Google+
Close
Piers Morgan’s Speech Rules
He joins a former British footballer in a campaign to involve authorities in Twitter disputes.


Text  


Comments
308

Once upon a time, they did. But then came the Public Order Act of 1986, which reified into law the principle that any “threatening” “insulting,” or “abusive” speech that could be construed as “causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress” was verboten. Last year’s over-celebrated revision, which determined that “the use of insulting language will no longer be illegal in cases in which a specific victim cannot be identified,” was an improvement in the meager sense that the Titanic’s having hit a slightly smaller iceberg would have been an improvement. But it nonetheless left the basic problem intact: that for the last 30 years, Britain has attempted to criminalize unpleasantness.

Advertisement
It should be noted that neither Collymore nor Morgan, who is cheering him on, are saying, regretfully, “Oh well, I suppose that’s the law.” They are, in fact, taking an active role in using it — prepensely shopping the obnoxious and the execrable to the state in the hope that they will be punished. According to the British tabloid the Daily Mirror, Collymore “has forwarded 22 tweets to the police, and pressure group Kick It Out also reported several anti-Semitic and racist tweets.” From America, meanwhile, Morgan expressed his support for his friend’s authoritarian proclivities: “I agree with @StanCollymore,” Morgan wrote obsequiously. “You can’t spew racist abuse or make death threats on TV or radio, why should Twitter be any different?” (Death threats and “racist abuse” are not the same thing, of course.) Morgan then requested “all my 3.9m followers to tweet a complaint about @PhilippLad to @TwitterUK & @metpoliceuk — let’s do this. #DeathThreats #Racism.”

Those who are reading these words and quietly wondering if this is all a storm in a quaint English teacup have not been paying attention to recent events. West Midlands Police — the force responsible for the part of England in which Collymore lives — confirmed quickly that authorities in a neighboring county “are investigating alleged abusive tweets to @StanCollymore.” The London Met, too, announced that it was on the case. And here’s the thing: When Morgan so excitedly writes, “Let’s do this,” he means it. Indeed, Collymore has a solid conviction rate. In 2012, he noticed an appallingly racist rant that a drunk teenager named Liam Stacey had thrown out onto Twitter, and he reported Stacey to the government. Local police dutifully arrested Stacey, charged him with incitement to racial hatred, and sent him to court. At the trial, the judge made it known that he was sending him to jail “to reflect the public outrage” — a chilling sentence to hear in a putatively free country. Stacey got 56 days inside.

Other speakers have met similar fates. In December, a store owner from the West Midlands city of Staffordshire made a crude joke on his Facebook page: “My PC takes so long to shut down,” the man wrote, “I’ve decided to call it Nelson Mandela.” This tasteless but relatively innocuous crack so upset a local government employee that he had the man arrested, fingerprinted, and DNA-swabbed — and then had his computers seized for good measure. And why not? After all, the anti-speech laws have ensnared all sorts of people in recent years: a student who told a police officer that his horse was “gay”; atheists criticizing the religious; the religious criticizing atheists; Muslims who have expressed their opposition to homosexuality — and even a man singing the song “Kung Fu Fighting” at a bar.

Free societies rely for their integrity on the public’s willingness to accept that principle must transcend personal feeling and presume, too, that the people will keep faith in the Enlightenment notion that truth can stand by itself. “Subject opinion to coercion,” Thomas Jefferson wrote, and “whom will you make your inquisitors?” Are we to presume that Piers Morgan — who is a journalist, remember — has such a low opinion of both his old and his new countries that he fears that horridness will spread if unpunished by force, and so would answer: “The West Midlands police!”?

Evidently so. For shame, Piers. For shame. But I can’t say I’m surprised.

— Charles C. W. Cooke is a staff writer at National Review.



Text  


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

NRO Polls on LockerDome

Subscribe to National Review