news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

【Text/Liu Chenghui of Observer Network】

In the recent violent riots that have affected many parts of the UK, the British government has not only been busy dealing with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim groups taking to the streets, but has also cracked down on "hate speech" on the Internet and punished those who posted it. However, this may be difficult for Americans to understand.

"A 53-year-old woman from northwest England has been jailed for 15 months after she threatened to blow up a mosque on Facebook."

"A 45-year-old man who incited his online followers to burn down a refugee hotel has been sentenced to 20 months in prison."

"A 55-year-old woman was questioned by police after she posted false information about the suspect's identity that went viral."

The New York Times published an article on August 21 saying that, in the words of a British judge, these so-called "keyboard warriors" attempted to use social media platforms to incite anti-immigrant riots. As British courts handed down harsh sentences to hundreds of rioters and required the government to strengthen regulation of online content, some believed that Britain might have gone too far, which could lead to a wider crackdown on speech.

Some analysts have noted that there are significant differences between Britain and the United States on the issue of "freedom of speech", and that Americans who sanctify "freedom of speech" "can hardly tolerate people being arrested and imprisoned for online speech". However, some people believe that there are similarities between British and American laws in their treatment of "freedom of speech", for example, once it involves inciting violence, it touches the boundary of "freedom of speech".

British police said that as of the 18th, they had arrested 1,165 people involved in the riots and filed 703 charges. The New York Times believes that for British Prime Minister Starmer, he tried to focus on public order rather than civil liberties. Although Starmer avoided taking symbolic actions, such as summoning technology company executives to the Prime Minister's Office for talks,

But he told the media on August 9 that after the riots, Britain "will have to look at social media more broadly" and he also praised the court for making judgments on people's online behavior.

"It's a reminder to everyone that whether you were directly involved or remotely involved, you are guilty," Starmer said. "If you break the law you will be brought to court."

In fact, before Starmer issued this warning, British Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Peter Care met with representatives of social media companies including TikTok, Meta, Google and Platform X on August 6, asking them to stop the spread of racial hatred and incitement to violence as quickly as possible. The British government also stated that it will work with social media platforms to ensure that false and misleading information is deleted.

Musk, owner of the X platform, is the most fierce critic of the British government's various actions.

When far-right groups spread false information and incited violent riots on the X platform, Musk once bluntly stated that "British civil war is inevitable." At that time, the British Prime Minister's Office refuted that "there is no reason to make such remarks" and said that social media has a responsibility to delete content involving crimes.

On August 9, Mark Rowley, commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police, warned that foreigners who "incite hatred" online would be charged, and Musk was named - "people like Musk" might become potential targets of investigation.

However, Musk still posted and forwarded a large number of critical posts on the X platform, and even directly satirized the British government as the "totalitarian dictatorship" described by the famous writer George Orwell in "1984".

"Britain is turning into a police state." On August 19, Musk once again criticized the British government, this time pointing the finger at prison policy. As this round of riots has led to the arrest of more than a thousand people, British prisons are overcrowded, so the police have to take emergency measures to temporarily detain suspects in police detention rooms until there is extra space in the prison.

The New York Times believes that Musk, who calls himself a "free speech absolutist," has sufficient commercial and legal motivations to confront the British government. But his criticism also reflects the real differences between the British and Americans on the need to protect online speech.

The two countries have a long history of disagreements on these issues. Although the UK is a member of the European Convention on Human Rights, which contains provisions to protect "freedom of speech", the UK does not have a constitutional First Amendment like the United States that sanctifies "freedom of speech".

"It's hard for Americans to stomach the idea of ​​someone being sent to jail for posting something on social media," said Matthew Goodwin, a British right-wing political commentator. "For Americans, it involves their almost religious commitment to 'free speech.'"

Goodwin believes that the Starmer government is "blaming riots and protests on false information on social media" because it allows the government to avoid deeper social issues about immigration policy.

After the knife attack in Southport, England, a judge in Liverpool took the unusual step of publishing the name of the suspect, Axel Rudakubana, even though he was under 18. The judge said he was trying to curb the large amount of misinformation about the attack on social media. Rudakubana grew up in a Rwandan Christian family in the UK, but at the beginning of the incident, false information about him being a "Muslim refugee" went viral, angering far-right groups and sparking violent riots that later spread to many parts of the UK.

"Musk does represent a very American philosophy," said Sunder Katwala, director of British Future, a London-based research institute. "I think the political considerations of 'free speech' are very different in the US and the UK."

Katwala said that the British government is more willing to prosecute those who publish what they consider to be "inflammatory content" than the Americans. He cited the results of a poll, pointing out that most British people are worried about the spread of "hate speech" and believe that social media platforms should be held responsible for the spread of hate speech and the violence that follows.

A recent survey by the UK YouGov website showed that the number of British people who have a negative view of Musk (64%) is almost four times that of those who have a positive view (17%). Most British users said that the X platform has too few restrictions on "harmful and offensive content."

Right-wing critics said the riots could give the British government an excuse to further suppress "free speech." They said some Labour MPs have discussed strengthening the Online Safety Act passed by the Conservative government last year. The bill requires social media to strengthen supervision and delete content that is harmful to children and adults. Once social media platforms violate regulations, such as failing to regulate content that incites violence or terrorism, they will be fined up to 10% of their global turnover, and even executives may face imprisonment.

On the other hand, despite the cultural differences between the UK and the US, legal scholars pointed out that judging from the situation after the knife attack in the UK, the difference in the UK and US positions on "freedom of speech" is not as great as it seems.

"Once it involves inciting people to commit violence, 'free speech' reaches its limit, which is a tradition shared by both countries' laws," said Jonathan Sumption, a former judge of the UK Supreme Court. This principle applies to the digital world as well as the real world. "I don't see how making comments on the Internet is any different from making an impromptu speech in front of an angry crowd."

But Sumption added that American courts might reach different decisions than British courts for cultural reasons. "A lot of the outcome depends on how the jury feels, and that might be different in the U.S.."

This article is an exclusive article of Observer.com and may not be reproduced without authorization.