Sunday 29 December 2013

The decline of freedom of speech in the UK





This is 19-year-old Adam Swelling, who after receiving a suspended sentence for assault went onto murder a father-of-3 Gary Lovewell. He was also apparently at the time on bail for other pending crimes. 





This 21-year-old, called Liam Stacy, who was jailed for 56 days for posting drunken racist tweets after the footballer Fabrice Muamba collapsed during an English F.A Cup football match. He first tweeted “LOL fuck Muamaba!! He’s dead!!” and then continued a barrage of race-related insults at the footballer and outraged members of the public as his tweets circulated. 


Around the same time, another idiot, Amzhar Ahmed, 20, was arrested for saying that all British soldiers should go to hell for sending grossly offensive communication.


Whilst insulting someone because of their “race” or career choice is indeed deplorable, it is madness that people risk prosecution, even jailed, because of the language they use on social networks because they crossed cultural taboo or cracked an insensitive joke. Frankly, society already incarcerates enough non-violent criminals. The police were not acquainted with either of the two defendants mentioned, Liam Stacy and Amzhar Ahmed, therefore, we can safely assume that they were no real threat to society. The same cannot be unfortunately said for Adam Swelling, who is one amongst an ocean of repeat violent offenders currently causing crime waves up and down the country, which the police have no real answer for. 


Words are not going to determine the result of an attempted revival after cardiac arrest, nor will words alone blow an airport into smithereens. Sometimes, in a so-called free society, we will hear views, opinions and rants that we don’t agree with or like. An affront to common decency is not sufficient to overturn freedom of speech. 


One of the interesting aspects to internet posting is the anonymity users feel because of the spatial distance technology creates in relation to their verbal target. Consequently, the false security offered through the internet encourages people to articulate nonsense which they wouldn’t usually in a shared  physical domain. The internet revolution has greatly exposed how poor freedom of speech is protected in the UK in this respect since the police decided to take it seriously whilst highlighting how easy it is for the police to initiate an investigation because vaguely written legislation that suits the state and overly sensitive complainants. It is quite unfortunate, even ironic, that the Leverson inquiry would happen around the same time of this erosion of freedom because of the News of The World scandal. It is already known that the UK suffers from the worst defamation laws in the civilised world, which has led to the phenomena of ‘libel tourism.’ Essentially, wealthy litigants worldwide can silence their critics and enforce censorship through the London courts regardless of truth. If you are rich, powerful and dislike criticism the UK will cater for you with Saudi style censorship!


The disturbing trend in which the British police arrest or investigate people because of insensitive remarks on the grounds of it being a ‘hate crime’, or by invoking some other obscure communication law in the event of a complaint, is truly disturbing. Lord Sugar was investigated recently for posting a picture of a crying Chinese child captioned with “The kid is upset because he was told off for leaving the product line of a iPhone5.” Although no action was formally taken against him, it was laughably documented officially as a hate crime



As a linguist I wonder where exactly the line needs to be drawn and what will lead to police investigations tomorrow? And how far reaching should press regulation really be? The preface to George Orwell’s Animal Farm is: “If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Authoritarian regimes are well known for their airbrushing and selective management of a language via state intrusion. The Soviets were specialists at this and had agencies organised to maintain the standard of Russian being published. OK, so we aren’t quite there yet. Living in a democracy there will be no blanket authoritarian laws implemented like this, instead freedom of speech will be slowly whittled away. People will be funneled into conformity succumbing to whatever the latest euphemism is to not tread on toes, and police will act purely on the volume of complaints they received which is supported by the current laws.

In my opinion, the police in this country have become more ideologically motivated as they have slowly lost control of preventing tradition crimes through traditional means of patrolling. The government says every year that crime is dropping yet most people in reality feel less safe. Official crime statistics are likely dropping because the government recategorises crime and much minor crime now passes unreported. You only need to look at the number of sentences now containing diminished responsibility or manslaughter charges that impact murder statistics (...and vast medical advancements).

Surely there is a way of maturely opposing idiocy from the likes of Liam Stacy, or any other arsehole with a big mouth, without directly opposing freedom of speech? Judges should operate sentencing on the platform of the severity of the crime committed not act wholly on the levels of public offence caused. Such cases shouldn’t really even make it to the courtroom and need to be settled through common sense: open public dismissal and ridicule or allowing its quiet passing. However, this will not happen until various groups drop the ‘Freedom of speech BUT’ mentality.

1 comment:

  1. Well, we've not really had folks arrested for poor humor and crude commentary here that I know of. You're football (soccer) tweeter may be more a threat to the public good than I realize though...because over yonder across the pond, folks take that stuff a lot more seriously than over here.

    Here...everything is political. ...but only if you've got a position to lose for it, and someone is looking to sacrifice a celebrity for having misspoken.....because no one wants to talk about the crew of the Ronald Reagan Nimitz class carrier having a ...insane level of cancers, or ...we wish to distract from "bi-partisan" legislation.

    Me...I'd not be so...me were I ...someone else! :) If I were a wiser man I'd have more tact and discretion...but I'm not, I also don't much matter.

    I think ...everyone is able to make complete fools of themselves on the internet. I know I do...wish I didn't.

    ReplyDelete