The Debate About The Debate

Debate is healthy. Most of the time. It can either reaffirm your beliefs, change them, or even tear them down (and the world would be a much better place if fewer people were afraid of that last point). A wider debate would be appreciated in, say, the Daily Express, where stories like "NOW ASYLUM IF YOU'RE GAY" are classed as news, when, in fact, they are mostly speculation and opinion. However, today Ann Widdecombe reversed the problem, as, rather than confusing opinion with fact, she confused fact with opinion.

So what do we learn from Ann's piece, aside from the fact that either she or The Express possesses a shocking inability to use capital letters (I'm not one for grammatical pedantry, but "Really, Mr sanderson?"? The "NHs"? Really??)? Well:

Last week it was reported that the British Humanist [A]ssociation [BHA] has condemned an award given to Noah’s [A]rk Zoo, a creationist centre near Bristol.

Yes, there is a creationist Zoo in North Somerset. You can read a review of it here. For the most part it is exactly what you'd expect from a zoo, except for the fact that it teaches that everything was designed by God, and contradicts evolution with posters like "“30 reasons why apes are not related to man”. And it is described by Widdecombe as "a moderate, education-focused organisation".

But those nasty secularists want to shut it up. They want to stifle the debate. And this is the problem with her argument. There is no debate. The Theory of Evolution is pretty much as sound a theory as we can plan for, with evidence in fossils, genes and anti-biotic resistant bacteria to name but a few sources. It is, to all intents and purposes, undeniable.

"Ah wait", say the creationists, "We're only asking for our opinion to be heard, and for people to make up their own minds". But if you are going to present people with one load of bollocks instead of facts, why stop at Christianity? There's a whole world full of rubbish that might have created everything.

Actually, to be consistent, why stop at the debate over evolution? The same argument is used by anyone going against scientific fact, and particularly pseudo-scientific groups -- that they want people to make up their own minds. Homeopaths are let on to the BBC to "debate" the science behind their magic sugar pills in an effort to remain impartial. Carrying this on, surely every time the Royal Family do anything, David Icke should come on to explain why they are actually acting to further their lizard-alien schemes? Otherwise, are they not just picking and choosing the topics they think open for debate?

Creationism and homeopathy are just conspiracy theories with a lot of followers, but just as careless a disregard for the facts. To claim that anyone wanting to get facts right is "bigoted" would be laughable were it not for the fact that it is such a popular idea, but it is only with these facts that you can have any basis for debate.

writerJames got here first. And better. But I wasn't going to tell you that before you'd read this.

Infringement State of Mind

If you're reading this then that probably means you have an internet connection. And if you do, then you may well have watched a video spoofing the song "Empire State of Mind" by Jay-Z and Alicia Keys, but setting it in Newport. It was well written, well executed, and consequently gained over two and a half million hits on YouTube.

Here is what you see if you search for it now:

Yes, EMI decided that it was infringing on their copyright.

Now, I am not against copyrighting material. Artists have to earn money like everyone else, and if you want well produced music or films, someone somewhere has to pay for it. I would actually quite like to see The Times's paywall succeed, even though its content is not for me, and, I would argue, their pricing is questionable. But this EMI claim is something different.

The question is simple: is this song contributing to a loss of revenue for EMI? I would find it hard to believe that a video placed free on YouTube is a replacement for the original song. Although I don't have any figures to back this up, I would imagine that very few people may have been about to buy the original track, then decided that they would stick with this YouTube spoof instead.

In fact, I would go further than that. When I first heard the spoof, I thought it was clever, funny and brilliant, and immediately went over to the original song's video to compare, instantly giving EMI the income from that play (which I know is tiny, but unexpected profit, nonetheless). My interest rekindled, I almost bought the track, and I'm sure many did. All this, despite the fact that I'd got pretty fed up with it when it came out however many months before.

It used to be that if you were to mention, say, Jeff's Chip Shop on the television, Jeff would be so thrilled with the free publicity that you'd get a free portion of chips (I may be stretching this whole "chip" thing). Following EMI's example, Jeff would presumably demand that the tapes be destroyed and never brought up again.

The whole thing is exactly like the Downfall "Hitler reacts" case. Companies have become so paranoid by people stealing their material that they think anyone using it is infringing on their copyright. EMI are perfectly justified legally in what they are doing, but they've missed the point entirely, and not only are they taking away a highly successful, completely unpaid for advert for their product, but they are making themselves look like petty destroyers of creativity. With that kind of public image, it's only going to be easier for people to morally justify why they're happy to illegally download whole albums. For an industry apparently obsessed with image, they are, if nothing else, showing a remarkable lack of public awareness.

UPDATE, 11/08/10: Looks like this take isn't quite fair. According to a Guardian report today, it's the songwriters who opposed to the video, not EMI itself. The arguments stand though: what possible loss of revenue does it lead to? Is the notion of Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch so abhorrent to you that you don't want it associated with your song? As artists, do you not at least appreciate the skill of adapting lyrics? I know that you have every legal right, but you have singularly failed to take advantage of a situation based on an infatuation with ownership, and to me that is just idiocy.

Consent & Videotape

Sometimes, you hear something that really depresses you. Like this, for instance.

The story is put succinctly here:

STLToday reports that the woman, identified only as Jane Doe, was dancing in at the former Rum Jungle bar in 2004 when someone reached up and pulled her tank top down, exposing her breasts to the "Girls Gone Wild" camera. Jane Doe, who was 20 at the time the tape was made, is now living in Missouri with her husband and two children. She only found out about the video in 2008, when a friend of her husband's saw the "Girls Gone Wild Sorority Orgy" video and recognized her face. He called up her husband, and in what has got to be the most awkward conversation ever, informed him that his wife's breasts were kinda famous.

The woman sued Girls Gone Wild for $5 million in damages. After deliberating for just 90 minutes on Thursday, the St. Louis jury came back with a verdict in favor of the smut peddlers. Patrick O'Brien, the jury foreman, explained later to reporters that they figured if she was willing to dance in front of the photographer, she was probably cool with having her breasts on film. They said she gave implicit consent by being at the bar, and by participating in the filming - though she never signed a consent form, and she can be heard on camera saying "no, no" when asked to show her breasts.

Now, I am sure I am not alone in finding this troubling. Very troubling. If nothing else, how does this fit with the idea that we'd all like to put across: that consent is vital when it comes to sex, or sexual matters?

Firstly, I was under the impression that you had to get a consent form for anything appearing in anything (4:56 into this video). Is all that effort for nothing? It would appear to be, and so it seems I can go out and film what I like. You might say that this is a small point in the context of the whole story, and you'd be bloody well right (consider this a run-up), but it does beg the question: "what kind of legal ground is this ruling based on?"

The jury foreman, Patrick O'Brien, explained that it was perfectly justified as "through her actions, she gave implied consent". Implied Consent??! I admit I haven't seen the tape (for fairly obvious reasons), but, by all accounts, she is heard to exclaim "no, no" on being asked to reveal her breasts. Surely any implicit consent is overruled empirically by the CLEAR FUCKING EXPLICIT STATEMENT SHOWING EXPLICITLY A LACK OF CONSENT. It seems that you can be done for a clearly ironic joke because of its literal meaning, but in a case like this, it's all about reading between the lines!*

Ah, wait! I forgot that she was dancing. AT A PARTY! I would say that, on the whole, that is the single most sane place to dance. Honestly, try it anywhere else -- on a plane, for instance, or at a funeral -- and people may reasonably question your motives. But at a party, you're often seen as unusual if you don't dance (believe me).

This decision is a travesty. The only positive that we can take from it is that the incident ended with just the exposure of breasts, rather than anything worse, but it's not hard to see where it could lead. As PZ Myers put it:

If you're willing to dance, you're willing to be stripped of your clothes. And presumably we can carry this a little further and reason that if you're naked in a bar, you've consented to sex, although fortunately it did not go that far in this case.

The fact that there are people out there defending this decision -- a decision by jury -- genuinely worries me. I remember when I first heard the phrase "No Means No", I thought it laughable in how obvious it was (I was young, and so didn't really understand what 'rape' was). But if "No" was clear enough then, how on earth did it come to mean "yes" in court?

*I know they're two different courts and countries, but it was hardly the first instance of statements being taken too literally.

UPDATE, 23:51: As Jack of Kent points out on twitter, whilst the story may be accurate, "my experience is there can be a disconnect between the report and what happened", and that "Bad law stories are sadly as common as bad science stories." I feel that this blog covers subjects beyond the individual case reported, but it is an important thing to take into consideration. For proof of misrepresentation of legal cases in the media, check out his excellent series on the McKinnon case.