of this country can, and will, influence just about everything. It doesn't matter how much they try to convince us their objectives are the welfare of the system, ultimately all is reduced to a battle for power. And that's exactly what politics is. Every politician wants to leave something behind. But in order for them to achieve anything, they need power.

The regulatory body in charge of watching over the freedom of the press will end up in censorship. By applying the simplest of definitions of freedom of speech and censorship, any regulation of the now free press is censorship. Once newspapers and magazines sign on to this, there is no say to what they will or will not be allowed to publish in the future. And what about the Internet? How does the Leveson inquiry apply to a medium designed especially for the freedom of the media? I am in no way arguing that invading people's privacy in order to make the news is excusable. But it seems ridiculous to cripple the very basic definition of 'media' in order to make politics.

Alternative Media.

As I've studied just recently, alternative media is the kind of media that isn't commercially appealing. It isn't the same as radical media, although radical media can be considered alternative (as it doesn't fit into any mainstream area). Alternative media can be different in content, structure, economics and participants, as most well known studies have shown. But this isn't about the media in itself. As I was reading about the principle debate on mainstream and alternative media, it got me thinking about the social rules and order.

Heterosexual relationships are considered, if we apply this notion, to be mainstream. The society acknowledges and facilitates such relationships, because this is what we've come to know as 'normal' and 'expected'. We're brought into this world, we grow up and eventually old, and society expects us to go to school, get married, pop out a baby or five, then grow old with your more-or-less ideal mate. So. Let's take the four different elements that differentiate mainstream from alternative.

1. Participants.
One woman, one man.
2. Structure:
Heterosexual relationship.
3. Economics:
Usually, following the old-fashioned hierarchical pattern, where she earns less than him (if any), mostly in order to not wound the male ego.
3. Content:
Hopefully, those teeny-tiny babies I mentioned in the above paragraph. Maybe a holiday house somewhere mediocre at best. One joint account, holding savings for rainy days. A two-car garage, accompanied by your regular 3 bedroom house somewhere in the suburbs. And mostly nothing to talk about other than finances and brand diapers/cereal. He watches the game, while she sets up the dinner table.

That's socially acceptable. That's what mainstream is and while being utterly wrong, the media actually perpetuates that. Moving on.

Same-sex relationships. Ah, the alternative that this represents. Considered by many the devil incarnate, for it (apparently) breaks marriages and forces children to grow up abused and emotionally scarred. May I be the first one to point out that people in same-sex relationships were also brought up with the same societal rules? But just like alternative (not radical!) media, they may have taken a different path.

1. Participants:
Two people of the same gender. (i.e. two women, or two men)
2. Structure:
Same-sex relationship.
3. Economics:
You'd be surprised. Many people in same sex relationships also feel threatened by their spouse earning more, but we're just not inclined to make such a big deal out of it.
4. Content:
Again, what a surprise. With a slight variation, they too want the same boring things. A house of their liking, a car, some money saved for retirement and maybe even a toddler or two. Coming from a socially oppressed medium though, they will probably have more to talk about. Should they choose to do so.

The coverage in the media has made it quite clear that although same-sex marriage will be legalised (mostly likely), it would never mean the same thing as whatever it means now. I say 'whatever' because I'm fairly sure most people have lost the perspective on this issue and are just following the trend. Some say it's bad? Mainstream it as bad. Some claim it as a good thing? Hooray with the marriage (same-sex) bill.

There is a huge but in this whole thing, though. Most alternative media started out as outlandish and unheard of, but then got picked up by the mainstreamers and turned into something usual, common. Unless you think same-sex relationships are radical (which would mean they aim to change social order), that's exactly what's going to happen to this alternative idea. And then you have to wonder. What are you fighting for or against?