Opinion: Does the Prime Minister really care about free speech?

The Prime Minister is concerned that Leveson’s “essential” legislative underpinning for press self-regulation would cross a line. “We should be wary of any legislation that has the potential to infringe free speech and a free press”, he stated, saying that we should be proud of our “great tradition” of freedom of speech. But the UK has many laws that restrict citizens’ free expression and which we should be deeply ashamed of. Will the PM be campaigning to end these?

There’s ‘Section 5’, under which – for example – a 16 year old was summoned to court for holding a placard saying, “Scientology is not a religion. It is a dangerous cult.” Thankfully, after pressure from MPs and the Reform Section 5 campaign, the Home Office consulted on the law and – separately – the Lords will tomorrow vote on amending it. Reformists (including the Deputy Prime Minister) can presumably count on the PM’s support!

Readers may agree with the above Scientology comment, but free speech depends on people defending things that they would never themselves say. A recent string of convictions for offensive communications has covered comments about dead policewomen (scrawled on a t-shirt), a Facebook post about dead soldiers, and jokes about missing girl April Jones. I hope I’m not breaking any laws on offence by saying that these were clearly horrible and idiotic responses to truly awful events. But should we be sending people to prison for them? Should some jokes be illegal?

Worse, a man was arrested last month after posting a picture of a burning remembrance poppy on Facebook. It’s staggering that sharing such an image could lead to a knock on the door and time in a cell. (On this, let me point to the three Lib Dem MPs who in 2006 supported making it illegal to burn the Union Flag: John Leech, Bob Russell and Mark Williams!)

Credible threats and sustained harassment should of course be investigated, and context is important, but there should be no right “not to be offended”. This last point is especially important in the age of the internet. Jokes that might previously have been kept within the home or the classroom now become instantly accessible matters of public record. Drunk students find themselves the subjects of national attention. Must things said online avoid offending anyone in the country, or even the entire world?

If anything, the community processes of ostracism, which should be preferable to calling the police, are easier online. Ignoring and ‘unfriending’ are given their own buttons! And, for better or worse, social media operate within private sites that have their own regulations and reporting systems for dealing with objectionable content, further reducing the need for police involvement.

The Crown Prosecution Service are devising guidelines on the treatment of such online communications. The Director of Public Prosecutions has said “the time has come for an informed debate about the boundaries of free speech in an age of social media.” While these guidelines may – if we’re lucky – be an improvement, there are plenty of laws that simply must be changed, for both online and offline communications.

If the government is really concerned about freedom – supposedly one of its three core values – it should follow Lib Dem policy and introduce a second Freedom Bill. This should include reform of these communications and public order laws, as well as those on obscene publications and the activities of consenting adults (and how about the rules sheltering parliamentary footage – including Cameron’s defence of a free press! – from satire?). The PM should be more concerned about laws that currently drag regular Brits through our courts and prisons than about opposing short legislation to encourage self-regulation of powerful newspapers.

* Adam Corlett is economist analyst at the Resolution Foundation, and writes here in a personal capacity as a party member.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/32078 for Twitter and emails.

5 Comments

  • Richard Swales 11th Dec '12 - 9:36pm

    There were hundreds of people protesting outside the British embassy in Bratislava a couple of months ago, yet no British paper reported it as the story about the protest would not make sense when you are not allowed to be told what the protest was about. John Hemming has alluded to this matter in parliament but not spelt it out sufficiently for me to be able to say any more than the protest happened.

    But this article is right. You have a serious problem.

  • http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20181601

    “A man who shouted “no public sector cuts” at David Cameron during a speech in Glasgow has been ordered to carry out 100 hours of community service. ”

    It’s difficult to see DC as anything but a parody of himself.

  • this is where we have seen some progress due to LD being in Government

    The problem is again the Tories, I was always very sceptical about this portrayal of them as civil liberties supporters. there performance when in Government is normally as draconian, if not more so than the Labour Party.

    Apart from a few libertarians and others who genuinely support civil liberties the majority are typical ‘curtain twitchers’ who only support civil liberties if it involves killing animals or burglars with as much freedom as possible

    The idea of supporting the right of protest, whistle blowing, the accused in court etc is alien to them and is obvious to those who lived under the 80s Government

  • It’s good that the Lib Dems are kicking up about this, because Conservative Governments have a worse record on free speech than even New Labour. A lot of stuff was banned under Thatcher and the Tory half of this government had people picked up for pre-crime. protesting, and seems intent on snooping everyone’s E-mails. I don’t think we should be taking legal action against people for saying things that rile the Red Tops.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?




Recent Comments

  • User AvatarPeter 30th Sep - 6:48pm
    I've just checked the UK average wage. It looks as though Ms Lindsay's plan is to have average wage earners (and of course the 50%...
  • User AvatarPeter 30th Sep - 6:31pm
    @ jedibeeftrix Well said, but if I may point out that Ms Lindsay is insisting that capping the benefit is a disgrace. That means that...
  • User AvatarJohnTilley 30th Sep - 6:19pm
    David Allen You ask this question ---" .....are you not at risk of making your own value judgment as to which “people” you wish to...
  • User AvatarGlenn Andrews 30th Sep - 6:12pm
    In his zeal this IDS chap looked one step away from appearing on stage in a twin set and pearls with a penguin glove puppet...
  • User Avatarjohnmc 30th Sep - 6:11pm
    Why is the benefits cap wrong in the first place, and why ought it not to decrease if circumstances require, (as average earnings have)? Even...
  • User Avatarjedibeeftrix 30th Sep - 6:10pm
    @ AndrewR - "If you earn that little it’s doubtful you’re even covering your own cost to the state never mind paying for anyone else."...