Twitter chirping could ruffle some feathers
**Whether tweeting your disappointment about Tom Daley’s latest performance, or posting a few crass jokes on your Facebook page, expect a swift reprimand. In the last few months, amid vehement public outcry, several people have been subjected to the full wrath of the law for offensive statements they have made online.**
A recent example of this concerning trend is the case of Matthew Woods, a 20-year-old who received 12 weeks in prison for posting jokes from Sickipedia about missing five-year-old April Jones on his Facebook page. The offense in this case was “sending a public electronic communication which is grossly offensive”, a worryingly subjective phrasing of the law.
In essence it is trying to criminalise that which the “average” person would find grossly offensive. But this remains a deeply personal judgement, and one which varies drastically enough between people to prevent any consistent interpretation. Even were it possible to judge objectively what constituted ‘grossly offensive’ it is still a flawed notion. Given his unpopularity among a significant proportion of the population, should David Cameron fear prosecution for expressing his opinions online?
To suggest this would be ridiculous, but it does highlight a strange double standard. No one, for instance, is seriously demanding the arrest of Frankie Boyle, despite his routinely obscene twitter outbursts. However, the mob is quick to descend on the house of a drunk, 20-year-old imitator. That Matthew Woods’s jokes were aimed at a vastly smaller audience is apparently irrelevant—without the protective title of comedian, he was defenceless against the belligerent public.
Equally worrying, however, is the kneejerk response to these cases. Reactionary, populist sentencing is not conducive to a fair judicial process, and the speed with which Matthew Woods’s case was settled is a worrying example of the use of law to placate the perennially offended. One cannot help but think the result may have been different had it been postponed until public distress had died down.
Even so, a prison sentence seems disproportionate. The social and economic sanctions on those who offend the majority are already great: people who spout ignorant and offensive opinions are largely ostracised and publications that print hate are punished commercially. As such we are largely self-censoring. To remove the ability to decide for ourselves is deeply condescending.
And yet this very demand is being made vociferously across the country. In an earlier issue of the Boar, a commentator suggested a curtailment of freedom of speech and freedom of expression in order to prevent religious upset. It was a call for increased censorship, for an end to religious criticisms and an enforced respect for other beliefs no matter our own personal views.
This seems indicative of the current climate we find ourselves in. We are so scared of offending, and so indignant at the offense caused by others, that we seek to restrict our own ability to speak freely.
The hypocrisy of it is damning. We find abhorrent the persecution in certain countries of people attempting to voice their religious or political beliefs. Quite rightly these countries could claim to uphold the same degree of free speech as we do, that the people are free to say that which does not offend. The only distinction here is the views we collectively find ‘offensive’.
Free speech, after all, is not the right to say anything so long as it is sufficiently inoffensive. Free speech, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the right to “hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media.” In contrast, there is a notable lack of rights protecting you from offense.
Matthew Woods may seem like a poor example to defend. The silencing of a man blithely posting insensitive, tasteless jokes may seem more justifiable than the stifling of religious or political opinions. But it signals a move towards a society where our free speech is restricted to opinions that the majority find palatable.
What we need instead is the maturity to accept that in a society made up of contrasting beliefs and ideals we are necessarily going to be exposed to views we find offensive and that in defending our own right to speak freely we cannot restrict that same right in others.
We have the right to be offended, and it is a dull world in which we are denied this.
Comments