IS THE SATURDAY SUN’s reporting on events headlined Sex Scene highlighting students caught in the act of sex in a classroom video irresponsible, as some in the public domain seem to think?
Certainly it is reasonable to question whether the NATION newspaper should have carried the story in the manner in which it did. There is no easy answer but this is always a judgment call made by the editors.
What is clear is that this newspaper is willing to submit itself to public scrutiny and say without fear that it is not above reproach. In many ways, it welcomes and encourages criticism of its product and gives wide coverage to differing views and opinions.
The publication of the article also brings to the fore the tensions between free speech and what is called the public interest. It is not an easy road and is fraught with many challenges.
The best one can hope to achieve is some degree of balanced reporting.
The lines are often blurred and the situation is further exacerbated by the rapid explosion in the so-called social media which is now driving the agenda for mainstream media. Its instantaneous nature means that news really now doesn’t lack a carrier – literally.
It is certainly not helpful to castigate the NATION for publishing such incidents as they are widely published on social media. So while we are burying our heads in the sand, decadence is taking root in our classrooms.
Very few people in Barbados would be surprised by the news of sex in and around our schools, but we admit that to see it in print is likely to have a shock effect that could evoke a response like that from Jennifer Walker; which is perfectly understandable.
She has a right to protest and to say what she honestly thinks about the story. However, early sexual debut is associated with an increased risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases and of teen pregnancy, which limits educational and life opportunities.
We are fooling ourselves if we think we can alter behaviour simply by venting outrage when the naked facts are before us. What good is free speech if you must first seek permission to use it?
More increasingly, many self-righteous individuals have afforded themselves the unjust objective of deciding which speech is “acceptable”. No one should have the power to infringe on the speech of other human beings.
Public interest has never been defined, but in London Artists Ltd. v. Littler (1969), Lord Denning MR rightly said: “Whenever a matter is such as to affect people at large, so that they may be legitimately interested in, or concerned at, what is going on; or what may happen to them or others, then it is a matter of public interest on which everyone is entitled to make fair comment.”
On balance, the public interest overrides private concerns and that public comment should not be a cloak for mere invective.
We can no longer pretend that schools are zones of innocence.
 Errol Niles is an attorney at law.
