Forum Topic

The argument about 'violation of standards' versus free speech whether on Facebook, Tiktok, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and many other social media  - and even email - will continue to rage for  the foreseeable future.  In the meantime, social media platforms are preparing themselves for forthcoming legislation both in the UK and overseas which will clamp down on ‘hate speech’.  But then, who defines ‘hate speech’?  For example, women promoting equality in some countries are still imprisoned and tortured as it is not in line with the laws of the country and are regarded as subversive.  It’s all  a great beanfest for the lawyers which is likely to continue ad infinitum.  What is clear is that legislation and enforcement  is nowhere near strong enough when it comes to  hate speech, including targeting  the vulnerable including children, the disadvantaged and disabled in particular  but elderly too and those most susceptible to Covid. The horror of China’s treatment of the first doctor to try to make the rest of the world aware of Covid is terrifying. The most imminent fascinating legal issues are likely to be around Trump trying to overturn a democratic election.  Should he have free speech?  But also, should  the anti-vacc nutters (such as Julia Hartley-Brewer – have followed for years and she used to have reasonable views but seems to have become a rabid idiot to justify doing what the hell she likes) also have free speech?  The division between free speech and paradoxically those trying to suppress those proclaiming free speech but which others regard as dangerous is going to be one of the most important discussions including the judicial system going forward. Julian Assange’s case  is but the tip of the iceberg.

Claire Moran ● 2122d