19 Dec 2012 | Uncategorized
Keir Starmer’s social media interim guidelines appear sensible enough, which is more than can be said for the controversial cases that led to the Director of Public Prosecutions’ consultation.
Index took part in that consultation back in October. I wrote at the time Starmer was adamant that the ruling in the Paul Chambers appeal (which overturned his 2010 conviction for jokingly tweeting that he would blow an airport “sky high”) was not to be seen as any sort of precedent. Yet in the guidelines published today, Starmer cites the two passages in that ruling that seemed to provide most protection for free speech, which noted:
…a message which does not create fear or apprehension in those to whom it is communicated, or may reasonably be expected to see it, falls outside [section 127(i)(a) of the Communications Act 2003], for the simple reason that the message lacks menace.
And:
Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by [section 127].
So it would seem there’s been a slight change of mind, which is entirely reasonable and welcome (though on Twitter Chambers’ partner Sarah Tonner seems a little annoyed by this apparent switch).
Apart from that, what else have we got to discuss in these interim guidelines? Well, there’s a slight shift away from the use of the controversial section 127 of the Communications Act. At the consultation I attended, the various representatives, from diverse groups including anti-bullying and anti-harassment bodies, were keen to stress that section 127 was not appropriate for social media, and that it would be better to focus on patterns of harassment, abuse etc, and prosecute, if necessary, under anti-harassment laws such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. This is welcome – too often we focus on the medium rather than the behaviour.
More generally, there’s much on high thresholds on prosecution, and clear identification of public interest, perhaps not evident in the prosecutions of people such as Liam Stacey (sentenced to 56 days in prison for a “racially aggravated public order offence” after tweeting a poor taste joke about footballer Fabrice Muamba).
There is not much on the difference between “merely offensive”, which may not merit a prosecution, and “grossly offensive”, which could. As so often, this comes down to the probable perception of a right-thinking person. As in definitions of “obscenity” it seems a case of “I know it when I see it”.
There is a worry in the suggestion that removal of offensive posts by ISPs may provide a defence against prosecution.
While Facebook, Twitter et al will sometimes remove posts off their own bat, there is no absolute uniform system, and due to the sheer volume of traffic on social networks every day, some posts will slip through and others will be removed prematurely or inappropriately. Furthermore, this contains the germ of a suggestion of third-party liability, in which ISPs are held responsible for content. It will be crucial to examine this in the three-month public consultation on the guidelines which open today. It will also be worth examining whether section 127 of the Communications Act is appropriate at all in social media cases.
A decent start then, but more to be done.
Padraig Reidy is news editor at Index. Follow him on Twitter: @mepadraigreidy
More on this story:
Read the guidelines in full here
Paul Sinha on a tale of two tweets
Do western democracies protect free speech?
19 Dec 2012 | News and features, United Kingdom
Guidelines issued today on when criminal charges should be brought against people posting offensive or abusive comments on social media sites could boost free speech (more…)
3 Dec 2012 | Digital Freedom, Volume 41.04 Winter 2012
An anti-Muslim video demonstrated how politics of fear dominate the online environment. It’s time we took action, argue Rebecca MacKinnon and Ethan Zuckerman (more…)
1 Dec 2012 | Middle East and North Africa, Opinion
Kim Kardashian flew into Bahrain’s capital today to launch the country’s first Millions of Milkshakes shop — but “sources” close to the reality TV star told TMZ that her trip to Kuwait and Bahrain is about more than promoting frozen drinks.
According to the celebrity-stalking website, Kardashian wants to “use her celebrity to raise awareness about important issues in the area”, and while in Kuwait a few days ago she met with the US Ambassador to the country, Matthew Tueller.
Before heading out to the region, Kardashian tweeted that the purpose of her trip was to “set the record straight”:
According to TMZ, Kardashian will also be meeting with “local leaders”, but I have a feeling that won’t include human rights defenders from Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR) despite an invitation made by its acting president Maryam Alkhawaja asking the starlet to meet with the organisation. The BCHR won an Index Freedom of Expression Award last year for its work documenting human rights violations, political repression and torture in the tiny gulf kingdom after peaceful protests calling for political reform began on 14 February 2011. As similar protests blew across the Arab world, thousands of people took to the streets calling for democratic change and pro-democracy protests continue today. Since then Bahrain’s government has engaged in a brutal crackdown, according to BCHR, at least 84 people have been killed since the start of unrest and despite promises of reform, little has changed.
Only yesterday,ahead of a court decision next week, Amnesty International demanded that “13 opposition activists and prisoners of conscience must be released immediately by the Bahrain authorities.” And Human Rights Watch say Bahrain’s human rights situation “remains critical in the wake of the brutal crackdown”.
But is this just another case of a celebrity cluelessly brushing shoulders with corrupt government officials? Kardashian’s trip has been organised by Paresh Shah and Sheeraz Hasan, the duo behind the US-based Millions of Milkshakes franchise. Shah and Hasan have partnered up for various celebrity-oriented endeavors, including celebrity news and gossip site Hollywood.tv. Shah is an attorney, and Hasan a London-born entrepreneur who moved to the United States and launched a career as a producer, presenter, and eventual businessman. After the duo’s first milkshake store opened in West Hollywood in 2008, Kardashian launched the second shop in Dubai last year and they continue to expand in the region, with shops opening this week in Kuwait and Bahrain. The shop focuses on celebrity to draw in customers, boasting a long list of camera-heavy celebrity visits — from Baywatch actress Pamela Anderson to British X-factor alum Cher Lloyd.
Shah and Hasan appear to have an interesting relationship with Bahrain’s royal family. According to their official website, the two were given a “mandate to source unique investment opportunities outside of Bahrain and developing infrastructure within Bahrain” after meeting with the royal family earlier this year.
Hasan and Shah traveled to Bahrain only weeks before the controversial Bahrain Grand Prix in April, with Hasan tweeting a photograph of himself with Shah and a pair of Rolexes the Bahraini royal family delivered to their plane. Hasan first made mention of their unique mandate in May, shortly after returning from the trip.
Bahrain is no stranger to using flashy events to attempt to whitewash its tarnished international reputation. Formula 1 went ahead with the Bahrain Grand Prix earlier this year despite violent clashes between protesters and security forces in the build-up to the race. The country has also enlisted a number of western PR companies to whitewash its image after international condemnation of its human rights record. Its not a stretch to see why Bahrain might find the Millions of Milkshakes’ celebrity-focused approach appealing.
News of Kardashian’s trip coincided with another bizarre Bahraini celebrity story. American rocker and self-proclaimed “Party King” Andrew WK claimed to be headed to the Kingdom on a “partying and world peace” trip organised by the US Embassy in Manama. His visit was cancelled by the StateDepartment but a State Department spokeswomen told reporters that a “Bahraini entity” approached the Embassy about arranging the trip. The incident raises many questions — who was the “Bahraini entity” that suggested the trip, and why is the US Embassy in Bahrain planning on bringing in celebrities for “inspirational talks”, when it really should be placing pressure on its long-term ally to commit to reform?
Kardashian has close to 17 million Twitter followers (she is the 10th most followed account) and on arrival today she tweeted:
A message that has been retweeted over 2200 times. Kardashian reportedly receives thousands of pounds to promote products via Twitter but even if we take her trip to Bahrain at face value, it’s important to remember that celebrity visits — even if they’re just about milkshakes — are always political.
Sara Yasin is an editorial assistant at Index. She tweets from @missyasin
More on this story:
