These are dark times for free speech

The riots are being exploited to justify state censorship.

The true test of a government’s commitment to freedom comes in times of crisis. The riots that have erupted throughout the United Kingdom are to be condemned unequivocally, the perpetrators prosecuted, and the safety of the affected communities restored. This ought to be followed by serious discussions about why such widespread resentment has been generated, and how best to address the legitimate grievances that, in some cases, have translated into illegitimate behaviour.

In the meantime, we need to be vigilant. The current Labour government comprises of culture warriors who mistrust freedom of speech and will take any opportunity to impose restrictions. Whereas many perpetrators of violence have rightly been arrested and prosecuted, increasingly we are seeing police knocking on doors for social media posts that contain “disinformation” or the potential to “stir up hatred”. Words and violence are being casually conflated, and this is where the real danger begins.

Consider what happened after the murder of Conservative MP Sir David Amess in October 2021. Rather than debate how best to tackle the growing problem of Islamist terror, MPs instead used this atrocity as a springboard from which to launch a campaign for further online censorship. Unpleasant tweets had nothing to do with this murder, and yet the actual problem – violent religious extremism – was completely overlooked. This was political opportunism disguised as compassion. 

In situations of this kind, it is always best to consider how short-term solutions can jeopardise our long-term goals. Virtually all of us are disturbed when we read social media posts that display animosity towards minority ethnic groups, but empowering the state to set the limits of permissible thought and speech is an even greater danger. We are right to vehemently criticise the man who posted the phrase “Filthy bastards” on Facebook along with emojis of a gun and an ethnic minority person, but we are also right to express concern that he has been jailed for 12 weeks. Defending free speech means defending the rights of those we find most abhorrent. There are larger principles at stake. Once a precedent has been set that enables the government to control the speech of its citizens, the pathway for future tyranny has been cleared.

This is why we should also be troubled that Stephen Parkinson, the Director of Public Prosecutions, has said that police officers are “scouring social media” for anyone sharing details of the riots that might “incite racial hatred”. He has claimed that he will even seek extradition of offending social media influencers from overseas, saying that they “must know they are not safe and there is nowhere to hide”. 

These are not merely idle threats. Police in Cheshire have arrested a woman for sharing misinformation about the perpetrator of the horrific stabbing of children in Southport, wrongly identified in this case as a Muslim asylum seeker. It goes without saying that anyone deliberately sharing false information to promote their own cause or ideology deserves nothing but contempt. But once we accept that misinformation is sufficient to warrant prosecution, where does that end? After all, many elements of the mainstream media have been guilty of precisely the same thing. Will the police be dispatching forces to the offices of the Guardian, the Metro or the BBC any time soon?