One of the issues that has come to the fore following the appalling murders then just as appalling lawlessness in Southport earlier this week is the question of free speech. There can be no doubt that misinformation has caused much of the rioting and sheer criminality of the past few days. There are a lot of similarities between what happened in the 1981 Toxteth riots and what happened in 2024 in Southport but there is one crucial difference – social media and the various mobile phones and appliances that supercharge them.
Just to recap within a couple of hours of the murders false information was put out through social media that the person who committed the murders was an immigrant who came over on small boats and was a Muslim. The Police are bound by law to restrict information about suspects, but they did release one nugget of information that, in a rational world, would have shut down the rumours. They said that the suspect was from Rwanda.
The UK has few Rwandan refugees, and they came over 30 years ago at the time of the massacres and genocide in that Country. Rwanda is a member of he Commonwealth of Nations although we were not the colonial rulers. Commonwealth membership gives Rwandans greater rights to come to our Country just as we Brits have greater rights to go to their countries. So, the perpetrator was not a ‘boat person,’ his family came here with the support of the UK government all those years ago and was not a Muslim. 96% of the population of Rwanda are Christian and only 2% is of the Islamic faith.
I believe that this means that we must think carefully of the advantages and disadvantages of social media. I use social media a lot. I blog for example. I tweet. I regularly communicate with my grandchildren, using facetime. I email which is a process which saves so much time and paper. So social media must stay but there must be constraints on it.
If I were to libel someone I could be sued in court. People know who I am and if they do not know where I live can easily find out. If a newspaper clearly fails to follow legal rules about disclosure or without checking facts, there are consequences from the press regulator and the courts. But anyone can anonymously put what they like on social media with little fear of consequences. If they Lib Dems put out a leaflet it must show printer and publisher.
One false statement, especially if it is egregiously malicious or extremist gets re-circulated. Once a thousand people have seen the exchange then what has been said it is assumed to be truthful and factually correct. In the case of the Southport situation even when both the Courts and Police had been certain aspects clear, especially the fact of the religion of the perpetrator, those facts clearly did not matter. Whether that was because they didn’t know or didn’t care about the truth I just do not know.
I want to see a Country where all its citizens have respect for each and where they have respect for the rule of law and those in the courts and police who are sworn to uphold the rule of law. I want to go back to being a country which is tolerant and based on neighbourliness and friendship. I want to go back to being a country where the rights of all to live safely and peacefully are protected.
So, what can we do about social media?
Firstly, we should ensure that all social media accounts can easily be described to an individual or organisation. Almost all the extremist accounts from all types of extremists are anonymous.
Secondly, the social media companies need to establish algorithms that will recognise and remove accounts which clearly, from what I have seen, are being used to incite violence.
Thirdly, the Government needs to establish a unit which can disrupt persistently violent and provocative accounts and messaging. If the Russians can influence elections in the UK and USA, why can’t we disrupt the enemy within.
A free press and free speech are an inalienable English human right but only until that freedom affects other people’s freedoms, lives, and businesses. We need to put extremism back in its box. We can only do that by tackling head on the people who lie and threaten the public realm and public order.
* Cllr Richard Kemp CBE is Lord Mayor of Liverpool for 2024-2025.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Mystery at Witchend is Went the Day Well? and Seven White Gates is A Matter of Life and Death
The long role of the Jewish community in Liverpool
Labour's post-election (non-)honeymoon: The Week in Polls
September now
Farron photos
Joe Bourke
Peter Martin
Mick Taylor
Michael BG
Jennie
24 Comments
I broadly agree with this, with the proviso that we will be restricted by what is technically possible. I think we have a problem that we’ve gone too far as a society in defending anonymity and privacy, and not recognising the problem that human beings often behave very badly if they know they are anonymous. I totally agree that posting on social media should require an account that can be tracked back to you – so that we all have to take responsibility for what we say. The only provisos are that you’d need some system to protect people who might fear for their safety (victims of domestic violence, whistle blowers etc.) and also there’s the issue of people posting on UK social media from abroad and therefore beyond the reach of UK laws. That latter point could be partially solved by requiring social media companies to label posts that come from foreign accounts.
Many liberal groups around the world need (relative) internet anonymity to campaign against authoritarianism. It is sometimes the only safe voice they have.
The main problem in the UK is not ‘social media’, but the fact we have a society deeply divided on the issue of immigration. Like it or not, a very substantial body of UK citizens are against the mass immigration of the sort we have seen in the last two decades. Even if one ignores the issue of cultural integration, we cannot increase the UK’s population by 600,000 per year without social consequences (housing shortages, demands for building on the green belt, transport congestion, rising NHS waiting lists…).
Liberal Democrats need to be mature enough to debate policy solutions and not dismiss everyone who disagrees with mass immigration as ‘far right’ or bigoted. Sensible statecraft is needed. Many perfectly reasonable people are concerned about the impact of mass migration – and if mainstream politicians don’t respond with solutions derived from a calm and serious discussion of the facts, the consequences could be very serious indeed.
I agree with the sentiments of this article. It is sad that we are seeing aggression and anger from one part of the population towards another. This encouraged by a minority who are out wind up people’s emotions. The language used by those in places of responsibility is contributing to this. We need to be careful about how we express our views that it doesn’t harm others. It would be good to be able to have regular meetings with people of other cultures and those who have arrived here because they have suffered abuse and violence in their own country.
Should ALL comments on social media have the REAL name of the person put at the top of the comments? Should Govnts be able to go straight into social media Headquarters to find the name and address of false information givers.?
This is an international issue as this article on the design of a common agreed standard for AI technology describes Inside the shadowy global battle to tame the world’s most dangerous technology
At times I despair about what is happening to the country when a small violent minority can cause so much destruction. Now these riots are out of the veritable pandoras box how can they be put back in?
Educating folk about the law, the reasons behind it, and the possible consequences of posting/sharing misinformation would help. Currently, too many people don’t understand any of this, so feel free to post what they like. Indeed, many wrongly imagine they are ‘champions of free speech’ by saying what they equally wrongly think the ‘main-stream media’ are ‘covering up’.
Social media companies can largely shrug their shoulders if they choose. The EU is trying to tackle this with its Digital Services Act. If that pans out, it could be copied here.
This is not a case of the social media industry needing better algorithms. Elon Musk reversed the ban on Tommy Tobinson when he bought Twitter and has since posted a highly provocative and dangerous message himself, about the “inevitability” of civil war. There’s money to be made from extremism in social media. People who use X should think again,
Social media lit the fuse, but the explosive mixture of anti-foreigner sentiment was made by Brexit and years of divisive rhetoric from Tory ministers. Regarding free speech, would we prefer to not know about the hatred in some sections of society ? This way, the opposing decency of the vast majority is brought to the attention of the deluded few.
There have always been idiots and extremists on social media networks. What’s changed is that the owner of one of them, who is also one of the world’s richest men, has taken to promoting the messages of extremists and is posting things that some might reasonably conclude are actively designed to destabilise our Government and create division in our society. He has control of the algorithms that decide what users view, and has clearly taken a side in both US and UK politics. That is not a free press or free speach, which can only exist when there is some semblance of responsibility and balance.
A big part of the solution will be to hold social media companies to account for any incitement to violence emanating from their platforms through steep fines and if necessary bans on them operating in the UK.
There must be consequences for allowing hatred to foment.
I don’t see curbing excesses on social media as a crisis of conscience. JS Mill’s harm principle set a clear limit on Freedom of Speech, namely that in exercising it one should do no harm to others. Hate speech, anti-semitism, racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and incitement are clearly designed to cause harm to others and are not acceptable in any media. To lie to do any of these things is clearly an issue that we must now tackle as well. We also have to find ways of talking about these issues that are not inflammatory or designed to stir up trouble. A difficult but vital ask
Let’s not panic about what is essentially a public order issue. There are a small number of trouble-makers coordinating their actions regionally. The authorities need to adopt the same measures as they did with football hooliganism such as intercepting suspects in transit, ‘smart’ crowd control etc
@Mark: You say, ‘let’s not panic about what is essentially a public order issue’ – but I think it’s wider than that. The events of the past week have put the focus on people anonymously making false claims that stir up the far right, but that same online anonymity is what has allowed people to make rape and other threats against public figures (notably, female MPs), has allowed misinformation about all sorts of other issues to spread – in some cases as part of deliberate campaigns by hostile foreign Governments – and has also allowed people to set up scams or commit other crimes online.
Personally I don’t think we can afford to go on with a system where, due to the lack of checks of online identity, people in effect have no accountability for what they write online, with also in some cases little ability to distinguish human beings from bots.
The trouble with banning things or restricting access to social media for certain well known individuals – is you further their notoriety – in TR case his banned documentary has now had 35 million views and counting … Ultimately politicians who have been voted in on promises & have abjectly failed to deliver – cue Cameron & Johnson…
I agree with Richard and Mick (and J.S. Mill too come to that!)
I’ve always hated X/Twitter as a medium, but given Elon Musk’s appalling, insulting and defamatory remarks about the UK designed to pour petrol on the flames of a difficult situation, then I think it’s time for people to take action against him and his vile hate website.
Why don’t Liberal Democrat MPs, Councillors and Peers who have accounts with X just close them and say why they are doing it? Other social media platforms are available, and as X is already in difficulty financially, fewer people using it means fewer views and it becomes less attractive to asvertisers.
Musk took the decision to reduce moderating of X and also allowed Trump and ‘Tommy two-names’ back on it. For evil to triumph all you need is for good people to do do nothing, so do something, and get off X now!
@nigel hunter
> Should ALL comments on social media have the REAL name of the person
> put at the top of the comments?
No – some people have very good reasons for keeping their real identity private e.g. someone who is being abused by a former partner.
> Should Govnts be able to go straight into social media Headquarters to find
> the name and address of false information givers.?
Who decides if the information is false? The (possibly totalitarian) government concerned?
I agree with the last comment from Steve but although I’m no expert on the field of online safeguarding, surely it is possible for the tech co’s to do much much more to remove posts that promote hate speech and maybe misinformation too? I keep hearing that the Online Safety Act will give regulators teeth in a year or two’s time – why the delay? Could the government accelerate this?
I tend to the view that anonymous posting is never going to be outlawed, for the very good reasons others have mentioned earlier, so the only tool for government is to police the platforms they are posting on. All that said, would we be happy calling for a more authoritarian approach from government if Sunak’s lot were still in charge? And are Labour any better?
Free speech has always been a fundamental liberal value. But it has never been an absolute liberal value. There have always been limits, for example shouting “Fire” in a theatre when there isn’t one. Also incitement to hatred, for example claiming a Muslim is responsible for the murder of the girls in Southport recently.
Social Media needs to be regulated to stop the incitement to hatred. This is not an easy task, in some cases it is clear cut that this is happening, in other cases it is not so clear. Liberals need to find a concensus as far as it is reasonable to do so to agree across various political opinions to allow offensive views that do not cross the line and prohibit those that do.
I gave up twitter after the 2017 general election and never go anywhere near X. I have a small presence on Facebook to keep in touch with what my children are doing. Indiscriminate social media is just not for me and shouldn’t be for any sane person.
Free speech is the cornerstone of a liberal society ..Nobody has a right not to be offended. Too often of late Universities, workplaces, and political parties etc, have found themselves in court in front of a judge and it’s taken that for them to realise what that freedom means – it’s damaged their reputation & incurred a significant financial penalty as a result…Who decides what is or is not offensive.. We’ve had police officers visit an individual to ‘ check his thinking ‘ & as recently as April we had two policeman & an NHS psychology nurse visit a Christian who tweeted about the attack on the church in Australia – the video online is almost surreal – difficult to believe if you’ve not actually viewed it …Is that the society we want to live in ? … Significant powers already exist – there’s little reason to add to them further …Some on the progressive left who are calling for a social media to ban on certain individuals – seems more concerned with how popular they are than what content they actually put out …
I think we can assume that the peaceful protests by the anti-racists yesterday evening were also dependent on social media. Social media is a huge positive in my life. It is messy and does harbour criminality and prejudice, just like other means of communication, and that must be dealt with.
However we must not allow misuse of the internet to drive us to curtail its glorious ubiquity. I wrote about this some years ago, and still stand by what I said.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-do-social-networking-sites-support-democracy-and-the-open-society-22307.html
It’s worth noting that the main source of the fake news was not actually a social media site but a news agregator https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y38gjp4ygo. Essentially it tries to get the advertising revenue of a world-wide news site without employing any journalists. It’s not far-right nor a Russian front just random.
The real problem in this case is that the internet has effectively abolished copyright laws and removed the financial basis of consciencious commercial journalism.
One useful distinction is between posts made to specific groups and those available more generally. Just as what you say during a dinner party is not always for public consumption, so with social media. If your voice is generally available it should be subject to the same laws that control other types of behaviour.