5. We will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia or other forms of hate-speech, or contributions that could be interpreted as such. We recognise the difference between criticising a particular government, organisation, community or belief and attacking people on the basis of their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

There is no mention here of disability and that is typical of most media web sites. The BBC is an exception. Unfortunately some of the most active commenters on the Guardian’s Comment is Free site are very hostile to any suggestion that they should abandon derogatory terms for disability. Their argument is that they want to defend free speech. Disability campaigners see this as prejudice and, given the lack of a specific right to protest against disablist language, few think they are entitled to do so. I would suggest that some potential posters are frightened away from expressing themseleves online while others only do so in an inhibited manner.

This makes it hard for disablity campaigners to put themselves forward in the media. I had a recent article in the Guardian. I was open about being bipolar and I faced so many insults that I have taken my case to the Press Complaints Commission.

I think the lack of a specific right to complain about disablist abuse is an active deterrent to joining in online discussions. Today a lot of debate takes place online and if people with disablities are reluctant to take part because they fear online abuse then they are excluded from political debate and other types of discussion.

Over time, analysis of people’s choices of display options could tell us a great deal and may help to shape the way that all content is presented in the future so that it’s easier for all of us to read and navigate.