Free Speech Debate

Another overly broad and misguided British law has reared its ugly head in the digital age to stifle free speech. Dorset Police invoked the 1988 Malicious Communications Act in July to arrest a 17-year-old who sent a string of insensitive tweets to Olympic diver Tom Daley after he failed to win a medal in the men’s synchronised 10 meter platform event. Police released the unnamed teen on bail and issued him a harassment warning, but the resurfacing of the 1988 Act and its continued existence has proved unnerving for free speech advocates.

Some of the teen’s tweets in question read: “You let your dad down i hope you know that” and “I’m going to find you and I’m going to drown you in the pool…”. Given that Daley’s father died last year from brain cancer, these tweets were certainly tasteless. But did they pose a genuine threat to the young athlete’s life? No. YouTube comments have demonstrated time and again that vitriol flows freely behind the shroud of assumed online anonymity. Malicious or not, any communication that merely intends to offend should not be grounds for prosecution.

The 1988 Act punishes, with up to six months in prison, any person who sends an indecent, grossly offensive, threatening, or false message with the intent of causing stress or anxiety. Under this law, a slightly edgy April Fools’ joke could be construed as “malicious communication”. Nowhere is humour or ignorance listed as grounds for defence under the Act.

Free Speech Debate director Timothy Garton Ash has outlined the absurdities inherent in an overly broad Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act. A similar attack should be levied at this 1988 Act, which has proved dangerously vague and open to (mis)interpretation. Meant to protect individuals from harm, it has now been invoked to stifle unpleasant speech.

As the US supreme court permits the Westboro Baptist Church to protest homosexuality at military funerals, British law should protect Twitter users’ right to offend. Although unsavoury, offensive speech is that which most needs protection.

The aftermath of these particular tweets is just one of the many high-profile Twitter cases that have recently made headlines. Maryam Omidi wrote a case study in April about Liam Stacey, a 21-year-old student who was sentenced to 56 days in prison for posting racially offensive comments on Twitter. In July a man who jokingly threatened to blow up Robin Hood Airport on Twitter won a challenge overturning his conviction of sending a “menacing electronic communication”. During the Olympics, Twitter and NBC teamed up to briefly suspend a journalist’s account after he criticised the US TV network’s coverage. Bringing things full circle, a Welsh Premier League footballer was suspended the same week for allegedly sending a homophobic tweet to, you guessed it, Tom Daley.

Twitter has not seen this much controversy since last year’s super-injunction debacle. In the coming months, we’ll be exploring how social media platforms and vague laws have been used and abused to advance and stifle free speech. Keep visiting Free Speech Debate for the latest updates and controversies.