Derek Draper vs the blogosphere

The latest development in young Draper's war against the blogosphere is an interesting one, if worrying to defenders of free speech.

The first salvo, accusing Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes of racism or, at the very least, pandering to it, seemed to be cliched but effective. It got everyone talking about him, put Iain and Guido on the defensive to some extent but rallied support for his opponents. So far, not so good.

Now don't get me wrong, there are some fairly vile people posting comments on Guido's blog in particular. I tend to the view that Guido's view of the world coarsens political debate to the point where you might wonder whether there were any principled individuals left at any level of government. Further, I am convinced that the fact that most of these individuals post under pseudonyms frees them to be far more offensive than they might be if their identity was known.

Many of them are, however, not racist, or at least, not overtly so. If there were more ethnic minority members of the Cabinet, we might see a different 'face', but, whilst their language is pretty ugly, there is little evidence of what one might definitively describe as racism. The problem is that, by tolerating such abuse, Guido does effectively provide a platform for them.

Iain doesn't permit such behaviour. Whilst he is pretty partisan, so am I, so nothing wrong there. Occasionally, his sense of humour goes astray, mostly when he hasn't quite worked out all of the implications of a posting but he's pretty quick to offer an apology when he's wrong and honest enough to hold his hands up.

So what would Derek do next? Now this is where a sense of evil genius kicks in, the idea of a multi-layered attack on the lifeblood of the really serious bloggers, cutting off the income stream. First, pressure advertisers by threatening them that their association with known racists will damage their brand, then threaten those behind the conduit of advertising to a range of bloggers, in this case Alex Hilton, 'Recess Monkey' and key player behind both LabourHome and Message Space.

It's classic in its simplicity, entirely consistent with the boycotting tradition of the radical left and guaranteed to keep Derek in the public eye. Labour have maximum deniability due to his somewhat damaged credibility (sorry Derek, but you did get a bit above yourself in the early days...), and the likes of Iain and Guido find themselves on the back foot (sorry guys, but you really are, at least for the time being...). Given the weakness of the Labour blogosphere, combined with the increasing lazy 'dead tree media', the idea of causing Conservative bloggers to at least ponder a degree of self-censorship can only serve to take a little pressure off of the Government. Not much, I suspect, as Labour activists don't really comprehend the real influence of bloggers - not as much as some of our number would have you believe.

The problem is that such a strategy only really succeeds from a position of moral strength against an idea or group who are generally accepted to be beyond the pale. Of all people, given Derek's career highlights, he probably fails to meet the moral strength criteria. A self-confessed Labour insider with a record of pressurising journalists is less than likely to seize the moral high ground.

If it was just Guido, his target might just be deemed as being beyond the pale by the court of public opinion, if it wasn't for the fact that he strikes gold just often enough to establish a degree of credibility. Besides, in attacking a government which seems to know no bounds in its efforts to take away our basic freedoms, he is reflecting a popular zeitgeist.

So I find myself in the uncomfortable position of wanting to defend the right of an individual to launch an advertiser boycott whilst despising his attempts to threaten a fellow blogger or two, whilst also defending the right of a fairly unpleasant individual to propagate a message of destructive cynicism which, if left unchecked, devalues our political culture and weakens our society.

Ultimately though, principles have to rise to the surface. Derek, you're wrong in your approach, wrong to use threats against individuals to attain your goals and wrong in your desire to silence a voice which makes you and those you purport uncomfortable. In a free society, we establish laws which delineate the types of behaviour which is offensive to the broader community. If Guido breaks them, use the law to stop him. Otherwise, leave him to his own devices.

The problem, you see, is that two can play at this game. A political movement on its way out is far more vulnerable than one on the rise and, if you've spent any time looking at the sheer hatred displayed by some of the more rabid Guido posters, you will realise that, given the opportunity, they will do anything to stop you, and your colleagues, from regrouping after your defeat at a General Election.

I have been increasingly saddened by the vitriolic tone of politics in this country in recent years, and maintained a fond, if increasingly forlorn, hope that the Internet could encourage a renaissance of ideas and substance over spin and soundbite. If all it does is release the restraints of civility that demonstrate our qualities as human beings, there is little hope for the civil society that so many of the protagonists in this conflict claim to be fighting for.