BBC television’s broadcast of Jerry Springer: The Opera in January 2005 was met with protests by Christian groups. Maryam Omidi discusses whether the BBC was right to air the programme.
The case
BBC television’s broadcast of Jerry Springer: The Opera in January 2005 was met with protests by Christian groups. Speaking to the BBC, one protester said, “There should be freedom of speech but there should never be freedom for desecration.” A record 63,000 people complained about the programme’s use of profanity and “blasphemous” script; many before the broadcast. Reports place the number of swearwords, including fuck and cunt, at around 400 while the cast of characters includes a nappy-wearing Jesus who confesses he is “a bit gay”.
Three days after the broadcast, radio producer Antony Pitts resigned, saying the BBC had flouted its own guidelines and brushed off complaints. BBC director-general Mark Thompson stood by the corporation’s decision: “I am a practicising Christian, but there is nothing in this which I believe to be blasphemous.” He explains his reasons here.
One organisation, Christian Voice, failed in its efforts to sue the BBC for blasphemous libel after two High Court judges ruled that broadcasters and theatres could not be prosecuted under this offence. They added that as a parody of Jerry Springer, the US chat show, and not of Christianity, the programme could not be deemed blasphemous.
reply report Report comment
I was recently reminded that at the time of this great fuss the British Gov were trying to get legislation onto the statute books to create a new offence: Incitement to Religious Hatred. This context undoubtedly encouraged religious groups to vent their wounded feelings and try to prevent someone else from speaking (the almost simultaneous Sikh protest against the play Behzti even resorted to violence and death threats). This is a good reason why legislation should NOT be brought into the arena – it brings out the worst in us.
reply report Report comment
On the one hand the author says the Jerry Springer programme gave sufficient warning before it was aired, so “anyone who felt uncomfortable with the subject matter could choose not to watch it”, whilst on the other hand the author argues how “most of the burners of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses had reportedly not even read the book”. So citizens of religious faith have to watch/read offensive material before they can criticise it and yet should at the same time not criticise because they weren’t forced to watch it in the first place and should have chosen not to.
Living this contradiction is fine for only a few. More heed should be taken on the question of what a good religious citizen should do when confronted with public and sustained humiliation. At the moment, free speech principles seem to comply only with those who follow a liberal norm and a liberal lifestyle.