There was a lack of transparency in News Corp  The Media’s role is to increase transparency and bring others to account. Murdoch himself in his testimony to Leveson said "If we're a transparent society, a transparent democracy, let's have it out there" yet he has been exactly the opposite in terms of accountability and transparency. [1] The House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has published a report in which it concludes that the culture of the publication, News of the World, was “throughout, until it was too late, was to cover up rather than seek out wrongdoing and discipline the perpetrators, as they also professed they would do after the criminal convictions.” [2] The strategy was to blame individuals and when such a containment strategy failed to shut down the News of the World so as to protect top bosses. [3] News International was clearly not living up to high standards of transparency.  [1] Porter, Henry, ‘We are rid of Murdoch and that is worth celebrating’, guardian.co.uk, 28 April 2012.  [2] Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘News International and Phone-hacking’, House of Commons, Eleventh Report of the Session 2010-12, Vol.1, 1 May 2012, p.84  [3] Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ‘News International and Phone-hacking’, House of Commons, Eleventh Report of the Session 2010-12, Vol.1, 1 May 2012, p.67


We should not take Rupert Murdoch’s word for it that he does not seek to influence politicians and does not influence the editorial line of his newspapers. Andrew Neil, a former editor of the Sunday times argues Murdoch "had a quiet, remorseless, sometimes threatening way of laying down the parameters within which you were expected to operate ... stray too far too often from his general outlook and you will be looking for a new job." [1] This may not be complete control of the editorial line but it is certainly influencing it.  [1] B arr, Robert, ‘Praise, scepticism for Murdoch in UK newspapers’, Associated Press, 26 April 2012.


The Sun and the News of the World sold newspapers through sensationalism and sex, not content that was in the public interest. As such Murdoch’s success at selling newspapers should not have any bearing on whether he is a fit person to be in charge of a media corporation.


Having powerful media companies shields them from interference by governments.  An independent media is vital for democracy as it is a necessary check on over powerful politicians and government. The ‘fourth estate’ has a vital oversight function over government ensuring that elected representatives uphold their oath of office and really represent those who elected them. [1] In order for the press to be able to remain independent and able to carry out this function it needs to have powerful backers itself. Murdoch is one such backer. Multinational companies with large holdings spread across numerous countries can much easier resist government pressure than national or local newspapers without such backing as they can continue attacking a government regardless of the pressure an individual government puts upon it as the owners. Murdoch by making politicians dance to his tune was doing exactly what the press is supposed to do; preventing governments from being too powerful by appearing to have some power to bring the government down if necessary. If this translated into too much influence this was the fault of politicians not Mr Murdoch. [2]  [1] Center for Democracy and Governance Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support, and Research, ‘The Role of Media in Democracy: A Strategic Approach’, U.S. Agency for International Development, June 1999, p.3  [2] Wolff, Michael, ‘Rupert Murdoch before the Leveson inquiry’, guardian.co.uk, 23 April 2012.


Murdoch does not seek to influence politics.  It is a myth that Rupert Murdoch influences politics or seeks to get his way with powerful politicians. As Murdoch himself said in the Leverson Inquiry "I've never asked a prime minister for anything.” Instead it is politicians who go out of their way to impress people in the press. Even when it comes to the editorial lines of his newspapers Murdoch did not always influence them, he controlled the Sun but not the stance of the Times. [1]  [1] Holton, Kate and Prodhan, Georgina, ‘Murdoch denies playing puppet master to British elite’, Reuters, 25 April 2012,


Murdoch is effective at selling news  The first criteria for fitness to control a media company should be the ability to bring people the kind of content that they want to consume at a price they are willing to pay. Murdoch is undoubtedly good at this. When he took over the Sun in 1969 the sun was selling just over a million copies a day but by 1976 circulation was up to 3.7 million. [1] Murdoch has been very successful at selling newspapers, a declining industry, and has been supportive of both down market tabloids and quality broadsheets. That the News of the World up to its closure and The Sun have remained Britain’s most popular newspapers shows Murdoch is an effective media proprietor and fit to bring news to the people. If he was not customers would vote with their money.  [1] ‘The newspaper industry’, Monopolies and Mergers Commission, 1985, p.5


Just as with any method of control there need to be checks and balances on the media itself in order to ensure that the media remains honest. As Lord Justice Leveson put it in his opening remarks “The press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life. That is why any failure within the media affects all of us. At the heart of this Inquiry, therefore, may be one simple question: who guards the guardians?” [1] Murdoch has presided over a media company and newspapers that have not remained honest and have been too close to the politicians they are meant to be holding in check.  [1] ‘Background’, The Leveson Inquiry.


It is certainly true that restrictions on religious freedoms create internal conflict. It is however much more tenuous to argue this translates onto the international stage in such a way that countries need to tailor their foreign policy to respond to it.  If we go through the list of countries mentioned as states of concern in 1999 how many of their conflicts are the result of religious intolerance? Disagreements with China are over trade and general human rights and the same with Burma. With North Korea the conflict is a civil war that is a remnant of the cold war not a religious divide within Korea. The US did not invade Iraq because the Shiite or Christians were being persecuted but because of WMD officially or other reasons such as oil and democracy. In Iran similarly nuclear weapons are at the heat of the conflict and religious intolerance only enters into worries that these weapons may be used to destroy Israel. In Sudan the state was as brutal to Muslims in Darfur [1] as the Christians in the South and it was the former conflict that generated most attention from the west. In the Kosovo conflict there was certainly a religious element as that was part of the reason for Serbia attacking the Kosovars but it was more general human rights concerns that prompted NATO intervention – if Serbia had only been denying the right to practice Islam there would have been no intervention.  This leaves the Taliban and Saudi Arabia with the conflict as a result of 9/11 where religious intolerance can be said to be the primary cause. Should general policy hinge on religious tolerance based upon one conflict?  [1] See our debate on Darfur: Berman, Daniel, ‘This House believes that the US should have done more for Darfur’, Debatabase, 2011


Restrictions on religious freedom creates conflict  While there are often worries about allowing too much religious freedom in pluralistic countries and concern about the extremist agitation this sometimes allows in practice restricting religious freedoms leads to much more conflict than openness and tolerance. Brian J. Grimm and Roger Finke show that from 2000 to 2007 of 143 countries with populations over 2 million 123 countries (86%) have documented cases of people being physically abused or displaced because of religious persecution. With more than 10,000 affected in 25 countries. [1] This is because countries with higher levels of government favouritism of religion have a much higher level of social hostilities. [2] It is notable that the propensity for civil war is very high where there is very little religious freedom, for example Afghanistan or Mali, and similarly terrorist groups predominantly come from the same countries. [3] While conflict in other countries may not be considered a problem for other countries in practice when a country falls into civil war, as Libya did in 2011 and Syria in 2012, they become the major foreign policy issues requiring reaction even from powers that are distant from the conflict.  [1] Schirrmacher, ‘One of the most important Publications on the Topic of religious Freedom’, International Journal of Religious Freedom.  [2] ‘Rising Tide of Restrictions on Religion’, The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 20 September 2012,    [3] Schirrmacher, ‘One of the most important Publications on the Topic of religious Freedom’, International Journal of Religious Freedom


Religious pluralism is part of more general pluralism and tolerance. Where one occurs so it is likely that other forms of tolerance will also occur with the most religiously tolerant states being pluralistic democracies. The reason democratic peace has gained in popularity is the difficulty of finding conflicts where two democracies have fought each other. This is less difficult when considering two religiously tolerant societies. One difficulty would be working out when a society is tolerant when the UK and Argentina fought over the Falklands Argentina was certainly not a democracy but was it particularly intolerant? [1]  It is notable that Europe’s most tolerant period of history prior to the second half of the 20th century was the late 18th century when the enlightenment spread religious tolerance as far as Russia [2] but the French Revolution’s declaration “No one should be disturbed for his opinions, even in religion, provided that their manifestation does not trouble public order as established by law” certainly did not usher in an era of peace. [3]  Finally while the spread of democracy can explain the increase in interstate peace in the modern era it does not have a long history through which it can fall down. However religious tolerance has often been a norm before the idea of an exclusive god came along; Buddhism merged with Shinto and Daoism in Japan and China, the Roman empire regularly added gods from its conquests, and some of the world’s greatest conquerors such as Akbar in India have been open to all religions.  [1] ‘Religious intolerance in Argentina’, Report presented to the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief on the occasion of his visit to Argentina, 6 April 2001  [2] Corwin, Julie, ‘Russia: Catherine The Great’s Lessons On Religious Tolerance’, Radio Free Europe, 30 August 2006  [3] Hunt, Lynn, ‘The enlightenment and the origins of religious toleration’, Burgerhart Lectures, Nummer 4, 2011, p.9


It is religiously intolerant states that pose most threat  There is a strong correlation between states that are religiously intolerant and those that are a threat to other states and the international order. In 1999 Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, and Sudan were designated as countries of particular concern with regards to religious freedom. Also the Taliban and Serbia were also included and Saudi Arabia and North Korea were countries where “religious freedoms may be suppressed”. [1] All of these are countries are countries which over the next decade were to one way or another become major security concerns and several of them involved in conflicts with the United States and other countries. As William Inboden notes “Those actors with the most egregious religious-freedom violations are remarkably consonant with those that pose a potential threat to the United States and its interests... Stated simply: There is not a single nation in the world that both respects religious freedom and poses a security threat to the United States.” [2] Religious freedom therefore should be much higher up the priority list in terms of foreign policy.  [1] Statement, Robert A. Seiple, Ambassador-at-Large for International Freedom, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, regarding religious freedom, U.S. Department of State, 6 October 1999, (near the end)  [2] Inboden, William, ‘Religious Freedom and National Security’, Policy Review, No.175, 2 October 2012


These countries are not specifically religiously intolerant they are simply intolerant full stop. Usually it is not religion that is particularly singled out for intolerance but all possible forms of organised opposition. This is the case in Burma where monks lead marches against the Junta but the political opposition was treated in the same way with beatings and arrests, it was the act of opposition the regime was opposed to not its religious affiliation. In China today it is the organisation that matters – the state is concerned with large organisations like the Catholic Church or Fulan Gong but is happy for its citizens to be Christian, atheist, or Confucian so long as they are not part of a large organisation. [1] With dictatorial regimes the primary concern is the survival of the regime, organised religion is a threat to this, so religion is suppressed and instead a personality cult manufactured. This is only not the case when the existing dominant religion can be coopted to buttress the state which often leads to repression of religious minorities because they become the ones that are a threat.  [1] Gardam, Tim, ‘Christians in China: Is the country in spiritual crisis?’, BBC News, 12 September 2011


Religious pluralism creates a more tolerant and peaceful society  Democratic peace theory is the proposition that democratic states do not fight interstate wars against each other. And so far the empirical evidence is strong. [1] It has been suggested that ‘democratic peace’ is really liberal peace that relies less on simply having democracy (although that is likely to be a part) but upon liberal values such as rule of law, human rights, and free markets. [2] Inboden argues that this should include religious freedom creating a ‘religious-freedom peace’. [3] Essentially states that share these liberal values will be unwilling to go to war with each other precisely because they are tolerant of difference; if they are tolerant of difference internally then external tolerance with other countries that are tolerant even if they as a majority are a totally different religion. Tolerance means that religion can no longer be a point of anything more serious than diplomatic conflict.  [1] Ray, James Lee, ‘Does Democracy Cause Peace?’, Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 1998.  [2] Richmond, Oliver P, ‘Understanding the Liberal Peace’, University of St Andrews, p.1  [3] Inboden, William, ‘Religious Freedom and National Security’, Policy Review, No.175, 2 October 2012


It is not about the worth of promoting one thing rather than another. Resources are finite and no country can promote all its values, everywhere, and all the time. Choices need to be made and priorities in foreign policy set. That focus should be on promoting religious freedom. Promoting political rights has often resulted in regimes becoming less cooperative even when the policy is a success. For example the transition in Egypt has changed the country from being a key ally of the United States to a nation that is increasingly Islamist and potentially a threat to another key ally, Israel. Now 77% of Egyptians say "The peace treaty with Israel is no longer useful and should be dissolved." [1]  [1] Rogin, Josh, ‘New Poll: Egyptians turning toward Iran, want nuclear weapons’, The Cable Foreign Policy, 19 October 2012


That other nations foreign policies are not motivated either by religion or freedom of religion does not mean that ours should not be. Moreover our policy does not need to be motivated by religious freedom for us to recognise it as a worthwhile objective. The motivation for reaching the objective would be national security as is the case elsewhere. It would simply be based on the recognition that our security is best secured by having other countries that are equally tolerant towards all faiths with the attendant peaceful relations and cooperation this brings in their international relations.


Promoting religious freedom exacerbates conflict  Once a pluralistic religiously free society is created there may be less conflict, but how do we get to that stage? Promoting religious freedom itself creates diplomatic conflict between states because domestic religion is considered to be an area where states are sovereign so dislike interference. [1]  Promoting religious tolerance is not as well received by the people as the promotion of political rights. This is because often the dominant religion is favoured while minorities are those who are not tolerated. Countries trying to promote religious freedom are therefore not likely to find as much support from civil society as would be the case when advocating that citizens be allowed to vote in free and fair elections. The country promoting this freedom is pushing an agenda that is often contrary to centuries of ingrained habits and prejudices. It should not be surprising that even as the Arab spring was occurring there were attacks on Coptic churches, [2] while the communities may have been united by a desire for political change in the form of the overthrow of Mubarak such unity will only come very slowly when it comes to religious divides.  [1] Philpott, Dan, "Sovereignty", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition)  [2] Abiyzeud, Rania, ‘After the Egyptian Revolution: The Wars of Religion’, Time, 10 March 2011


Concentrating on religious freedom is too narrow, instead human rights in general should be considered  Of course religious freedom must be respected and democratic nations must try to encourage it but this is simply a part of much more general promotion of human rights rather than a priority in and of itself. It would be hypocritical to be highlighting the plight of the Copts in Egypt while ignoring gender equality in Saudi Arabia or the lack of political freedoms in Belarus. [1] All of these things are a part of the same agenda of encouraging human rights.  Moreover why should promoting religious freedom in Saudi Arabia be placed above promoting gender rights or political rights? Are the Shiites of the country somehow more worthy than the women? Currently the promotion of religious freedom is within human rights, so for example The Office of International Religious Freedom in the State Department is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. [2] Having religious freedom within promotion of human rights is the right approach to take as it means whichever human rights are most at risk can be promoted and aided in any given country and it encourages the linking of religious freedom with other freedoms. Egyptians may not be very receptive to religious freedom but obviously are to political freedom so religious freedom needs to be linked as a part of having political freedom.  [1] Chapman, Annabelle, ‘When doing nothing is free expression’, FreeSpeechDebate, 10 February 2012  [2] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ‘Religious Freedom’, U.S. Department of State


Religion does not motivate foreign policy  Religion is very rarely a motivation in foreign policy, it is unusual for it even to be a supporting factor and this is true even of countries that are domestically very religious. Instead foreign policy is primarily motivated by realist concerns about what is best for the country’s security (so preventing conflict, trying to make sure you have allies abroad etc), and its power in the form of a healthy economy.  Nations do promote their own values in areas such as human rights but this is because they believe the end point of these values is beneficial – democracies believe that if other states become democracies not only will they not fight but there will be more trade and it will be economically good all round. It is notable that when these kind of issues conflict with security and issues of power then human rights don’t affect policy. This has been particularly notable recently in conflicts in Libya and Syria, there is just as much humanitarian cause for intervention in Syria as there was in Libya [1] yet because Syria is ‘complex’ and other countries like Russia have opposing interests there will not be any intervention almost no matter how much killing by Syria’s Bashar al Assad. [2]  With religion an even more marginal influence in foreign policy than broad human rights concerns for most nations it is difficult to see why a nation should make religious freedom a priority.  [1] Crowley, Michael, ‘The Obama Doctrine: Syria vs. Libya Intervention’, Time, 1 June 2012  [2] Rogin, Josh, ‘NATO chief: Intervention just won’t work in Syria’, The Cable Foreign Policy, 29 February 2012


An objective being difficult does not mean it is not worthwhile pursuing it. In the case of Egypt it may now be a democracy but it is certainly not a tolerant society – it would therefore be wrong for supporters to say job done and stop supporting change. Yes there will be times when a dominant group objects to having to present their religious case in a free market place of ideas and so resort to violence but without such tolerance the country in question will never be a truly stable country that works for the benefit of all its citizens and plays a constructive role in global politics.


The problem with this approach is twofold; firstly it means that because of an implicit threat of force the majority have had their rights subordinated to the preferences of a minority. Regardless of the context of how this happens, this kind of precedent is always the first step on the road to tyranny. Secondly it is a recipe for social stagnation; if the state acts to prevent anyone from encountering views that they disagree with or might find disturbing then their view will never change and the state will find itself forever trapped in a paradigm of conflict and stagnation.


India has a specific need to main social cohesion  India’s post-independence history is one of partition along religious grounds with Pakistan and then open warfare with that state over territory. There is still a large Muslim minority in India and there are deep underlying social tensions within the country on this basis, along with frosty relations with a nuclear-capable Pakistan.  In this context, India’s leaders have a special reason to pay attention to the sensibilities of their minority populations. If allowing the publication of The Satanic Verses would result in social unrest then on the balance of harms it is a rational choice to make a limited restriction on freedom of speech rather than see potential millions having their property and lives threatened.


People have a right to choose their cultural values  Society has a right to choose and structure its values as it sees fit and there is no reason why the Western construction of values is right or should take priority over any other.  In Muslim countries faith may be a more important aspect of life that it might be in Western countries and it is entirely legitimate that those societies might choose to value protecting the dignity of their faith over absolute freedom of speech.


‘Freedom of speech’ is not so much a ‘cultural value’ so much as it is a vehicle for communicating and exploring different cultural values.


Freedom of Speech is but one right amongst many, including freedom of religion, and they are not intrinsically ranked against each other. The right of people to have and hold religious views without having those views demonised or insulted is a right that might easily be considered just as important.  Moreover the West is often hypocritical with how it defines the right to free speech – Western countries often restrict incitement to violence or speech which is insulting to individuals, or even just when that speech is against the national interest (such as with official secrets).  If it is legitimate to use state institutions such as the courts to protect individuals from insults, why is it illegitimate to use state institutions to protect religions from insults?


Freedom of Speech is a Universal Right  Freedom of speech and expression exists in any modern list of human rights. It is a fundamental right that is necessary for any society to function properly and for individuals to achieve happiness and fulfilment in their lives.  ‘Hurt and outrage’ are false harms – nobody suffers any damage from being exposed to an opposing view other than what they choose to suffer based on how close-minded they are. On the contrary, everybody has a chance to benefit when they are exposed to a foreign view or opinion, whether it be by changing their own view or being able to re-affirm their existing view in a new way.


Punishing the users of these extremist websites will not force these extremists to confront their views either. Punishing them is likely to create a victim mentality, a belief that the state is out to get them because of their beliefs not because of any particular act they may have committed. This is similarly likely to confirm them in their resentments and cause more radicalisation.


The internet is an echo chamber that will confirm extremists in their views if not stopped  The internet may be a free for all where all ideas and viewpoints can be found but that does not mean that all users view all these views. Instead the internet acts as an echo chamber that encourages people to believe their own views are correct and so get more extreme rather than challenging them. Eli Pariser author of a book called The Filter Bubble argues that the internet forces us to consume a very narrow range of views as search engines have been personalised with the intention of letting users find what they like so two people searching for the same thing on google can get very different results, for example when googling ‘BP’ during the oil spill one person might be directed to information about the spill and its environmental consequences while another might get just investment information. [1] When this kind of filtering is added to people constantly interacting with extremists and on websites praise and incite terrorism it is clear that users of these sites will get caught in a confirmation bias and conformation bias tends to lead to people becoming more polarised. [2] It is therefore the right policy to punish users of extremist websites before they become too radicalised as it is only a very short step from believing an attack is praiseworthy to carrying out similar attacks.  [1] Gross, Doug, ‘What the Internet is hiding from you’, CNN, 19 May 2011.  [2] Lord, C., Ross, L., and Lepper, M., ‘Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence’. JPSP, 1979, no.37, pp.2098-2109. Summary from faculty.babson.edu.


The proposition is assuming that we know what effect visiting extremist websites will have, we don’t. For some regularly visiting websites that promote violence may end up sickening them and encouraging them to re-evaluate their views rather than further radicalising them. The best way to prevent heinous terrorist acts is not to lock people up on minor offenses but to amass evidence of the much larger offences they are planning and convict them for those offenses rather than a law that will catch many innocents as well as the guilty.


There needs to be a deterrent against those thinking of visiting extremist websites  National security concerns around terrorism mean that it is necessary to have a deterrent that will help prevent the recruitment of terrorists. Terrorism is one of the biggest threats to western countries today and this is potentially an effective way of dealing with it.  Traditional military responses to terrorism do not work due to terrorists’ underground nature and decentralised cell structure that operates throughout the world. It is even questionable whether ‘al Qaeda’ as a group exists at all except as an identity for those wanting to attack the west to operate under. Efforts against terrorism therefore need to be aimed at preventing radicalisation and stopping individuals rather than attempting to destroy the whole group known as al Qaeda. This law not only deters people from becoming extremists through making them think twice about visiting extremist websites but it also helps to deter promoters of extremism through denying them an audience. [1]  If punishing users of extremist websites prevents even a few people who would otherwise have visited these websites from doing so and setting out on a part of radicalisation that leads to terrorism then it will have been a success.  [1] Kroenig, Matthew and Pavel, Barry, ‘How to Deter Terrorism’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.35, No.2, Spring 2012, pp.21-36, p.25.


There is no evidence that a deterrent like this works, we will never know who might have been radicalised but was not because they were deterred from visiting extremist websites. However if those visiting these websites really are terrorists then a spell in prison is not going to deter them. Moreover this is not a good way of preventing radicalisation as it does not get to the key issues. Instead of prosecuting those who visit extremist websites they must be shown how those views are wrong, something that can only be done through debate and discussion, [1] locking them up will not do this.  [1] Rothschild, Nathalie, ‘How can debate challenge extremism?’, guardian.co.uk.


Link between visiting extremist websites and being radicalised  Regardless of whether as Sarkozy claims Mohammed Merah would himself have been stopped earlier had this law been in place at the time this law will catch some terrorists in the future and stop them before they can do large amounts of harm. Punishing users of extremist websites will mean that the government can stop those who are on a path to radicalisation through their access to the internet and as a result this will help neutralise a key tool used by extremists to radicalise others.  There have already been examples of people being inspired to carry out violent jihad through material online such as Roshonara Choudhry who after watching some of Anwar Al Awlaki’s sermons online attempted to murder Labour MP Stephen Timms. [1] This kind of legislation would mean that he could be punished for the lesser crime thereby preventing him from being able to engage in much more damaging criminal activities. Simply put if extremists are behind bars they are not engaging in terrorist attacks that could kill many people.  [1] Dodd, Vikram, ‘YouTube urged to delete radical cleric’s sermons’, guardian.co.uk, 28 February 2011.


Many of the worries raised about who might be charged under such laws are irrelevant, judges and juries will be able to tell when someone is a journalist or intelligence official who does not have any criminal intent. Others who are visiting these extremist sites based upon ideology and yet are never going to engage in terrorist attacks themselves may well still provide financial or other support to those who do commit more violent acts. [1] A primary aim of the law is “to forbid and prevent conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests” [2] something that this does by through preventing more major crimes by prosecuting for a minor crime. We should also remember that the punishment need not be disproportionate as it could simply mean restricting the guilty party’s internet access rather than prison.  [1] Kroenig, Matthew and Pavel, Barry, ‘How to Deter Terrorism’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.35, No.2, Spring 2012, pp.21-36, p.24.  [2] Duff, Antony, "Theories of Criminal Law", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).


Criminalisation will prevent radicalisation by stopping users accessing the most extreme content. Sites such as YouTube and Facebook already police themselves and are unlikely to allow extremist materials to remain online for extended periods in the face of public pressure. [1] It is for extremist websites where public pressure can have no effect that needs the law to step in by punishing those who are regularly visiting those sites and being radicalised by them.  [1] Google, ‘Our approach to free expression and controversial content’, googleblog, 9 March 2012.


Criminalisation creates more problems than it solves  A law that punishes users of extremist websites would create a whole host of practical problems. Most obviously how are the authorities to monitor who are visiting extremist websites without a large expansion of a surveillance society that already exists? [1] There would need to be large scale monitoring of what websites everyone visits or at least the ability for governments to get records from internet service providers, potentially a grave breach of individual’s right to privacy.  Laws are only effective if those who are subject to the law have some idea of what that law means and what they should not be doing. [2] A good law should define what exactly the criminality is and this law would almost certainly have many problems with definitions. What makes someone a regular or habitual visitor? A few visits too many sites, hundreds of visits, regular visits once a week? There will also be challenges working out which websites should be considered extremist and even then how is a user to know that a website they visit is considered an ‘extremist’ website? Any type of warning would be counterproductive as no one would ever be caught and extremists would keep changing websites. This would create a climate of fear on the internet due to ambiguity about what is acceptable and what might result in being thrown into prison. While itself a terrible infringement of freedom of expression at least blocking access to some websites has the advantage of showing what the state considers unacceptable.  [1] Ball, Kirstie et al., ‘A Report on the Surveillance Society’, Surveillance Studies Network, September 2006, p.1.  [2] Robinson, Paul, ‘The Role of Deterrence in the Formulation of Criminal Law Rules: At Its Worst When Doing Its Best’, Scholarship at Penn Law, Paper 51, p.31.


Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right.  Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that is recognised universally as is shown by its inclusion in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1] This however should not just be taken as the freedom to have an opinion but also as the freedom to “seek and receive… information and ideas through any media”, being cut off from information that a person is seeking is as much an infringement of human rights as preventing them from voicing their opinion. [2] People are denied their voice as much by not having access to information as by not being allowed to speak because access to information is fundamental in the process of being able to form those opinions. Learning and opinion forming cannot exist within a vacuum access to information that enables this. This freedom includes the freedom to access extremist websites as often as you wish without being punished for this action, we cannot prejudge what opinion will be formed from access to this information let alone what actions may result from that opinion.  [1] The General Assembly of the United Nations, ‘Article 19’, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948.  [2] Best, Michael L., ‘Can the Internet be a Human Right?’ Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol.4 2004, p.24


There is a lack of proportionality in punishing users of extremist websites  It is a basic principle of fairness that punishment should fit the crime. [1] In this case the crime is visiting a website, something that in itself may cause no harm at all so why should there be punishment? At best such a law would be punishing on the basis of future harm the accused would otherwise cause if not punished while at worst it would be an arbitrary punishment for people who would never have committed any harm at all.  Not everyone who visits extremist websites is themselves an extremist or is going to be radicalised even after regular visits. Moreover not every person with extremist views is either themselves violent or intending to promote violence. Finally there are a large number of people who regularly visit extremist websites with the purpose of monitoring them; these may be members of the police, the intelligence services, those simply wanting to understand the other and journalists attempting to keep up with extremist trends. What such a law would be doing would be criminalising curiosity.  [1] Hirsch, Andrew Vvon, ‘Proportionality in the Philosophy of Punishment’, Crime and Justice, Vol.16 (1992), pp.55-98.


Criminalisation will not stop radicalisation  How will criminalising visiting extremist websites prevent radicalisation? Those who know about the law will simply look for the same material that they used to find on extremist websites elsewhere on the internet either through social networks such as Facebook and twitter, where for example Muhammad al-Arefe a Saudi cleric who has issued a fatwa endorsing violence against non-Muslims has over a million followers, [1] or other immense sites such as youtube. Radicalisation over the internet will therefore not be stopped by punishing users of certain websites.  Indeed such punishment of users of extremist websites may well end up creating more radical extremists than it prevents. Merah himself when talking to police negotiators before his death told them that it was being sent to prison for 18 months for driving without a licence that provoked his outrage against France and path to murder. This law would be putting more young men in prison and therefore potentially radicalising them through giving them something to be angry about, the opportunity to meet real extremists and demonstrating why the extremists believe the west should be attacked. [2]  [1] Kessler, Oren, ‘Saudi clerics use social media to spread hate’, Jerusalem Post, 10 May 2012.  [2] Lando, Barry, ‘New Laws Pushed by Nicolas Sarkozy After Toulouse Massacre Go Too Far’, The Daily Beast, 24 March 2012.


Freedom of expression carries with it duties and responsibilities which mean that this freedom may be subject to restrictions or penalties as the European Convention on Human Rights recognises. [1] In this case there is a national security interest and potentially a public safety interest to punish those who are accessing damaging information. Freedom of expression does not therefore apply to extremist websites that are inciting people to engage in acts of terrorism.  [1] Council of Europe, ‘Article 10’, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.


This ‘climate of fear’ would only apply to those who know that what they are looking for is wrong. For these people if it does create a climate of fear then this is beneficial as it helps to create deterrence. Government would only be monitoring those it already suspects of extremism so ordinarily law abiding citizens need not be worried about surveillance as it will not affect them.


Money cannot be considered a form of symbolic expression the same way burning a flag is. Money only magnifies a certain idea, by giving it a greater platform. It is not a constitutive part of speech, or speech in itself. If someone burns a flag in political protest the point she’s making does not become more powerful or popular by burning additional flags, nor does her influence become directly proportional to the amount of flags she burns. The symbolic gesture of a donation and the endorsement that comes with it does not also require the right to spend unlimited sums of money to express one’s support.


Money as “symbolic expression”.  Not only is money instrumental to effective political communication, the expenditure of money in support of a campaign or cause is also, in itself, a form of political expression. The gesture of donating money expresses one’s allegiance to and endorsement of a candidate’s or organization’s stance on the issues that form the political discourse of the society we live in. It is a basic way of political engagement. It is also one which is most readily available to any citizen. Therefore, donating money is a speech act which needs to be protected, in the same way burning a flag is considered to be a gesture of “symbolic expression” which is protected by the First Amendment [1] .  [1] Eugene Voloch, “Flag Buring and Free Speech”, Wall Street Journal 2009.


Money gives a megaphone to one point of view. That view then gains more notoriety by spending more money to advance and promote it, by using mass media to bring it to the attention of a broader group of people, by hiring advocates to persuade a broader audience, by creating hype around an issue or candidate, with financial resources. Figuring out what came first, the money or the popularity these candidates gained; is a chicken or egg dilemma. Money and popularity are part of a self-reinforcing cycle


Money is intrinsic to political speech.  In Buckley, the Justices declared: “virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money. The distribution of the humblest handbill or leaflet entails printing, paper, and circulation costs. Speeches and rallies generally necessitate hiring a hall and publicizing the event. The electorate's increasing dependence on television, radio, and other mass media for news and information has made these expensive modes of communication indispensable instruments of effective political speech.” [1] In the 2008 election, presidential candidates spent 1.7 billion dollars on their campaigns [2] . This helps to show that nowadays, the effective communication of political ideas cannot be achieved without the expenditure of money. Therefore, one cannot protect political speech and at the same time place restrictions on the main resource which makes it possible, there is little point in freedom to elucidate ideas without the ability to spread those ideas. Spending money has become an inextricable component of political communication.  [1] U.S. Supreme Court BUCKLEY v. VALEO, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).   [2] Jonathan D. Saland, “Spending Dobuled as Obama Led First Billion Dollar Race in 2008”, Bloomberg 2008.


Something can be an appendage to a right. But it does not mean the government has an obligation to afford it the same protections as the right itself. Effective communication of political ideals also requires access to airways, printing presses, campaign staff, etc. But the government has no obligation to treat access to these as a Constitutional, inviolable right, on par with one’s freedom to say what she pleases.  An expression of an opinion is protected strictly by the letter of the law. However, the Citizen's United decision effectively expands this protection to two new entities: 1) non-person and 2) act of spending. Rather than reinterpreting current legislation that protects free speech, new laws ought to be created seeking to protect these two entities from committing to political expressions. And, this has to be exercised through the legislative branch rather than judicial.  With the Citizen's United decision, the judicial branch is effectively writing new legislation that is 1) recognizing corporate entities to have same political expression rights as citizens/individuals and 2) redefining the act of spending to be the same as an expression of an opinion as well as an act of demonstrating an expression of an opinion.


Money as a metric of support for political ideas.  Money is actually a very effective way of gauging the success of the ideas presented to the electorate, it shows the best political ideas and personalities in the through the market. It is often argued that politicians who spend a lot of money win elections. However, when this hypothesis was scientifically tested, it turned out that in fact successful and popular candidates merely attracted more money, the same way they attract more volunteers, more endorsers, and more votes [1] . Therefore, money, like an endorsement, is just a demonstrative way of throwing one’s weight behind a candidate one agrees with. Viewed in this context, money is not some sinister device for unpopular ideas to rise to the top against the will of the majority, but, like an endorsement, a form of speech supporting those ideas which are already popular enough to attract it.  [1] Steven D. Levitt “Using Repeat Challengers to Estimate the effect of Campaign Spending on Election Outcomes to the U.S. House”. The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 102, Issue 4, August 1994, pp. 777-798.


This point of view assumes an inherent virtue of middle of the road, status quo ideas, and picks winners and losers before the debate even gets a chance to occur. It presupposes that certain ideas automatically deserve less ‘airtime’ than others because at the moment they happen to be unpopular. Every great idea which moved the debate forward and modernized the world, from the abolition of slavery to universal suffrage, started as a fringe, unpopular idea at one time. Unpopular ideas, whether they turn out to be good or bad, might need a financial boost to join the debate that may establish their value. They cannot simply be pre-emptively deemed unworthy before even being scrutinized in the marketplace of ideas.


Money is a fungible resource and can fulfil different roles depending on the context in which it is used. It can be exchanged for almost anything and should be treated differently according to the circumstances in which it is used. It can be exchanged food, housing, weapons, medicine, services, hired hands. More conventional examples of property, such as real estate, or a car, have no equally fungible characteristic. When it is used to advance political debate, money becomes inherent to political speech. Therefore, in the context of campaign contributions and expenditures money deserves the protections of the First Amendment.


Unlimited political contributions undermine fair democratic representation.  Allowing for unlimited political contributions under the protection of the First Amendment distorts one of the most fundamental democratic tenets, the principle of fair representation – “one person, one vote.” [1] The Supreme Court has in the past also recognized this principle to mean more than the right to cast one vote which is counted equally. In Reynolds v Sims the Court held that “full and effective participation by all citizens in state government requires… that each citizen has an equally effective voice in the election of members of the state legislature”. [2] Such an “equally effective voice” is undermined by one individual or organization being able to influence the votes of thousands or hundreds of thousands through the deployment of financial resources which the average voter does not possess. This undermines the fair scheme of representation that is fundamental to a veritable democracy.  [1] John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Chapter 12: “Maintaining the Fair Value of Political Liberties”  [2] Reynolds v Sims, U.S. Supreme Court, 1964.


Money stifles, it does not advance debate.  We protect speech under almost all circumstances and cherish its freedom as a tenet of democracy because it enhances debate and better decision-making. We believe that in the free marketplace of ideas, where everyone is given an equal opportunity to advance competing points of view, based on ever more complete information, voters will be better informed to make the right choice for themselves in the voting booth. But money, unlike speech, does not have the intrinsic property of enhancing a debate. At best, it can be a facilitator for the debate, without having communicative value of its own. But at worst, instead of enhancing the democratic debate, it distorts it, by giving certain ideas disproportionate influence, based not on the value and strength of their arguments, but on the spending power of their supporters. A clear example is the U.S. Tea Party movement, which has not enriched the debate in American politics. It has made it acrimonious, divisive, and radicalized. The Tea Party has empowered the fringes of American extremism. One has to wonder if these ideas would have done so well on their own, without having been bankrolled by millionaires like Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers [1] . It may also be used to stifle the other side; it is notable that in the 2012 presidential campaign more than 80% of adverts were negative so not attempting to inform voters. [2] For this reason, not only does money not fulfil the role which earns speech its expansive protections, it actively works against it. Money should be tightly controlled, not equated to speech and given limitless protection.  [1] Frank Rich, “The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party”, New York Times 2010.   [2] “Mad Money: TV ads in the 2012 presidential campaign”, Washington Post, 14 November 2012.


Money is property.  In his concurring opinion in Nixon v Shrink Missouri Government Pack, Justice John Paul Stevens said: “Money is property; it is not speech. Speech has the power to inspire volunteers to perform a multitude of tasks on a campaign trail, on a battleground, or even on a football field. Money, meanwhile, has the power to pay hired labourers to perform the same tasks. It does not follow, however, that the First Amendment provides the same measure of protection to the use of money to accomplish such goals as it provides to the use of ideas to achieve the same results.” [1] In other words, simply because money and speech can be means to the same end, it does not automatically mean they deserve the same level of protection. The freedom to use one’s property as she sees fit is different from allowing someone to say what she pleases.  [1] Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, U.S. Supreme Court 2000


Taken to its logical conclusion, such an argument can have anti-democratic implications. Perhaps the government should also cap the amount of time someone can volunteer to a political campaign or in support of a political cause. Other members of the electorate might have greater time or financial constraints which may not permit them to dedicate equal amounts of time influencing the votes of their fellow citizens. And if one advocate is superior in eloquence, persuasion, or charisma to others, should she not be permitted to use her talents in support of her cause or candidate, because her voice is essentially “more effective”, to paraphrase the Court? Such an outcome-focused approach to the definition of fair representation ends up infringing on citizens’ fundamental right to pursue the advancement of their interests within the democratic debate.


There are already laws in place to respond to the fabrication of evidence in support of a news report. Libel laws already prevent newspapers from making attacks based on untruths or even ones that are true but are not in the public interest.  There is no doubt that times are tough for the British Press – as they are for newspapers around the world – but the overwhelming majority of journalists and publications have responded to that by diversifying the platforms they use for delivering the news. In addition to which they have embraced a 24-hour approach to delivering the news and, for many, the print platform is now seen as a ‘legacy project’.  To constrain and obstruct the hard work and harder principles of the overwhelming majority of journalists because of the actions of a desperate few would really throw the baby out with the bath water.


The British tabloid press isn’t so much free as in freefall. Tabloid journalism in the UK has always been reckless and arrogant in pursuit of the trivial, but as advertising revenue dwindles that trend looks set to get worse  The media increasingly resembles one of the drug addicts it is usually so keen to condemn. As competition over dwindling advertising revenue becomes increasingly bitter, papers become ever more desperate for the next hit story –normally represented by celebrity gossip or a minor scandal. Such content has nothing to do with bold investigative journalism and everything to do with muck-racking for salacious stories and- when that doesn’t work- simply fabricating them.  Creating the impression that Millie Dowler was still alive was simply the most grotesque of a series of activities that put sales way ahead of truth.


t is entirely fair to say that the way we approach and share information has changed beyond recognition in the last thirty years. There have been innumerable efforts made to control high-speed information networks and all have failed.  To hobble journalists with constraining regulation is as impractical as it is reckless at a time when they are no longer competing with a handful of their peers, but also a wider network of information exchange between semi-professional bloggers and capricious groups such as Anonymous and 4chan/b, who spread lies and discord disguised as “entertainment”.  It is surely better that stories should be put together by trained and acreddited journalists and published through businesses that are bound by libel and other laws than to have them drip out through social media, as was seen with the Ryan Giggs affair over super-injunctions. Introducing regulation would be self-defeating simply because of this fact [i] .  [i] Lucy Buckland. “'It went from thrilling to seedy... I was a fool to risk everything': Natasha Giggs confesses her regrets over Ryan affair”. Daily Mail. 23 December 2011,


The British tabloid press has proved singularly incapable of regulating – or for that matter restraining – itself.  The phone hacking scandal is simply a new low in the recent, tawdry life of the tabloid press. As the Leveson Inquiry is discovering, the use of private detectives, bribing police officers, and trailing the children of celebrities all seem to be common tricks not just for the News of the World but for tabloid journalism as an industry.  Indeed, the journalist who broke the story for the Guardian admitted to the Levenson inquiry that he had hacked a phone on one occasion. Despite the protestation of the Guardian’s editors [i] that “99 percent” of journalists wouldn’t know how to hack a phone, such practices and a culture that invades privacy seems commonplace.  [i] Statement by Alan Rusbridger to the Leveson Inquiry.


It is part of the nature of journalism that it tends to say and reveal things that many people would rather remained unsaid and concealed. On the subject of working with police officers, papers have held the feet of police officers to the fire over many investigations including the Stephen Lawrence murder.  It is further worth bearing in mind that the collusion of senior members of the Metropolitan police with tabloid journalists was revealed not by a police investigation but by an investigative reporter.  Police and politicians may like their incompetence or corruption to take place behind closed doors, but that is the very reason for fostering and protecting a vigorous and interventionist press that is willing to bend the rules to find the truth.


There have to be limits to the permissible levels of intrusion into people’s lives, in an increasingly connected world people- celebrities or not- have never been more conscious of this simple fact.  In an age when any fool with a cell phone and a twitter account can snap a topless pop star on the beach, tabloid hacks are under greater pressure than ever to go the extra mile. There is little reason to doubt that they will. Privacy is already one of the dominant legal issues of our age that looks likely to become ever more the case.  Against that background, when a flat out lie can be broadcast around the world in seconds, clearly a different legal and regulatory framework is needed from the old days of print where an apology was actually relevant – however begrudgingly given.


The idea that stopping journalists rummaging through the bins of private citizens in pursuit of credit card statements on the off-chance they might have done something unusual is hardly likely to bring down the entire edifice of freedom and democracy.  Indeed, there is a clear democratic mandate for the robust protection of privacy- informed by the basic equality that underlies rule-of-law- derived from the revulsion that most people feel at the actions of certain parts of the press. As in any profession- including law, medicine and politics- practitioners are allowed discretion on the understanding that they won’t abuse it.  In this instance, the discretion leant to the political class has been routinely and systematically abused over a period of decades, to little benefit. All of the examples that Opposition has been able to cite have been the result of old-fashioned, dogged investigation and courageous writing and editorship.  If regulation gets journalists away from the addiction to celebrity, away from the easy sells of sex and venality and back into the better traditions of the trade, it may serve to revive the entire newspaper industry.


We should remember that the original defence of the NoW was that phone hacking had been carried out by just ‘one rogue reporter’ [i] and that defence has crumbled at every stage. It quickly became clear that others at the paper were involved, then that others in the group and now, apparently, that the practice was fairly commonplace at other papers.  Had this been just one bad apple then the idea that no new regulation was really needed for the otherwise good and noble folk of medialand might stand. As evidence- and a string of arrests among the News of the World’s senior staff- has demonstrated, flaunting of the law, of basic ethical standards and of simple honesty was rife at the news of the world, and is likely to have been used frequently in the newsrooms of the NoW’s rivals.  [i] Huffington Post. “Julian Pike, News Of The World Solicitor, Says He Knew That Phone Hacking Was Widespread In 2009”. 11 January 2012.


Who does the regulating? All of the obvious bodies – police, parliament and so on – haven’t exactly shown themselves to be whiter than white in the last year or so.  Newspapers are at least accountable to their readers and it is worth noting that exactly the kinds of stories now under the spotlight are the ones that prove the most popular. Further they already work within a legal framework and are accountable to the courts when they break laws governing libel, privacy or theft of information.  When we look at the possible candidates for overseeing the media, the line-up is fairly unimpressive and all have an obvious self-interest: MP’s expenses scandal was revealed by journalists, corruption and incompetence (as well as racism previously) at the Metropolitan Police was uncovered by journalists. That would only leave them accountable to the courts, which they already are, or a regulatory body comprising other papers and the public, which they already are.


All of those involved in the phone hacking cases broke laws. Existing laws. They can be prosecuted under existing frameworks and cases are already being pursued. There is no need for another set of controls  We should be very cautious when giving politicians- in particular- the power to control what is said about them. Whatever Lord Leveson suggests, chances are those decisions will need to go before parliament.  The actions of the British media may frequently be distasteful and those who read the so-called ‘quality’ press may find the obsession of the tabloid press with matters that mostly seem trivial and tawdry offensive. However, the liberty that- almost incidentally- allows tabloid newspapers to produce populist pablum, enables broadsheets to maintain an excoriating and forensic oversight of the political class as a whole. The recent Parliamentary expenses scandal would be unthinkable in many countries: analysis undertaken by the press as a whole demonstrating a culture of corruption across the entire political class, not only breathtaking in its extent but also a clear mark of just how far politicians had moved from the realities of day-to-day life for people who actually pay for their own house.  In this regard, journalistic license is the price of liberty.


The overwhelming majority of journalists would not know – and wouldn’t want to know – how to hack a phone and it is unfair to restrict them because a few do  Introducing regulation on the basis that a handful of journalists have broken laws that already exist – and were caught doing so by other journalists – seems odd, to say the least.  There is little doubt that there was something extremely murky going on at the News of the World but it is worth remembering that the paper has since been shut down.  To any observer this looks an awful lot like politicians using the excuse of one newspaper’s poor conduct- which, it is worth repeating, has been shuttered- to attempt to regulate the rest. One of the popular suggestions at the moment is that no journalist should be able to print a story about a politician without getting their permission first. Such a rule would strike at the very heart of a free press.


It is, of course, a matter for Lord Leveson and his inquiry to make recommendations on what the final regulatory framework should be. However the idea that newspapers are already accountable in an appropriate manner simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. There is, if nothing else, compelling popular support [i] on such a scale that, apparently the readers of the newspapers in question are uncertain as to whether they are up to the job themselves.  There has also been an undercurrent in the press which amounts to “well people bought it so it’s their fault really”, which also doesn’t stand up to analysis. Readers of newspapers should surely be allowed to assume that the journalists who gather their news- and style themselves as professionals- act both legally and ethically. It is not the job of readers to double check the facts and activities behind a story.  [i] BBC Website. “Poll suggests public want much tighter press controls”. 14 December 2011.


It seems unlikely that it will become any less iconic after publication. Indeed the very fact that it has been published is likely to be hailed as a great victory. Neo-Nazis in Germany and elsewhere will not present this as the result of the elapse of copyright and a measured response by the state. As in any comparable situation, it will be presented as a victory. To take one example, when fascist leaders are interviewed on television or invited to speak in university debates, those actions are presented to their followers as proof of how seriously they are now being taken by the mainstream. None of those followers will be aware that their leader was roundly thrashed, because they didn’t watch the interview and didn’t attend the debate. Similarly the book will be waved, unopened at rallies to demonstrate to the faithful that progress is being made.


Banning the book would have simply increased its role as an iconic symbol.  Extreme parties frequently thrive when they are able to present themselves as being suppressed by a supposed elite. Their ability to portray themselves as being unfairly silenced by a capricious elite has long been used to attract support by parties on the far-right in Europe and elsewhere. For example the far right National Democratic Party went to court to get its newsletter delivered by the postal service. [i] Indeed, given the weakness of many of the arguments they make, silencing them has frequently been far more self-defeating than opening up their beliefs to scrutiny [ii] .  As long as Mein Kampf remained unavailable it acquired the inevitable allure of the unattainable. The book could be presented as having a status far beyond what it is – the ill thought-out and self-indulgent ramblings of a bad writer.  At the moment the book is not, per se, banned, it’s just that the owners of the copyright haven’t allowed publication until now. As a result, come 2016, there would have needed to be an intervention in the normal flow of events to prevent its subsequent publication; Munich’s Institute for Contemporary History had already said it would publish the book. [iii] This would have given the impression that mainstream German society was in some way afraid of the book or its contents and given credence to the suggestions of extremists that there is no effective response to their arguments. By publishing the book in this manner, the state removes both the allure of the hidden icon for devotees and any commercial interest for other publishers. Added to which, those prepared to plough through it (even Mussolini said that it was boring) will at least be rewarded with historical insights from leading scholars.  [i] Reuters, ‘German far right in legal battle over free speech’, Yahoo News, 29 June 2012,   [ii] Bavaria to publish ‘unattractive’ new edition of Mein Kampf. Tony Paterson. The Independent. 26 April 2012.  [iii] Relax News, ‘’Mein Kampf’ to see its first post-WWII publication in Germany’, The Independent, 6 February 2010,


Presenting Mein Kampf as a text for critical discussion gives the impression, at least, that those who supported its arguments and those who decried them were somehow on an equal footing. Having the massed ranks of German academia comment on it is likely to add to its credibility rather than detracting from it as it will suggest that the ideas are worthy of analysis. Treating the text in such a way would be akin to teaching theories of a flat earth in Geography. No child is likely to get through their school career without some discussion of WWII, proposition has failed to demonstrate what, exactly, this would add to that situation.


It was not the powerful arguments that are made in Mein Kampf that led to the atrocities of Nazi Germany, mostly because there are none.  The content of the book is not grounds for supressing its publication or use and so, all other things being equal, there should be a presumption in favour of publication. There is an entirely understandable interest in the publication of the book in a country where it is so notorious. It’s important to bear in mind that this is not a bomb making manual and most experts feel that the arguments are weak to the point of absurdity [i] – and the commentary will serve to enforce that point. The content of the book, in and of itself, were not therefore grounds for continued suppression of the text.  Generally speaking, it seems a relatively sensible rule of thumb that if there is no direct harm that can be shown as a result of publication and there is sufficient interest to merit doing so then it would normally be published [ii] . By doing so ahead of the end of the copyright, the state will prevent commercial publishers making a profit and this should dampen down the impact of its arrival.  It is standard to take such a presumption in favour of publication in many other circumstances, even where some groups may find doing so offensive – the Satanic Verses being a case in point. [iii]  There is no doubt that the book also has an iconic significance but that might also be said of Das Kapital and, more explicitly, the works of Lenin and Mao but they remain in print for both scholarly and popular consumption.  It seems sensible to treat Mein Kampf as just another book. If this were a recently discovered autobiography by another significant historical figure, it would almost certainly be published - even if it wasn’t very good.  [i] Mein Kampf: Bavaria plans first German edition since WWII. BBC Website. 25 April 2012.  [ii] Viewpoint: Let Germans read Mein Kampf. Stephen J Kramer. BBC News. 10 May 2012.  [iii] Devji, Faisal, ‘Does Salman Rushdie exist?’, Free Speech Debate, 13 March 2012,


There is no such thing as a ‘presumption in favour of publication’. Publishers don’t publish books all the time – and absolutely nobody cries free speech. Proposition have said it themselves, the arguments aren’t persuasive. However, having it published at all would have given the work a degree of credibility it doesn’t deserve, having it published with the authority of the state will redouble that. Many of the neo-Nazis who see it as iconic would, in all probability, never have got as far as actually reading the book – let alone any commentary – but they will see a book written by Hitler from the print of the state of Bavaria.


The ban achieved no practical impact in the Internet age as it was not global.  If there were not already easy access to the book through the Internet [i] , then it might be possible to argue that there was some practical purpose to be served by continuing its suppression. However, when any disaffected teenager can gain easy access to the text while sitting alone in their bedroom, it seems foolish that it cannot also be examined in the cooler light of their history class.  The issue is not access to the text; it’s not even really about ownership of the book – both of which are already possible – but rather about how the book is treated. Not publishing or using the book up until now has simply maintained a situation that was put in place after WWII, which in some ways served a purpose, of saying there was no particular reason for a change at any particular time during that process. However, as the seventieth anniversary of the end of the war comes into view, it seems reasonable that the book should be treated as exactly what it is; an interesting historical artefact, to be examined as one might any other.  [i] For example through Project Gutenberg, here .


All of which goes to show how ridiculous bans are in practice as a political tool. When neo-Nazis arrive at rallies with an assortment of black geometric shapes on a white background surrounded by red, nobody stands around trying to figure out what the reference might be. In the same way banning publication of the book doesn’t expunge it from history, everyone still knows it was written, who write it, and broadly what it’s about. It is the symbolism behind the icon, rather than the artifact itself, that caries the significance. As a result banning the artifact achieves little.


If the publication of other versions is ‘inevitable’ then it makes sense for those versions to be framed within the narrative set by a version grounded in scholarship and critical discourse. Indeed the very process of allowing people to understand that different versions of the same text can fulfill radically different roles is welcome development in its own right. It is also likely that by the time copyright runs out, people’s curiosity will have been largely sated by the official version.


Money for blood.  If Mein Kampf were presented by a contemporary writer to a contemporary publisher, nobody would go near it; simply because nobody would buy it. There is virtually no market for books of its kind, of which it is a poor example, and even those who might be interested in what it has to say tend not to be known for their book buying enthusiasm.  The overwhelming reason why this would be bought is either out of morbid curiosity or the desire, on the part of neo-Nazis to own an icon. Even one of the editors of the version to be published, Edith Raim, has said "Our book won't find any buyers in the Neo-Nazi scene. It's going to be a solid scientific work". [i] No doubt both will happen. Selling the book will result in profits from both groups – particularly the latter for whom possession of the physical thing itself is likely to be more important. Those sales will result in profits and it seems distasteful that any profit should be made – either by the state of Bavaria or subsequent publishers of other versions. This wouldn’t be published on the basis of the book itself, the only thing that is driving those profits is the historical role of Hitler, his notoriety and his atrocities.  [i] Evans, Stephen, ‘Mein Kampf: Bavaria plans first German publication since WWII’, BBC News, 25 April 2012,


Publication is inconsistent with other legislation.  Publication of the book provides another symbol for European neo-Nazis who present a very real threat. The Swastika and Nazi salute remain banned in Germany and other jurisdictions; this should be added to that list. [i]  If Mein Kampf were one of a kind, there might be an argument in favour of treating it in the manner suggested by Proposition. However, the reality is that it isn’t. All sorts of Nazi imagery remain banned and not just in Germany and not just because others find them offensive. They are banned because they serve as rallying points for some of the most dangerous elements in society who, in turn, pose a very real and immediate threat to the physical well-being of groups ranging from immigrant to Jews to homosexuals.  The real issue of consistency, if the Swastika is banned, then why not add Mein Kampf to the list? At the time of the prohibition of these other images, there was no need to do so as it was unavailable as a result of copyright. It is not unreasonable to suppose that, had that not been the case, it would have been banned at the time. All additional legislation would do now is to rectify an historical oversight.  [i] Evans, Stephen, ‘Mein Kampf: Bavaria plans first German publication since WWII’, BBC News, 25 April 2012,


Without appropriate legislation, neo-Nazi groups will publish their own version as a propaganda tool.  One of the principle reasons for the production of this text was that “Once anyone is free to publish Hitler’s work, now-Nazis will inevitably churn out editions favourable to the Nazi leader.” [i]  This decision to publish does absolutely nothing to change that “inevitable” fact. The state of Bavaria has done nothing to restrict other publications but have simply produced an ‘authorized version’ which does nothing more but give credibility to others. This will still leave the possibility of “charlatans and neo-Nazis appropriating this infamous book for themselves”. [ii] It will allow a narrative to emerge on which is the better publication – should it be interpreted as we see it today or should it be understood within the setting of Hitler’s own time; is it possible to approach the text itself without sharing the perspective of those original readers in the twenties, and so on.  Presumably the Bavarian state has taken this approach because it does not want to be accused of stifling debate on this subject. Which is odd because it’s been doing so for nearly seventy years. The compromise of having the official versions and allowing alternatives is, perhaps, the worst possible outcome, allowing the neo-fascist versions the veneer of respectability of being ‘alternatives’ rather than simply being flat-out wrong.  [i] Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” to be published in Germany for the first time since WWII. Alexander Nazaryan. New York Daily News. April 24 2012.  [ii] AP, ‘Historians hope to publish Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’, USA Today, 5th February 2010,


The point is that it isn’t being presented to a contemporary publisher by a contemporary author. As with all texts, it is of its time and forms its own part of the historical record. It’s entirely likely that if The Canterbury Tales were presented by a contemporary author, publishers wouldn’t be fighting over it. However, within its context it is one of the founding documents of world literature. Moreover as Stephan Kramer, the General Secretary of Germany's Central Council of Jews points out publishing "A historically critical edition… prevent[s] neo-Nazis profiting from it." [i]  [i] Paterson, Tony, ‘German Jews want ‘Mein Kampf’ reprinted’, The Independent, 10 August 2009,


A democracy, like any state, owes its first duty to its citizens, and its national interest is therefore in selling this equipment to help business at home. While it is convenient, perhaps even morally right at times, to stand publicly for the universality of democratic principles, such stands should not be taken at the expense of national security or influence. It should certainly not be considered an obligation. Sweeping policies like this will alienate valuable allies and make it more difficult for democracies to deal with the undemocratic world. With regard to domestic freedoms, states have long held different standards of action when dealing with their own citizens than those of other states, and that has never served to erode domestic freedoms.


Democratic states have an obligation to not bolster repression abroad  It is common for Western democracies to make sweeping statements about the universality of certain rights, and that their system of government is the one that should be most sought after in the world, that democracy is the only legitimate form of government. As when Obama in Cairo proclaimed “These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.” [1] They claim to work in the United Nations and other organizations toward the improvement of rights in other countries and clamour about the need for building governments accountability around the world, using their liberal-democratic paradigm as the model. Yet at the same time democratic governments and companies sell technologies to non-democratic allies that are used to systematically abuse the rights of citizens and to entrench the power of those avowedly illegitimate regimes. These hypocrisies read as a litany of shame. A telling example is the Blair government in the United Kingdom selling weapons to an oppressive regime in Indonesia for the sake of political expediency even after proclaiming an ‘ethical foreign policy’. [2]  Even if democracies do not feel it is a defensible position to actively seek to subvert all non-democratic states, and that non-democracies should be considered semi-legitimate on the basis of nations’ right to self-determination, they should still feel morally obliged not to abet those regimes by providing the very tools of oppression on which they rely. [3] To continue dealing in these technologies serves only to make democratic countries’ statements hollow, and the rights they claim to uphold seem less absolute, a risk in itself to freedoms within democracies. Respect for rights begins at home, and actively eroding them elsewhere reduces respect for them by home governments.  [1] Obama, Barack, “Remarks by the President on a new beginning”, Office of the Press Secretary, 4 June 2009,   [2] Burrows, G. “No-Nonsense Guide to the Arms Trade”. New Internationalist. 2002,   [3] Elgin, B. “House Bill May Ban US Surveillance Gear Sales”. Bloomberg. 9 December 2012.


Corporations are bound to obey the laws of the societies in which they are based, but they are not so constrained in their foreign dealings, in which they are bound instead by foreign laws that are often much more lax. The nature of the international landscape, with its many incompatible and overlapping forms of government and regulatory frameworks, demands that corporations be flexible in order to survive. The constraints put upon the manufacturers of surveillance equipment put forward by this policy will make them less competitive in the international market, which is often the primary market for these businesses. Furthermore, if they feel constrained they may pull up stakes and move their operations abroad to a more accommodating jurisdiction. This would serve to harm domestic jobs and undermine the ability of democratic states to maintain their edge over others in essential surveillance technology development.


Advanced surveillance technology prevents dissidents from being able to organize and sue for freedom  High-tech surveillance technology has given repressive governments and police states a new lease on life. Now more than ever they can intrude into every aspect of people’s lives, ensuring that dissent is cowed for fear of the ever present threat of the security services. The vision of Orwell’s 1984 has become a living nightmare for people all over the world. Their power has made it extremely difficult for movements for reform, government accountability, and democracy, which have foundered when faced with these sophisticated security apparatuses (Valentino-Devries, 2011). [1] By dominating the flow of information states have the power to keep their people in check and prevent them from ever posing a threat to their repressive status quo. Thus China blocks access to the internet and to other forms of communications in Tibet to “ensure the absolute security of Tibet’s ideological and cultural realm”. It cuts the Tibetan people off from outside world so as to prevent any rerun of the instability that occurred in 2008, which China blamed on the influence of the Dalai Lama from outside. [2]  Only external help in alleviating this censorship could allow activists to organize effectively and perhaps to one day bring about genuine reform and justice to their societies. The surveillance equipment on which these regimes rely is often only available from firms and governments in the democratic world where, by and large, technology is generally far more advanced than in the non-democratic world. Without access to these technologies, the regimes would be far more hard-pressed to keep rigid tabs on their citizens, allowing for the seeds of dissent to take root. Only then can the forces clamouring for democracy hope to be able to organise networks of activists, and to have their views considered by the state.  [1] Valentino-Devries, J. “US Firm Acknowledges Syria Uses its Gear to Block Web”. Wall Street Journal. 29 October 2011,   [2] Human Rights Watch, “China: Attempts to Seal Off Tibet from Outside Information”, 13 July 2012,


Security services have managed to watch over and infiltrate the efforts of dissidents all through history. The visibility and tactics is all that has changed. The internet was never going to just be an arena that helps dissidents in authoritarian regimes but as with other technological advances, such as the telephone both increases communication and provides methods of monitoring that communication. If non-democratic states were to lose access to Western technology, they would either procure comparable replacements from other non-democracies, or they would pursue more traditional forms of surveillance, ones that tend to be more invasive and physically threatening.


Is a minor ban really a good signal? The chances are the government will ignore it and those who it is meant to encourage will never hear about it. In the event that the regimes it is aimed at do take not far from weakening them, this policy serves only to alienate them. The lack of respect the policy is clearly aimed to show will galvanize the leaderships in undemocratic regimes to cut off various ties with democratic states, limiting the flow of ideas and democratic principles that natural adhere to activities like international trade. The result is non-democracies will be less willing to talk about reform in the international community because they see their very form of government as under threat by foreign agents seeking to discredit them. Ultimately, a boost in Western moral does little to promote democracy and human rights while a negative signal will result in regimes being more suspicious and obstinate.


The right of Western businesses to sell their services abroad can be curtailed when their actions stand counter to the interests of their home governments  Corporations are private entities that have the right to sell their services and to deal with agents foreign and domestic, including governments. However, this right can be limited when those actions are oppositional to the aims of the home state in which they are incorporated. The sale of surveillance technology to undemocratic regimes stands against the avowed aims of democracies and against their strategic interests in bolstering democracy abroad and maintaining a reputation for fair dealing. For this reason it is perfectly legitimate for governments to ban the corporations within their borders from selling dangerous technologies to foreign governments. Such is already the case with many kinds of strategic technology, especially weapons technology. [1] The EU, for example, bans a range of arms sales to various oppressive states on these grounds, [2] China in particular is an example where it would potentially be very lucrative to overturn the ban. [3] Corporations benefit from the protection of democratic states, as they provide bases of operations that shield their right to property and ensure stability and the rule of law. If corporations wish to benefit from these provisions they must be willing to accept the instructions of the states that house them regarding what can and cannot be sold to foreign powers.  [1] Elgin, B. “House Bill May Ban US Surveillance Gear Sales”. Bloomberg. 9 December 2012.   [2] Banks, M. “Senior MEP Calls for Freeze on Arms Sale to North Africa”. The Parliament.com. 7 July 2011.   [3] See the debatabase debate ‘This House believes the European Union should lift its ban on member states selling arms to China’


This ban would have a powerful signalling effect expressing disapproval of non-democracies' system of government  A ban on the sale of surveillance technology to non-democracies serves ultimately as a statement of disapproval. It shows that the undemocratic regimes cannot be trusted with the ability to spy on their people. This signal has several effects. An example of this international shaming affecting is the international bans on the use of landmines. Various states created a framework, the Ottawa Convention, [1] in which their condemnation pressured nearly every other state, including authoritarian regimes, to follow suit. [2] Domestically it serves to bolster people’s faith in the system of rights they value highly and enshrine in law. They can point to this ban as an example of their government’s desire to make a better world and not to increase repression for the sake of power or profit. In the undemocratic states themselves, the regime leaders will be faced with a significant public relations blow as they come under criticism. This serves to embolden and empower holders of dissenting opinions and to spark pro-democratic discourse. In the international community it makes an emphatic value judgement on the merit of certain systems of government, namely the superiority of democracy and government accountability to the people, principles most non-democracies still pay some form of lip-service to. Overall, this policy boosts the credibility of democracy, while undermining the influence of undemocratic states.  [1] See the debatabase debate ‘This House (as the USA) would sign the Ottawa convention banning landmines’,   [2] Wexler, L. “The International Deployment of Shame, Second-Best Responses, And Norm Entrepreneurship: The Campaign to Ban Landmine and the landmine Ban Treaty”. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law. 2003.


Banning the sale of surveillance technology does not mean democracies are declaring all undemocratic regimes illegitimate. Rather, they are simply not allowing their technology to aid in the repression of people, which is the only use to which that technology is put in practice. Reform sometimes demands a firm hand, and while some regimes will be riled by what they perceive as an insult, the greater chance for dissidents to develop networks and voices is worth the cost.


Real politick is not the only consideration democracies should entertain when they engage in international relations. Indeed, the Western powers have sought since World War II to develop a system of international justice that recognizes the primacy of peoples’ rights irrespective of where they are born. This principle is constantly compromised as democracies jockey for influence with undemocratic regimes, bolstering those regimes and their repressive norms in the process. In order to be consistent, and to serve the true interests of justice, democracies must not aid undemocratic governments in the repression of their people.


It is hypocritical for democratic governments to utilize surveillance technology to watch their own people while denying that technology to others  It is a fatal conceit to consider democracies somehow above the influence of using their surveillance technology to curtail the freedoms of their own citizens. The biggest customers of Western surveillance technology companies are wealthy democracies. The United Kingdom, for example, has one of the most-watched populations in the world, with a saturation of CCTV cameras far in excess of any dictatorship. [1] The PATRIOT Act in America, also, has given the federal government enormous scope for domestic spying. These powers are no less simply because the government is composed in part of elected officials. The security establishment is appointed, not elected, and their servicemen are promoted from within. It is base hypocrisy to pretend that the security systems are inherently more just when employed in democratic states than in undemocratic ones. They are used for the same purpose, to ensure that the state is protected and the status quo maintained. Democracies have no moral basis on which to base this policy.  [1] BBC News. “Britain is ‘Surveillance Society’”. 2 November 2006,


The inability to use advanced technologies merely forces non-democracies to utilize more unsavoury methods to achieve their aims  If it is the aim of an undemocratic regime to use advanced surveillance technology to gather intelligence on, and ultimately crush, dissent it will find other means of doing so. Their calculus of survival is not changed, only their available methods. Their first port of call will be the more advanced non-democracies that might be able to supply comparable surveillance equipment. China’s military and surveillance technology is fast catching up to that of the West, and makes an appealing alternative source for equipment. [1] The only difference is that the Chinese have no compunction at all about how the technology is used, meaning worse outcomes for pro-democracy groups who run afoul of them. When this strategy fails regimes can turn to the tried and tested models of past decades, using physical force and other less technological modes of coercion to cow dissent. Again, this form of repression is quite effective, but it is also much more painful to those on the receiving end. Given the options, democracies supplying surveillance technology may be the best option for dissidents in undemocratic countries.  [1] Walton, G. “China’s Golden Shield: Corporations and the Development of Surveillance Technology in the People’s Republic of China”. International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. 2001.


This ban will alienate non-democracies from discourse and stifle reform efforts  When a state is declared illegitimate in the eyes of a large part of the international community, its natural reaction is one of upset and anger. A ban on the sale of surveillance technology to non-democracies would be seen as a brutal slap in the face to many regimes that consider themselves, and are often considered by their people, to be the legitimate government of their country. The ban will result in further tension between non-democracies and democracies, breaking down communication channels. Democracies are best able to effect change in regimes when they seek to engage them constructively, to galvanize them to make gradual connections to the development of civil society and to loosen restrictions on freedoms, such as reducing domestic spying. The ban makes it clear that the ultimate aim of democracies is to effectively overthrow the existing governments of non-democracies in favour of systems more like their own. The outcome of this conclusion is far less willingness on the part of these regimes to discuss reform, and makes it more likely that they will demonize pro-democracy activists within their borders as agents of foreign powers seeking to subvert and conquer them. This particular narrative has been used to great effect by many regimes throughout history, including North Korea and Zimbabwe, Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa for example denounced a travel and arms sales ban as attempting to “undermine the inclusive government”. [1] By treating non-democracies as responsible actors democracies do much more in effectively furthering their own aims.  [1] BBC News, “Zimbabwean minister denounces EU”, 14 September 2009,


Presuming democracy is the only legitimate or worthwhile form of government is both inaccurate and unproductive  As much as the more liberal citizenry of many of the world’s democracies wish to believe otherwise, democracy as a system of government is not the only game in town. In fact, the growth of the strong-state/state-capitalism approach to government has gained much traction in developing countries that witness the incredible rise of China, which will before long be the world’s largest economy, flourish under an undemocratic model. [1] Chinas ruling communist party have legitimacy as a result of its performance and its historical role reunifying the country. [2] Democracies pretending they are the only meaningful or legitimate states only serve to antagonize their non-democratic neighbours. Such antagonism is doubly damaging, considering that all states, democracies included, rely on alliances and deals with other states to guarantee their security and prosperity. This has meant that through history democracies have had to deal with non-democracies as equal partners on the international stage, and this fact is no different today. States cannot always pick and choose their allies, and democracies best serve their citizens by furthering their genuine interests on the world stage. This policy serves as a wedge between democracies and their undemocratic allies that will only weaken their relations to the detriment of both. When the matter comes to surveillance technology, Western states’ unwillingness to share an important technology they are willing to use themselves causes tension between these states. Non-democracies have just as much right to security that surveillance technology can provide as the more advanced states that develop those technologies.  [1] Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. “Is State Capitalism Winning?”. Project Syndicate. 31 December 2012.   [2] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,


Oppressive regimes have turned to the use of advanced surveillance technology in response to activists’ learning to evade more conventional methods of surveillance, and by moving their organizations online. Western surveillance technology has filled a niche that was once open for dissidents. By placing this ban, even if the regimes turn back to old methods, they will still be hampered in the crushing of dissent. Furthermore, no regime has the resources or power to have physical surveillance as pervasive as the technology denied them would allow. Electronic surveillance therefore can cast a much broader net that would allow the government to repress many more people who would not be subject to more labour intensive physical surveillance.


While Western states are willing to use surveillance technology to restrict their citizens, they do so always with a democratic mandate. That is the key difference. Democracies use surveillance technology to provide their people with the safety and security they demand, a security over which the people always have the veto of the ballot box. The non-democracy is not checked by any such power, and thus its use of surveillance technology faces no constraint.


It matters if celebrities have double standards when they present themselves as being whiter than white. Equally, as Prop points out, there are already laws on defamation, libel, slander, defamation, trespass and surveillance. It is difficult to see what the register would add to these. One of the points that Leveson has routinely ignored is that all of the issues that prompted the inquiry are already illegal; hence the arrest of the journalists and executives involved [i] .  [i] BBCwebsite. Journalist arrested in computer hacking probe. 29 August 2012.


Redressing the balance  Such a register would, presumably still allow reporting when there was a genuine public interest – just as is the case for any other member of the public [i] . Presumably in such a circumstance, judicial approval could be sought – a process considerably quicker and easier than grinding an apology out of a magazine or newspaper; let alone winning a libel case.  Putting the burden on publications to demonstrate that something was news rather than gossip would be of huge benefit not only to celebrities themselves but to those long-suffering consumers of British news who, whilst hating it, have had to plough through this dross as it makes its way from the pages of magazines into the public consciousness [ii] .  So what if celebrities have double-standards? So do most people, none of who would appreciate that fact being pointed out on the front pages of the media.  [i] The Telegraph. Matthew Holehouse. “Leveson Inquiry: Judge suggests a ‘celebrity privacy registry’”. 18 January 2012.  [ii] The Guardian. Sam Delaney. “Will the Leveson inquiry kill celebrity magazines?” 26 December 2011.


If this is going to come down to professional judgement on what is and isn’t news then editors of successful magazines and newspapers would seem to have rather more relevant experience than a High Court judge. One of the ironies of the whole process has been that the one group who took no responsibility for the various crimes of newspapers are the people who bought them; papers follow the whims of their readers, whether the middle class like it or not.


A right to privacy – even if you are famous  Just because somebody chooses to be an actor, singer or an entertainer of any kind does not mean that they lose their right to a private life. In the context of the UK (the Scope of the Leveson Enquiry) it’s worth mentioning that this right is guaranteed under both the Human Rights Act of 1998, which in turn is predicated on the European Convention of Human Rights [i] .  The people who are having their private lives splayed over the tabloids and gossip magazines are not politicians or judges taking bribes, they are not police officers beating up suspects, they are not teachers offering grades in exchange for sexual favours or any other area of sensible journalistic investigation. They are people who happen to work in the entertainment industries and their lives are being interrupted for the sake of prurience and curiosity that has nothing to do with a meaningful news agenda.  If, as some of those mentioned in the introduction suggest, the worst that happens as a result of such a register is that celebrity magazines vanish, then the proposition is quite relaxed about that.  [i] Article 8 of the ECHR and the UK HRA (1998). Outlined here .