The content and value of the right to freedom of speech

The content and value of the right to freedom of speech

The recent furore surrounding "trolling" of the McCanns and the death of a woman from Leicestershire "doorstepped" by Sky News has produced a variety of reactions, some of which support dramatic state intervention to prevent free speech.  Banning speech because it is "offensive" makes the right to free speech an empty one - after all, why would anyone want to ban speech which wasn't offensive to anyone? 

This is not to defend all comments as a legitimate expression of free speech. It would be wrong to fetishize free speech to the extent that libellous comments or incitement to violence were protected. However, the objections of the McCanns include that their twins will be exposed to these comments if they go on the internet unsupervised (the wisdom of letting any minors on the internet unsupervised is debatable). It is noticeable that many of the reports failed to distinguish sufficiently between Tweets to the McCanns, and Tweets about the McCanns. This is a very important distinction. The McCanns have "no significant social media presence" apparently. Perhaps this lack of presence is a reaction to the widespread criticism of them on social media from some quarters, and I don't think this is necessarily a reason to dismiss the trolling. If the McCanns were being targetted in a campaign of harrassment, that is a different matter from comments being made about them. Plain libel is a civil matter, for good reason. The wrong is recognized by the courts, but it is not considered a criminal matter. They have already demonstrated that they have the means and will to pursue defamation suits (unlike the vast majority of the population). So the comments of Jim Gamble are quite surprising, given that a former senior police officer might be expected to know the law - or at least have the sense to check the law prior to expressing an opinion.

Many who have been genuine victims of harassment on the internet would note a sharp contrast to their own treatment by the police, who in certain areas are frankly dismissive. So Jim Gamble's comment that everyone who had similar experiences to the McCanns should go to the police just seems to show that he's divorced from reality. In many areas of the country, the police will not get involved, simply advising people to close their accounts on social media. There is a perception that these issues are only dealt with where the victims are celebrities or notables. This would erode the notion of justice for all, and reek of privilege in the old-fashioned sense of "private law".