Appeal Decision: Ashton Glenn vs. Business Report

ASHTON GLENN                                                                                        APPLICANT

VERSUS

[1]     An article appeared in Business Report (“respondent”) on 13 April 2016 (or is it 4 March 2016?) under the headline “BBC brought low by its prejudice against climate change sceptics”.  This article had been written by one Bryer.  In it, he is critical of the many scientists and other people propounding the view that there is some catastrophic climate change setting; the view being that the climate is going to be hotter as a result of man’s activities. The fingers are pointing to producers of fossil energy. According to Ashton Glenn (“the applicant”), Bryer was once a public relations executive for BP for many years.  In the article, Bryer was disputing the validity of the statement referred to above.  He complained that those like him who held a contrary opinion were being vilified and not given space to argue their views, which the article in question articulated.

[2]     Applicant’s complaint against respondent was that the latter should not have published Bryer’s views. In other words, Bryer views should not have been accepted for printing at all. He also asserted that, because of his position with BP, Bryer was conflicted.  He wanted Bryer to disclose whether he was being paid for his views and if so by whom.  It is clear that the applicant is a staunch supporter of the school of thought that there is some climate change, brought about by human activity.  In his communication to the office of the Ombud, he says the following:

“My requests are threefold: 1) To ascertain whether Bryer is being paid to write these columns.  If not by the newspaper, by whom is he paid? 2) That his links to the fossil fuel industry be properly disclosed, even if he no longer works for them he clearly goes out to bat for the industry. 3)That the editorial board review the publication of Bryers columns prior to going to print with far more circumspection or failing this, terminate Bryer as a columnist.”

[3]     The respondent’s defence was that the article was an opinion by Bryer; freedom of speech allowed for people to air their views.

[4]     In his Ruling dated 7 June 2016, the Ombud, after considering submissions from both sides, says the following:

“If this office rules that a newspaper may not publish the opinion that climate change is a myth, then we shall be opening a can of worms.  What could be next?  No space for those who still believe that the earth is flat, that man did not go to the moon, that Adolf Hitler is still alive, that evolution is a myth, etc?

The list would be endless, and impossible to regulate.

It is Bryer’s Constitutional right to be wrong.  Likewise, if BR lowers its public image by publishing his views, as Ashton argues, it is the publication’s choice to do so”.

[5]     I agree with the Ombud’s Ruling, for the reasons he gives. The article was an opinion piece by Bryer.  Freedom of speech is about that.  It is sometimes out of competing views that good comes out.  If everybody were to be muzzled simply because they hold a contrary view or one despised by others, the world would be poorer.  Even if anyone considers Bryer’s views foolish, they need to be reminded of the saying that even fools need to be listened to, for they too have their own story to tell.  The basis for the applicant’s requests is unsound, as is the complaint.  The application for leave to appeal is therefore dismissed.

Dated at Pretoria this 8^th day of July 2016

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel