Jailing people for inflammatory or misleading posts on social media risks opening a huge can of worms
Source - Daily Telegraph 13/08/22
Michael Deacon
Is an apology adequate? Wes Streeting acknowledged he went too far with some comments on social media... 13 years later
During last week’s riots, so many thugs disguised themselves using masks that the Government is now considering a ban on the wearing of face coverings at protests. According to a report in the Sun, however, exceptions would be made for “people in religious dress”.
If true, we may end up confronted by an unlikely sight. Mobs of violent Islamophobes, all clad in burkas.
For the time being, at least, the authorities are focused on dealing with those responsible for the unrest. But punishment isn’t solely reserved for people who committed violent acts. People who stirred up violence through posts on social media are being punished, too.
It’s hard to have much sympathy. All the same, I fear such an approach risks opening a huge can of worms. Because, if people can be jailed for posting messages that appear to promote violence, where does that leave the Health Secretary?
In 2009, some years before he became a Labour MP, Wes Streeting responded to a controversial column in the Daily Mail by tweeting, of the woman who wrote it: “There would be nothing natural about Jan Moir’s death if I shoved the bigoted old bag under a train.”
In 2022, a spokesman for Mr Streeting apologised, acknowledging that his tweet was “in bad taste”. An apology, however, would not have been enough to save those jailed in the past week for their behaviour online.
While we’re on the subject, I note that another Labour MP has apologised for a historic post in which she complained about “f—ing Estonian retards”. Was that stirring up hatred? And a third Labour MP has deleted a post which shared an unfounded claim that there’d been an acid attack on a Muslim woman in Middlesbrough. Was that spreading fake news?
To be clear: I’m not saying I think these MPs should be arrested. I’m just saying that, if we’re going to jail everyone who has ever posted something foolish, intemperate or misleading on social media in the heat of the moment, Labour will have to abandon its pledge to build 1.5 million new homes – and build 1.5 million new prisons, instead.
‘Community leaders’: the mystery deepens...
You may have thought that the term “community leaders” was puzzling enough. But now it seems there’s another curious new buzzword for us all to learn. Because the Crown Prosecution Service has announced that, to help “drive our response” to last week’s unrest, it’s “meeting with local panels”.
But hang on a moment. What exactly are these mysterious “local panels”? What’s their remit? Who’s on them? And how do you get a place on one?
Perhaps “local panels” are simply composed of an area’s “community leaders”. Or perhaps they’re put together like juries. Out of the blue, randomly selected members of the public receive a stern-looking official letter, informing them that they are required to sit on their local panel.
Personally, though, I think that if local panels have the ability to influence the actions of a body as important as the Crown Prosecution Service, membership of them should be elected. We, the great British public, must have the right to decide which of our fellow citizens represent us on these august panels.
To ensure that my plea reaches the relevant authorities, I intend to go straight to my community leader. Just as soon as I’ve found out who on earth he or she is.
Why the Olympics should abolish drugs tests
Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-Ting, the two competitors who comfortably won gold in the women’s Olympic boxing, have had to endure endless cruel allegations that they aren’t biologically female. Of course, this whole unhappy row could have been avoided if all prospective competitors in the women’s Olympic events had been required (as they were in the past) to undergo a simple cheek swab test beforehand, to confirm their biological sex. Supporters of the two boxers, however, argue that this would have been hurtful, humiliating, invasive and dehumanising.
Very well. But by the same logic, we should abolish Olympic drugs testing, too.
After all, think how invasive and dehumanising it must feel for Olympic athletes, to be forced to urinate into a container so that their bodily fluids can be inspected by a complete stranger. Also, how hurtful and humiliating it must seem – because the very act of being made to undergo drugs tests implies that the athletes could potentially be cheats. Why can’t we be kind and compassionate, and take it in good faith that Olympic athletes would never dream of cheating in order to win a gold medal?
I think it’s high time we stopped policing athletes’ bodies in this callous, intrusive and unnecessary manner. And if an athlete just happens to complete the marathon in 20 minutes, or hurl the javelin half way to Berlin, let’s all stand up and applaud an incredible sporting achievement.
Comments
Post a Comment