NOTE: PEB regulations have been superseded by the 'Communications ACT 2003'. The case study below refers to the situation before 2003.
In 1997 the Broadcasting Standards Commission in the United Kingdom - the body that considers complaints against broadcasters, including on election matters - received 76 complaints about party election broadcasts by the British National Party (BNP), an extreme far right group.
The complaints described the broadcasts as being racist and "likely to encourage racial hatred or violence, in part because of the nature of the illustrative material used in the television version, and the use of sensational newspaper headlines".
The responses from the broadcasters are an interesting illustration of the difficulties facing the media when they transmit extreme statements. The broadcasters sought prior legal advice on whether the broadcasts constituted incitement to violence and were assured that they did not. The voluntary guidelines for broadcasters on party election broadcasts (PEBs) indicated that the content of the broadcast was a matter for the party, which was not expected to be impartial. The British Broadcasting Corporation stated that the broadcasts promoted a party whose views were "considered offensive by many, but it was not the function of the broadcaster to substitute its judgment for that of the electorate".
The independent London Weekend Television said that it had been placed in an invidious position:
"It was inappropriate and unreasonable to expect or anticipate that broadcasters should take what are essentially public policy decisions as to the propriety of those with racist views being accorded PEBs. Moreover the currently legitimate use of PEB by single issue pressure groups with minute support, propagating views found offensive by many and lowers the esteem with which viewers regard ITV [Independent Television]. However, refusing to transmit the BNP broadcast was not a valid option if society allows the BNP to function as a political party."
Another independent television channel, Channel 5, had required the BNP to make sure that no image was shown of any person who had not consented to being included in the broadcast.
The Commission praised the broadcasters for acting responsibly and did not uphold the complaints. It concluded:
"The requirements of democracy, and the rights of free speech, especially in an election period, mean that PEBs are not programmes in the conventional sense. It is an inevitable part of an election campaign that things will be said which cause offence, as well as disagreement. The Commission fully understands the concern of those who were outraged or made fearful by the broadcast, but it considers that in an election period the balance of rights is tipped in favour of freedom of speech. Ultimately, the electorate makes its judgment on a party's policy at the ballot box."
See United Kingdom: Decision of Broadcasting Standards Commission (1) for the full text of the decision.
