The censorship ratchet turns another notch

There's a difficult but vital line between protecting free speech and preventing harm

After man-made global warming theory first became a Thing in the 1980s,  it took some time before anyone who challenged the argument that rising CO2 threatened to create a global temperature apocalypse was denounced as a “climate change denier”.

This was unpleasant enough, with its implication that challenging this theory was the equivalent of denying the Holocaust. The threat implied in that subliminal character assassination was realised in practice when the BBC issued its infamous guidance in 2018: 

As climate change is accepted as happening, you do not need a “denier” to balance the debate. Although there are those who disagree with the IPCC’s position, very few of them now go so far as to deny that climate change is happening…

There are occasions where contrarians and sceptics should be included within climate change and sustainability debates. These may include, for instance, debating the speed and intensity of what will happen in the future, or what policies government should adopt. Again, journalists need to be aware of the guest’s viewpoint and how to challenge it effectively. 

Thus the BBC repudiated both science, for which no argument is ever settled, and its own foundational principles, which commit its journalists to uphold fairness and balance and always to reflect two sides to an argument. But of course, if it is no longer accepted that there even is an argument, then a theory becomes dogma and it cannot be challenged.

Now it seems we’ve reached the inevitable next stage in this invidious process.