Big Brother has, and always will be, an ageless show known for its compelling people-watching style of TV and its undertones of social experimentation, with people from all corners of society being asked to live together for 6 weeks. Superficially, it is entertaining, funny and can even be heartwarming to watch unforeseen friendships form as the group gels together as a family in group challenges and activities. However, perhaps beyond this, the group in the ITV show can also be described as a microcosm for wider civilisation, as each person can represent different groups within society. Here, they can have their say when common issues and debates are discussed.Â
Particularly in this season, there have been conversations around addiction in the homelessness population, farmersâ rights, and LGBTQ+ representation in Disney films, and of course, âwhere to draw the line with freedom of speechâ. Contestants such as Feyishola and Zelah have been able to represent the LGBTQ+ community, as well as leftist political opinions, whilst George and Emily act as representatives for the right-wing ideals many people hold in society. Therefore, the show highlights prevalent political views as well as extremist ones which may exist amongst the population. It is also famous for allowing contestants to express their differences in opinions and exercise their âfreedom of speechâ when they engage in this type of debate; however, this can often get out of handâŠ
Here comes the question: how far is too far when it comes to freedom of speech? And is it wrong to censor some comments made on TV?
In previous seasons, we have seen characters such as Mickey Rourke removed from the Big Brother house due to his extremely threatening language towards Chris Hughes, as well as his inappropriate sexual remarks to Jojo Siwa. He also made homophobic comments to Jojo Siwa, which justified his ejection as this example of hate speech is prohibited under Ofcom regulations.Â
Similarly, there have also been situations during the course of Big Brotherâs most recent season which have resulted in those involved being issued warnings. Caroline was primarily given a warning by Big Brother for her openly transphobic comments towards Zelah, which were still aired on the show despite also violating Ofcomâs specific code, where expression of intolerance against those who have undergone gender reassignment must not be included in television. This gives us a clear sign that freedom of speech is not censored as much as some claim it is, or even as much as it perhaps should be, as Caroline was able to be completely hateful, and this was still included in the episode, and she was not removed from the show. These types of comments are also a very scary indication of the outdated and oppressive opinions many people in wider society still hold today.
Throughout the show, we saw George Gilbert expressing his far-right opinions to the group, consistently bringing up controversial political topics. His main claim was that he was the flagbearer for freedom of speech in this âgeneration of snowflakesâ and that he liked to graze the boundaries of âtouchy subjectsâ. George was not warned for some of his other conversations, where he was offensive to other housemates and wider groups watching him. For example, he criticised same-sex representation in childrenâs films, equating a small kiss between two lesbians to pornography and arguing that the film was âpushing thisâ onto children. Furthermore, he blamed homeless people for taking drugs, receiving backlash for failing to acknowledge structural issues such as poverty or the housing shortage in this country. These are just two examples of situations where George was not censored in any way despite behaving in a very derogatory and harmful way.
George later received a warning for more homophobic actions, where he mocked another contestant, Sam, using limp hands and a feminine voice to describe aspects of his personality that George didnât like. During this situation, he did not appear remorseful or seem to recognise why his conduct made Sam feel hurt or isolated in the house. However, in the real world, this could be seen as a hate incident and result in civil injunctions or a workplace sanction. Therefore, the fact that this was aired too further proves that freedom of speech is not being increasingly restricted or lost, as George would argue.Â
However, some comments George made, one for which he received a warning for and another for which he was removed from the show, were not aired to the public on Big Brother. They violated Ofcomâs regulations of use and were highly offensive statements to make, with one of the comments being a justification of the Holocaust and Antisemitic in nature, and another being racist. If you would like to hear what George himself had to say, you can watch his 40-minute YouTube video detailing his remarks and his explanations at this link https://youtu.be/PojhTQ9Xo5Y?si=_LbfaxC6HeEsy4rw where he begins his explanation at 11 minutes, 35 seconds.Â
There has been some discourse online around whether Georgeâs views should have been aired, arguing that the comments he made should be streamed to allow viewers to form their own opinions about what he said, as well as exposing him for his true problematic beliefs. George would also argue that here freedom of speech has been breached and that it is unfair to censor someoneâs opinions in this way.Â
The other approach to this, and possibly the more common-sense reasoning, is that Georgeâs whole appearance on the show was a running example of blatant hatred towards different minority groups, where he would spark up sensitive debates with insulting and disrespectful comments for reactions in the house and attention from the media. Given the current political climate, particularly in the UK, including division of the people along racial and class lines, it doesnât seem feasible at all to allow these horrible comments he has made to be aired as beacons of free speech, when in fact they are simply hateful bigotry. Television should be focused on entertainment, and if debate is a part of the show, it should be handled sensitively with the protection of vulnerable groups in mind. Their exposure to hate speech should be as limited as possible online, as it is highly probable that they have already experienced discrimination in real life. After all, having human compassion shouldnât be âwokeâ; it should be the priority. The question isnât about whether George was unfairly suppressed on Big Brother or not, but instead we should be asking: if Georgeâs views represent a bigger group in our society, what does this mean for the future and safety of minorities in our country?
Editor: Molly Stevens