Jan Moir, the Web, Free Speech and the Wisdom of Mobs

No sooner has Twitter excelled itself in pushing Democracy 2.0 to new heights with the Trafigura Injunction Scandal, than it plumbs new depths with the Jan Moir weblynch. Now Jan Moir is one of those real "test cases" for Free Speech. She has completed the "how to be hated" triple crown of slagging off a just-dead, gay, boy-band member in the Daily Mail of all papers.

The original article is here, and the gist of it is that the author (said Jan Moir) believes that the death of Stephen Gately, gay boyband pop star was perhaps not as accidental and natural as it is being portrayed. There is no evidence in the piece, just innuendo about a menage a trois that potentially went wrong. So far, so what - normal hack fare, I hear you say....

And, as you know, fans of social media and the Web are all progressive, forward thinking individuals and take this in their stride. And they would, at a heartbeat, say they would support Free Speech to the death of their last iPhone battery.

So here comes the rub - Ms Moir chose to couch her over-the-top allegations with over-the-top undertones of homophobia which, while playing to the Daily Mail gallery, also of course has all the good people incensed, and the homophobia-phobes frothing at the mouth, and the #rentacause lot grasping for links, and everyone is calling her many very rude names as well as suggesting her instant removal from the paper, twitter, this life, the universe etc.

And the problem is, supporting free speech is defined, roughly, as ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". (Voltaire, btw*)

Of course, her right to Free Speech doesn't mean that you have to agree - or even listen - and you have the right to rebut and even disagree, vehemently as in the Grauniad - or even better, get snarky and sarcastically clever like the excellent Daily Quail piece.

And there has been a terrific response, and the correct one in my view, as Twitternauts have flooded the various complaint boards - Stephen Fry has weighed in with how and where she goes against IPCC guidelines, and many people have given guidance as to where to object. and how (it breaches sections 1, 5 and 12 of its code of practice.)

But I'm afraid not all have kept to this standard, in fact the Wisdom of the Crowd has turned into the Baying of the Lynch Mob at times. And in my view some of the hatemail makes those people no better than Jan Moir. And there are a lot more of them. And they are on the side of popular opinion so its far harder to take a shot at them.

So, what worries me more than some hack with a homo-cooked chip on her shoulder is this very real evidence of this darker side of Social Media - the speed at which mobthink can break out online is quite worrying. Or am I the only one (not in the Jan Moir fan club, that is) who is more worried about this aspect than what she actually wrote?

For the record, my view is that (i) I totally disagree with her logic, (ii) I reserve the right to say her article is full of sh*t, but that (iii) I totally agree with defending her right to say it and (iv) I wish I'd written the Daily Quail piece (You will, Oscar....).

Update - 24 hours later and its running and running, there are polls, campaign groups on Facebook etc all dedicated to getting Jan Moir fired or otherwise shutting her up. There has been a brilliant set of comments on the blog, and there were also a few good comments about this post such as these two by @TLockyer on Twitter, viz:

- Trouble with extreme free-speech argument is that if it defends Jan Moir, it must also defend those (NOT all) being nasty to her. (@shefaly made a similar point - "The critics have as much right to criticise as Moir has to her homophobia.")

- And those paid to write for commercial or ad-supported mass media can rightly be held to higher standards on sensitive stories

Absolutely agree with the former, free speech must equally defend the rights of those who wish to complain/criticise/condemn her. The latter is an interesting point, since, as many people have pointed out, her schtick - and that of the Daily Mail overall - follows a certain flavour that some will find offensive, so in my mind there is a "well, what did you expect" argument too.

What I do totally agree with is the idea that extreme commentators should face up to the consequences of the collateral damage they cause, and social media has been excellent for that - she can be in absolutely no doubt about how cross so many people are. I also thought the idea of having a go at the advertisers on the site was a very good one. Also, if after all the protests, her employer feels that she is too hot a potato and chooses not to provide a platform, that too is fine, others are justified in denying access to their platforms.

Predictably, Ms Moir issued an apology-that-was-not-an-apology - all very mainstream media, and accused the online-o-sphere of a concerted campaign against her. I think this is typical Olde Media misunderstanding, on 2 fronts:

- the "sharp riposte and flounce off" gambit only works in the Old Media, where access to reply was very expensive and newspapers controlled dissent via a small "letters to..." page and burying apologies in the smalls - but now a columnist who tries this will be hung out to dry by his or her own petard on multiple blogs across the planet. The New Media is a conversation, people listen, respond - and then expect a conversation.

- there was no "concerted action" initially, its more like a dispersed organism reacting. People tell their groups of friends about things, if those people feel strongly enough they pass it on, and so forth. It is also true that a series of concerted activities came about later (the Facebook campaign etc) but this would not have happened via a small cadre of "instigators" - it only happened because enough people felt strongly enough about the issue. I hope Ms Moir and the Daily Mail can grasp the difference between trying to move the masses (Old Skool Media) and a mass movement (New Media). What does happen in New Media is it moves very fast, so people don't reflect enough on their reactions to things that may incense them initially (hence my worry re WebMobRule and Free Speech)

I'm going to use a quote from one of the comments below, from Patrick Hadfield:

I also think we need to allow people we disagree with a voice: I hate what the BNP have to say, and I don't want to hear it, but I think they should be let on Question Time so that their ideas can be shown up for the distortions and lies they really are.

Evan Harris MP made a telling comment at February's Convention of Modern Liberty: the real test of human rights is on those we might feel don’t deserve them – criminals, prisoners, terrorists… It was a good – and powerful – point: human rights are universal, and that means everyone, however distasteful we might find their deeds or beliefs.

Free speech is one of those rights.

So trying to shut her up is just wrong, wrong, wrong. If you genuinely support Free Speech it means you have the right to argue with her but not to try to get her shut up, and personally I abhor the crude ad-hominems! Just because I disagree with you does not make you a "sh*tfaced c*ntb*tch" to quote one erudite commentator.

In fact, If I were a tad cynical (as if ) I may not have have been surprised that some of the other mainstream media (and Twitterers) have seemingly been less interested in defending the Freedom of Speech mast that they nailed their Trafigura colours to a few days ago, and are in fact seemingly taking out Mob-Injunctions to silence someone else's right to free speech! Possibly (surely not) in the interests of traffic and short term popularity?.

A Volte-farce? - Perish that thought, Voltaire would be turning in his (very old) grave

*for you, @shefaly