The issue had blown up in a matter of days and our panel was well attended. I still assumed, however,that the fuss would soon be over. It was the Sun, after all; they had gay-baited before. This was nothing new.
Then came the death threats and the calls for his dismissal. Then came the revelation that Hannon was a prostitute. Then came his suspension, an investigation, and finally, his reinstatement. Dozens of columns, several discussions on television and radio, hundreds of letters to the editor and one comparison to Socrates later, I find myself asking what happened. Who won and what did we accomplish?
One battle was won: Gerald is back at work. But it's hard not to feel lke it was one long month of relentless (and often meaningless) media coverage, with no ground gained.
What was at issue was not only freedom of the press and freedom of expression, but also misunderstandings and myths about sexuality, prostitution, child abuse, and consent. It was these issues, however, that largely got ignored.
The problem of course, in the entire fiasco, was that both sides (the pro and anti-Hannon) were having different arguments. The antis couldn't get past rhyming off testimonials of child abuse and incest or claiming that Hannon's students (who are well into their 20s, hardly impressionable, and who overwhelmingly supported him) needed protection.
The pro-Hannon side for the most part refused to associate themselves with his views and behaviour and instead took a freedom of expression/freedom of the press stance.
Unfortunately, the content of Hannon's arguments and the issues around his moonlighting as a prostitute were often swept under the carpet. Our media are not equipped for frank and complicated discussions of sexuality and so, for the most part, we didn't have one. It's easy to keep a captive audience when issues are viewed merely as titillating.
When we refuse to cover sex in an educational way, our audience remains manipulated. Hannon himself said at a press conference that he might be wrong about his views on paedophilia, but unless we engage in that debate, we will never know. Freedom-of-the-press and academic freedom arguments were the right arguments to make, but talking in a vacuum isn't freedom.
By not taking up the issues that got Hannon in so much hot water, we missed the boat. We also gave up the chance to open up our media to more complicated discussions about sexuality. As gay journalists, we will continue to face the charges of "homosexual perverts," "child molesters," and "criminal prostitutes." By not shying away from these issues and masking them in arguments about freedom of the press, we may help our audience understand them better.