HARASSMENT VS FREE SPEECH VS BANTER

‘Freedom of speech’ is one of the most misused terms in modern discourse, wrongly used to excuse, cover up or defend abuse. Bandied about like a kind of magical shield that defends the user against criticism, argument or reasoned debate, the term is often used inaccurately.

Free speech is not limitless. It doesn’t enshrine anybody’s right to abuse, to incite hatred or to threaten and terrify others. The right to speech is not the same as the right to be heard, to be given a platform or an audience. It isn’t the right to force a woman to listen to and tacitly accept your misogynistic, bigoted slurs or your fantasies about raping or killing her.

Too often, the excuse is used as a carte blanche for social media platforms to shrug their shoulders and pretend their hands are tied. In reality, laws about freedom of speech don’t apply on a private platform like Twitter or Facebook. Such companies can and do decide which content to allow and disallow, and seem to have little difficulty policing posts about breastfeeding, mastectomies and menstruation. So there should be similar action taken against the small number of people who use these platforms to terrorize and abuse others or, as charities such as Women’s Aid have warned, in a worryingly increasing number of cases, to extend behaviours such as stalking and domestic violence.

Sadly, social media platforms’ policies seem to be fluid and evasive, with many moderation decisions suddenly reversed after a particular story hits the headlines or causes a public outcry. Strange, considering how often it is implied these decisions have been made for grand ethical reasons like ‘freedom of speech’, that they can be so quickly changed when the risk of reputational damage arises. This is particularly problematic because the nature and demographics of mainstream media outlets mean that the stories picked up and thrust into the limelight most frequently feature attractive, white, privileged women. So women of colour and LGBTQIA social media users, already likely to receive worse abuse and be bombarded with multiple forms of online prejudice, find themselves less likely to see their cases elevated to public attention and therefore speedily or satisfactorily resolved.

Nor should ‘freedom of speech’ only apply to those whose speech we actually hear. We ought to consider, too, the lost sound of those who don’t speak at all, because their voices are drowned out by the angry shouting of those demanding their own right to be heard. The teenage girls who disappear from social networks because it’s not worth the abuse. The activists who become too tired of putting their head above the parapet. The non-binary folk and people of colour for whom certain kinds of speech, especially online, might result in physical danger too great to risk. Next time you hear someone bellowing about ‘free speech’, ask whose speech we actually get to hear and why.