Morning:
9°c
Should the likes of Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross ever be as uninhibited as they think they have a right to be? They abused the actor Andrew Sachs and his family on air and left messages on his phone disgusting, obscene slurs about Sachs's granddaughter. It was truly sexist garbage which shows up their own low lives.
Now the zany presenters have been made to say the right thing by the BBC - sort of. That's simply because they'll do anything to keep their huge fees rolling in. But do they really understand why people like me are so outraged? I don't think so.
It's because this is about freedom of speech. These cowboys are products of a cultural habitat where probity, responsibility and decency are extinct in the name of freedom of expression.
The debate about freedom of expression is often disingenuous and at times dishonest. It plays out most vociferously when Muslims or feminists raise noisy opposition to some book or film or cartoon. Such protests usually have no effect. Muslims who complain of gratuitous insults - and I am sometimes one of them - are cast as crazy or dangerous. I am not here talking of those who brandish fatwas, but folk who voice perfectly reasonable objections. Yet they, too, wish for some restraints on free speech, just like the people who today abhor the on-air japes of Brand and Ross.
Now freedom of expression is one of the pillars of an open society and a working democracy. Good societies are those where people feel they can speak without fear; millions around the world still do not have that right. But there can be no untrammelled liberty without chaos and of course real human distress, too. Extreme libertarianism is licensed verbal brutality.
So people need protective boundaries as the rude and crude jungle thickens. Freedom of speech is precious, too important to treat with the careless contempt that Russell Brand has made his trademark. Someone on the radio this week said: "Brand and Ross have gone far, far too far." Yes - for all our dedication to free speech, this row should remind us that you can go not just too far but far, far, too far. It is a question of whose hurt matters and where the limits should be. It is up to us, the people, to decide. But regardless of where we decide those limits to free speech lie, it is only reasonable that then they apply to everyone equally, regardless of whether you're an imam or a stand-up comedian.
Reader views (26)
Congrats must go to phil from Kent.
its not easy to miss the point by so much, on such a simple matter. whether this is talent or merely effort at work is difficult to predict.
- Scott, London
What I think is hilarious, is the fact that everyone who owns a French corset suddenly can call themselves a burlesque dancer, they are bloody well everywhere now. Even some of my neighbours think they are dancers. These guys a mirror of today's society, so before you point the finger, take a look at yourself, we have become cheap and tacky the lot of us, both men and women, but the women are still trying to squirm out of it by playing the 'sexist' card, it aint gonna work sisters.
- John, London
Lots of people talking nonsense about 2 blokes making inapropriate comments on a radio show....
Does your radio not have a 'off' button...
- Phil, Kent, UK
I agree with Pat from Kent. The entire Ross family must be feeling so proud of him. He has a thoroughly nice brother, Paul, and he must be shuddering knowing he is related to him. After all, this is MY money he is being paid by.
Sling this rubbish out- and now please.
Amber in Mitcham
- Amber In Mitcham, Mitcham Surrey
There is no such thing as complete freedom of speech. What we say has to be moderated so as to preserve the feelings, dignity and the good character of others. Brand and Ross failed to understand that. Being in a position of greater influence than most people they broke the honour of common decency. They should have their hithertofor privilege of position and wealth taken away from them as a warning to
others .
- Albert Hall, hove england
ps: Well said Yasmin 
- Hereward, Copenhagen, Denmark
Of course, freedom of speech and all that. On the other hand, what if two morons down the road adid that sort of thing to a dearly loved older member of your family? It would indeed be very tempting to deal out a good kicking to both, wouldn't it? Fair enough?
Yes, I know you won't print this but I just wanted to point out the obvious.
- Hereward, Copenhagen, Denmark
Well, it's got Mandy and Ozzy off of the front pages, hasn't it?
- Nobby Clark, Perth, Scotland
I'm not one to usually agree with Ms Alibhai-Brown, but with respect to this article, and the principles of 'freedom of speech' being extended beyond the realms of decency, and without due consideration, understanding, or respect for the victims of actions such as this juvenile 'joke', and the message it sends out to those who look up to the likes of Messrs Ross and Brand, she is 100% right in everything she says ; moderation, decency, responsibility, and freedom of speech should go together, and indeed, once in this country they did ; but in recent years it seems that we have learnt to tolerate, and indeed even praise, the 'lowest common denominator'. This form of thinking and so called liberalism seems to have infected every aspect of our lives, from comedy to crime ! And now we just wonder why our society seems so 'broken'.It seems to me that in this case, as with so many in this country today, that ' the road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions'. So well done Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, you're absolutely right.
- Anthony Diacono, London
Well said, Yasmin. I am white, male and well past 65 but you and I have much in common; firstly we are aware that liberty and licence are not the same thing at all, but Woss and Brand don't seem to have a clue about that. We also know that free speech is a right that not many in the world enjoy and which carries huge responsibilities - again, Woss and Brand appear not to realise this. Like you, I am disappointed that the BBC management has been terribly slow to react and that so many have supported these two and tried to pass their spiteful and bullying indiscretion off as 'humour'. I grew up with hard men working the contract shearing sheds in post-war NZ; despite owning vocabularies that used Middle English extensively, those same hard men would not use unacceptable language or tell inappropriate stories in the hearing of visitors to the sheds. Sadly, that sense seems to have eroded badly in the English-speaking world, no doubt helped along by the actions of so-called comedians lionised by the tasteless and brainless. When I trained as a teacher, we were taught how to to help children to monitor the language modes they used, and to differentiate between 'outside' and 'classroom' modes of speech. Perhaps these so-called comedians need re-educating before they are allowed access to the airwaves again, but it would be more just and more cost effective to ban them from broadcasting completely and use the millions the BBC will save to extend children's vocabularies.
- Kiwi Expat, London, UK
I don't see this as a free speech issue. They are free to say what they like. And the public is free to voice their disgust in reply. But where is it written that one must be paid £Xm for talking rubbish?
- Bloke, London
This isn't about free speech at all: personally I couldn't care less about the swearing or sexual references in the general run of things. The real issue is that these overpaid and narcissistic yobs felt that it was fine, hilarious even, to humiliate, bully and abuse someone in public and, incidentally, at public expense. Brand comes across as a truly repulsive toxic narcissist, entirely without conscience or empathy for others, who has no real humour, only a schoolboy brand of cheap sexual innuendo. Ross is equally an egotist of stunning proportions and simply should have known better - he certainly makes every effort to protect his own family (nothing wrong in that necessarily) but isn't apparently able to understand that others might feel similarly. He seems to operate at the same level as Bart Simpson calling Moe as a prank: except he's a 47 year old man not a cartoon ADHD kid. Anyone who bullied others like these two have would, if discovered in any normal workplace, simply have been suspended immediately and then duly sacked for gross misconduct as well as bringing their employer into disrepute (well they've certainly done that haven't they?). The BBC will almost certainly keep Ross because he'll cost too much to sack. Brand is more expendable and good riddance. It's people like these two who help to foster a culture of rudeness and violence. Stop them NOW!
- Richie, Brighton
As much as I agree with the suspension of Ross, in particular (I've long shuddered at his offensively sexist slobbering as he plays out what should be a private mid-life crisis on the screen and airwaves), I do feel that Yasmin, as so often, presents a very muddled argument here. Conflating the goings-on resulting from this phone prank with offence caused by religious slurs or the much wider issue of free speech is completely misreading the essence of what is happening. While I don't wish to compromise Yasmin's (free speech), it's simply a case of the public - rightly - demanding standards of good manners in broadcasting. And many Ross-bashers, in particular, have seized on the opportunity to highlight and explode his hubris - I know that I have.
Could it be that, in these answerphone "messages", we've heard a sneering, cruel, self-satisfied voice - sanctioned by our publically-funded media provider - which we're secretly afraid is coming to define our prevailing culture, and we don't like it? Simple as that. I think we have. If free speech in the media were some venerated holy how, phone-in programmes would never have a time-delay, forums such as this would not employ moderators, and a wanton (and cruel) lack of inhibition might lead me to say something stronger than I think your column is rather silly this week.
- Karli, Tottenham, London
A warning about language was broadcast before the show, it went out after 9pm, and they are known for being close to the line.
If they do get the sack for this, does this then mean that anyone that gets a kiss'n'tell story published in a newspaper should also be fired and loose the money they make for selling the story ?
If so, go ahead and sack them, and enforce the new rules fully everywhere.
Otherwise what they did was childish and (possibly)offensive, but it was factualy true. If you belong to a group called 'Satans Sluts' (or whatever it's called) and then say that they have upset her grandfather, you are being a little dishonest.
People are bringing in the fact that these two make millions a year but that is besides the point, they broke the rules or they didn't. Their over the top pay is another subject to be delt with elsewhere.
- Gordon, Slough
Sorry, I got bored after paragraph two and gave up. I'm sure she was probably right though.
- Julian, Bracknell
'I don't usually agree with this opiniated woman'
David H, London
'chill out, stop over reacting!!'
- James Mealz, essex
Both these quotes are two wonderful examples of the points the writer was trying to convey - its laughable that these two submitted comments like this. David H refers to yasmin as 'this opiniated woman' (lovely bit of mysogyny) and I would especially like to say to james: plese pass me your phone no. so i can get a overly horny male friend to leave a message that he f**** your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend, and how many times he did and see if he would 'chill out' and not 'over-react'.
What these two did was just so immature - are they 16 or 30 odd or in ross's case 40 odd??!! i don't think they should be sacked but a public apology to andrew sachs would not go amiss. Unfotunately Miss Ballie chose the wrong guy to have a fling with. Brand just shows himself up as a lowlife - as he had a liason with a young woman and then decided to tell the world about it - classsy (not).
- Kh, London UK
They should be treated with the same contempt as Simon Dee was years ago! He ended up as a Bus Driver
- Jonathan Clinch, London
The BBC is an outmoded organisation and should not be give public funding - I couldn't care less what these idiots do but made me pay for your antics. Scrapp the Tax.
- Taxfreetv, London, UK
Could we all stop referring to this cowardly behaviour as a "prank"?It was a vile piece of behaviour by 2 vile children.
- C Adams, pont l abbé france.
your are 100% right yasmin.
- John Mckim, glasgow.uk
I don't usually agree with this opiniated woman but today she is spot on. Brand and Ross are both so obssessed with sex and sexual inuendo they need serious help and therapy. They are very sick people and I do not understand why anyone would employ them, let alone the BBC.
- David H, London
chill out, stop over reacting!!
- James Mealz, essex
Free speech should be sacrosanct. If Brand and Ross had made remarks about the girl in the press based on her slighty racy public image that would be fair comment. Even to say them to her herself on a tv programme on which she volunteered to appear to promote her dance troup might also be seen as fair comment. This is something qualitatively different from free speech in an important sense. To invade her grandparents' own home and say those things to their ansaphone is only one step down from assault, and to broadcast them increases the Sachs's justifed sense of being violated, just as if they had been attacked, had their house vandalised or burgled or had the comments daubed in red paint on the walls of their house.That is why these two completely out of control individuals have provoked such outrage and should face sanctions.
- Karen, Woking
At the end of the day, this is media we're talking about. I can stop reading newspapers and turn off the TV (heck, I don't have a TV any more because quite frankly we weren't watching much of it anyway and it didn't justify a license fee in itself).
Self censorship is the key - whether it be in what you say, or what you read. Sometimes it's easier to walk away then to complain. I have no issues with anybody complaining about this whole mess with Brand or Ross - providing they present their side in a polite manner without resorting to lewd language or insults.
- Martyn Drake, Woking, UK
The pair should never be allowed to get their job back, sacked, sacked ......sacked.
MHR
- M H Rashid, London N3
This isn't about free speech, of which I'm all in favour. This is about two highly-paid presenters (one to the tune of £6million per year, I hear) abusing their positions, and licence payers' money, to indulge in a "prank", which was not only childish in the extremity but also extremely offensive to a 78-year-old man. The immature and pathetic Ross and Grant are perfectly free to use their lavatorial, playground-level "humour" in their private lives and even in public on stage or in clubs, but not via the airwaves with my money, where they can be heard throughout the country and the world. But, who cares, I don't think this country can sink much lower in the eyes of the world. Sack them both, but, more importantly, sack Mark Thompson and the other BBC twerp who said on the news that he is "looking into the matter". I wonder what Ross's children think of their father now.
- Pat, East Kent UK
