This week, when Greater Manchester Police arrested an individual who set up a Facebook page praising a man charged with murdering two WPCs, it was just the latest in a string of stories concerning unsavoury messages appearing online. In the summer, a Twitter post suggested young diver Tom Daly had let his father down by underperforming at The Olympics, another 'accused' Daly of having an sexual relationship with his team mate. Louise Mensch MP was called a 'rich whore'.
I have no hesitation in condemning this sort of cowardly name-calling, hurtful rabble-rousing and puerile idiocy. When the abusers are exposed and held up as pathetic nobodies, I am delighted. That said, I am also wholly opposed to their arrest and prosecution. And I take this stance for some solid reasons.
Our legal system is overstretched. Across the country, the Police are facing substantial cuts to frontline resources and prisons often struggle to accommodate the convicted. To add a new criminal class to such a burdened system in a blind panic over a technological phenomenon few predicted, and even fewer properly understand, would be foolish and a massive overreaction. Quite rightly, the law allows for intervention to punish those who propagate racism, make others fear for their safety or threaten violence. These sanctions apply whether the actions are undertaken verbally, by telephone or by other means - and can just as easily be brought to bear when the internet is the tool. With that, I have no problem.
I have no hesitation in condemning this sort of cowardly name-calling, hurtful rabble-rousing and puerile idiocy. When the abusers are exposed and held up as pathetic nobodies, I am delighted. That said, I am also wholly opposed to their arrest and prosecution. And I take this stance for some solid reasons.
Our legal system is overstretched. Across the country, the Police are facing substantial cuts to frontline resources and prisons often struggle to accommodate the convicted. To add a new criminal class to such a burdened system in a blind panic over a technological phenomenon few predicted, and even fewer properly understand, would be foolish and a massive overreaction. Quite rightly, the law allows for intervention to punish those who propagate racism, make others fear for their safety or threaten violence. These sanctions apply whether the actions are undertaken verbally, by telephone or by other means - and can just as easily be brought to bear when the internet is the tool. With that, I have no problem.
What concerns me is the notion that other critical messages, no matter how wayward, nasty or misspelt should be a matter for police investigation. When some bloody fool comments on Rebecca Adlington's nose, or more pertinently, makes a cruel joke about an athlete's late father, they deserve any and all the rebuke and ridicule they receive. What they do not deserve is the expense and notoriety of a raid by the local constabulary (again, if racial or homophobic abuse or threats of violence are involved, the situation changes and is covered by existing police powers).
Which brings me to 'freedom of speech'. In the abstract, it's a wonderful notion. Should I be so moved I can say, right now, I believe George Osborne to be an inept twit or Ed Miliband to be a supine doofus, without fear of official reprisal. Happily we live in a country where it is our absolute right to decry, mock or challenge our leaders. I have recently returned from Greece, where I was told I could be arrested and charged for any negative remarks I might make about the Orthodox Church. This would equally apply to electronic messages I might create while in the country (this in the cradle of democracy). I very much doubt any sort of majority could be found to support this kind of restriction in the UK.
But unfortunately there's an inconvenient cost to our liberty. We must tolerate (within the existing and accepted boundaries), the voice of the ignorant, juvenile and unenlightened. We don't have to take them seriously and we certainly need not encourage their outpourings, but we must allow them their opinion if we are to enjoy the opportunity to speak ourselves. As much as we don't appreciate it, there is no legislation to prevent the person next to us on a train, talking utter nonsense about any subject they please. And nor should there be. After all, our own considered insights may easily be other folks' cobblers.
If there is an area of online communication which requires a solid policy, it is trolling. But let's dispense with this new-speak verb and name it for what it is: harassment. With the right to free-expression comes the responsibility not to use it as weapon and all too frequently, a user takes leave of their senses and pursues some poor soul endlessly and unfairly, via the internet. This is not right. But I am convinced this sort of destructive activity was taking place many years before digital media and has never been taken seriously enough. Here too, there is existing legislation making stalking and harassment a crime (The Protection from Harassment Act 1997), it just needs enforcing correctly and rigorously. Further guidance or law-making is no substitute for the correct deployment of extant protections.
Perhaps my overriding anxiety concerning the policing of social media by the state is that of unintended consequences. Make no mistake, the Government's keenness to sort out unpleasant messaging on Twitter is far outweighed by its enthusiasm for monitoring the online activity of the entire populace, and its plans are well-advanced. For me, any administration considering this sort of intrusion would have no qualms about moving against those who would use the web to undermine them. What would prevent my 'Osborne is an inept twit' message becoming actionable if it was directed at the Chancellor's own Twitter account?
An area of communication still in flux, social networking only really happened by happy accident. The law-makers have yet to grasp its nuances and legislation is notoriously poor at managing modern media trends. Older readers will recall the 'video nasties' scare of the 1980s and how confused and ineffective that proved to be. Nevertheless, when the bureaucrats and authoritarians turn an eager eye on the platforms which facilitate our freedoms, we should consider matters very carefully before giving them our support.
The DPP, Keir Starmer, has suggested bad-taste jokes or comments should not be the subject of prosecution and yet, Paul Chambers' life was all but ruined by his flippant remark about the elimination of Robin Hood airport.
Which brings me to 'freedom of speech'. In the abstract, it's a wonderful notion. Should I be so moved I can say, right now, I believe George Osborne to be an inept twit or Ed Miliband to be a supine doofus, without fear of official reprisal. Happily we live in a country where it is our absolute right to decry, mock or challenge our leaders. I have recently returned from Greece, where I was told I could be arrested and charged for any negative remarks I might make about the Orthodox Church. This would equally apply to electronic messages I might create while in the country (this in the cradle of democracy). I very much doubt any sort of majority could be found to support this kind of restriction in the UK.
But unfortunately there's an inconvenient cost to our liberty. We must tolerate (within the existing and accepted boundaries), the voice of the ignorant, juvenile and unenlightened. We don't have to take them seriously and we certainly need not encourage their outpourings, but we must allow them their opinion if we are to enjoy the opportunity to speak ourselves. As much as we don't appreciate it, there is no legislation to prevent the person next to us on a train, talking utter nonsense about any subject they please. And nor should there be. After all, our own considered insights may easily be other folks' cobblers.
If there is an area of online communication which requires a solid policy, it is trolling. But let's dispense with this new-speak verb and name it for what it is: harassment. With the right to free-expression comes the responsibility not to use it as weapon and all too frequently, a user takes leave of their senses and pursues some poor soul endlessly and unfairly, via the internet. This is not right. But I am convinced this sort of destructive activity was taking place many years before digital media and has never been taken seriously enough. Here too, there is existing legislation making stalking and harassment a crime (The Protection from Harassment Act 1997), it just needs enforcing correctly and rigorously. Further guidance or law-making is no substitute for the correct deployment of extant protections.
Perhaps my overriding anxiety concerning the policing of social media by the state is that of unintended consequences. Make no mistake, the Government's keenness to sort out unpleasant messaging on Twitter is far outweighed by its enthusiasm for monitoring the online activity of the entire populace, and its plans are well-advanced. For me, any administration considering this sort of intrusion would have no qualms about moving against those who would use the web to undermine them. What would prevent my 'Osborne is an inept twit' message becoming actionable if it was directed at the Chancellor's own Twitter account?
An area of communication still in flux, social networking only really happened by happy accident. The law-makers have yet to grasp its nuances and legislation is notoriously poor at managing modern media trends. Older readers will recall the 'video nasties' scare of the 1980s and how confused and ineffective that proved to be. Nevertheless, when the bureaucrats and authoritarians turn an eager eye on the platforms which facilitate our freedoms, we should consider matters very carefully before giving them our support.
The DPP, Keir Starmer, has suggested bad-taste jokes or comments should not be the subject of prosecution and yet, Paul Chambers' life was all but ruined by his flippant remark about the elimination of Robin Hood airport.
When Sean Lennon calls a Twitter user 'an argument for abortion', there is every reason to conclude he is being obnoxious, stupid and offensive. But there's a very good argument for allowing him to say it. It's a tough call, but I'd rather have too much freedom than too little.
