Appropriate opprobrium
by Max Wind-Cowie
Oh dear. It's Liam Stacey all over again. Remember Liam Stacey? He's the obnoxious, silly little boy who tweeted his racially abusive glee at the death of Fabrice Muamba. Understandably, rightly, Twitter and the British press reacted with anger and hurt at his comments. He received thousands of responses explaining what an unpleasant chap he was; he was condemned in national newspapers and by anchors and commentators alike on TV. He was shunned. All of which, in my view, was well and good. We could pat ourselves on the back and congratulate one another on our collective good taste and good will. Fabrice Muamba even rose from the dead!
But then the police decided to get involved. It seemed that our social, community response to Liam Stacey's ugly thoughts was not enough. He was arrested. He was sent to prison. Suddenly this wasn't a question of someone having an opinion and pretty much everyone else telling him to bugger off - suddenly this was an issue of freedom of speech. And so, as is our duty, many of us (appalled as we were, and participants in the hounding of this boy as we were) were forced to take Mr. Stacey's side as his right to be offensive in the eyes of the law was dismissed.
Today, a boy of 17 sits in a police station being interrogated about his tweets concerning Olympic diver Tom Daley. To be clear, the messages that I saw were deeply and personally offensive. They used Daley's deceased father as ammunition to bait and mock the young sportsman for being pipped to the podium.
Because they were the written embodiment of nihilistic online bullying - with their extreme crassness and their absurd self-importance - I felt moved to tweet how disgusting I found them. So did thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of other users of the social network. The troll - shocked, hurt even by the flood of opprobrium he received - apologised.
Good stuff, right? A happy ending. Except he has now been arrested and so, as with Liam Stacey, those of us with any concern for freedom of expression and for the right to offend people in debate and discussion are now forced to feel sympathy and outrage on this young man's behalf.
And that's the problem with the state involving itself in these matters. It is one thing for us to use social pressure to force some conformity to manners on the platforms and networks which we use. That is standard, admirable, human behaviour. Communities cannot survive by law alone - they need the soft application and expectation of certain norms, traditions and social rules.
But when the state decides that it must turn those laws into actionable, prosecutable law it prevents us from self-organising and self-regulating behaviour. It renders us dependent upon its intervention. And this serves to split the community. Some of us who called out the Tom Daley trolling are appalled by the arrest, others are comforted - the state's intrusion has taken a unifying meme and rendered it a moment of vicious division and debate.
I want to be free to tell people I find them offensive. I want to be free to be told so myself. We do not need the state to regulate our conversations, our arguments and every breathing second of the communities we have chosen to immerse ourselves in. And every time the state chooses to act on a Twitter-storm it makes me less confident that I can articulate my distaste without risking another man's liberty. More arrests like these and the very concept of the social network - with its inbuilt, self-made communities, rules and self-regulation - will become completely untenable.
Simon Melville
To echo Richard Matthews's comments above, I am a little confused over what he was actually arrested for.
Was it the death threat (which is hardly credible)?
Alleged racist abuse in response to some of his critics?
Or the actual idiotic abuse of Daley in the first place?
Simon Melville
Should also add that I agree with your post Max -- if the police are involved because someone's feelings (Daley or anyone who read the tweets in question) are hurt then that is deeply worrying.
Max Wind-Cowie
Thanks both for your comments. There is indeed some confusion about what, exactly, the kid has been arrested for. I would argue that that very confusion is troubling - a lack of clarity about what law is being invoked makes it difficult to arrive at moral decisions about whether or not this is appropriate. I would also say - perhaps controversially - that I do not regard 'threats' on Twitter as being the same as threats made directly to a person. Of course it is deeply unpleasant to make threats in any sphere - but on a social network one has the option of blocking, ignoring, condemning etc without direct, immediate fear. This is not possible in everyday life.
Matei Clej
Thank you Max Wind-Cowie for articulating this much-neglected argument: that moral opprobrium is very capable of regulating human behaviour entirely independent of the intervention of the legal apparatus of the state. We ought, as a society, to allow the 'soft application and expectation of certain norms' to work out before we allow politicians to legislate against every last disagreeable human behaviour.
Max Wind-Cowie
Thank you Matei! I particularly love this line in your comment 'We ought, as a society, to allow the 'soft application and expectation of certain norms' to work out before we allow politicians to legislate against every last disagreeable human behaviour.' - Which I agree with entirely.
Richard Matthews
I think he was arrested for the tweet he did later in the night when he tweeted Tom Daley threatening that if he found him he would drown him in the pool. There is freedom of speech and then there is threatining to drown someone.