Centrality
uk). Multicultural societies such as Britain are
having to learn how to cope with religious ‘certi-
tudes’, whether Christian, Moslem or Sikh; and
writers, artists, fi lm-makers and broadcasters
are having to steer a course between freedom
to express (and thus criticize) and the rights of
others to protect what they deem sacred. See
anticipatory compliance; blogging; cctv:
closed-circuit television; commercial
confidentiality; defamation; digital
economy act uk (2010); genre; ‘libel tour-
ism’; journalism: phone-hacking; privacy;
regulation of investigatory powers act
(ripa) (uk), 2000; terrorism: anti-terror-
ism, crime and security act (uk), 2001.
See also topic guide under media: freedom,
censorship.
▶Julian Petley, Censorship: A Beginner’s Guide (One
World, 2010); Mickey Huff , Peter Phillips and Project
Censored, Censored 2011: Top Stories 2009–10 (Seven
Stories Press, 2010); Brian Winston, A Right to
Off end: Free Expression in the Twenty-fi rst Century
(Bloomsbury Academic, 2011); Index on Censorship
(published quarterly).
★Centrality Within the communication struc-
ture of any social group, some members will
derive certain advantages or disadvantages
resulting from their position in that structure; in
particular, from the frequency with which they
communicate with other members of the group.
By using a sociogram such as that illustrated
opposite, the centrality of a person within the
communication structure can be measured: the
sociogram indicates that D’s centrality index
is highest; it is arrived at by taking the total
number of communication links between group
members and then dividing that by the total
number of such links between one member and
the other members of the group. In the diagram,
D’s centrality may arise because of his/her status,
role, articulacy, personality, etc.
The concept of a centrality index enables
observers to estimate quantitatively the degree
of influence members of the group may have
by virtue of their position in the group. The
more central a member is in a communication
network, the sooner he/she will be in posses-
sion of all the information at the disposal of the
group. Infl uence is closely related to possession
of information, because the possessor has the
power to choose what information to pass on,
and to whom. Communication networks diff er
in the degree of centrality and the number of
levels of centrality possible within them.
However, more information would be needed
other than that provided by a sociogram alone- this is, to speak or communicate in writing,
etc. matters which may cause hatred, contempt,
insult or ridicule against the Church. It is a
rarely used law, but a law’s potency lies in its
existence – in the knowledge that it can always
be used when free speech appears to be getting
out of hand. One of the fi rst pieces of legislation
brought in by the New Labour government
after its re-election in 2005 was the Incitement
to Religious Hatred Act, outlawing comments
made in public or in the media as well as written
material likely to incite religious hatred. Critics
expressed grave concern that the new legislation
would stifl e free comment and debate.
Obscenity too has occupied the minds of
lawmakers. Since the seventeenth century,
certain types of indecent expression or behav-
iour have been subject to punishment by the
law. Material considered likely to ‘deprave and
corrupt’ has often been subject to punitive
legal censorship (see oz trial). Defi ning what
is obscene and what is liable to deprave and
corrupt has proved immensely diffi cult.
The targets of censorship tend to be those
actions or expressions which appear to endan-
ger, by subversion, ridicule, defi ance or just plain
disrespect, the values and value systems of the
dominant hierarchy of society – its establish-
ment. In the UK, ‘sacred cows’ have been the
Monarchy, the Church, Nationality, the Family,
Defence, each a symbol in some way or other
of law and order; of control. Censorship is a
weapon to counter the ever-present threat – real
or imagined – of social, and therefore political,
destabilization.
The internet has become the most
signifi cant and controversial domain attracting
censorship. In its early days perceived as free of
controls by those in authority, the Net has, in
many countries, been reined in by legislation
designed to facilitate surveillance (see surveil-
lance society).
Even so, exercising Net censorship presents
immense challenges simply because of the
ease and speed with which information can be
transmitted, between a few users, thousands
or millions. Recently the chief driving force of
government censorship has been the so-termed
‘war on terror’ following the events in the US
of 9/11 (the terrorist destruction of New York’s
Twin Towers and the attack on the Pentagon) and
the terrorist bombings in London in July 2005,
both prompting legislation aimed at increasing
national security, but with serious implications
for free speech (see usa – patriot act, 2001;
racial and religious hatred legislation,