It is a sad but undeniable aspect of the internet era that debate is too often dominated by the loudest and ugliest voices. Reputations and platforms are built on rage. Strong opinions and emotions are rewarded with attention and followers.
It is against this toxic backdrop that an increasingly poisonous debate over free speech is being fought. Behaviour which was bearable when restricted to a few individuals and a newsletter is far more troubling on social media channels seen by hundreds of thousands. But in the tussle between good intentions and bad actors, society is in danger of losing sight of what it most needs to protect.
Minority groups are feeling increased hostility. Muslims, Jews and trans people in particular are facing rising levels of abuse. They rightly ask why those pushing such views should not be called out or face consequences.
Yet the threats to debate and free speech cannot be ignored. We have seen a prominent politician losing his bank account at least in part because staff disliked his opinions, a professor with contentious views on trans rights driven from her university and, most chilling of all, a teacher forced into hiding by the threats of Islamist extremists who decided one of his lessons was blasphemous. Mobs have gathered outside schools or MPs’ homes . Specious arguments about personal safety are used to silence “wrongthink”.
A new government review describes a climate of self-censorship built by “freedom restricting harassment” which goes beyond the justified goal of protecting minorities from real threats. At the core of Sara Khan’s report is the vital point that failure to protect free speech corrodes social cohesion and that political and civic institutions are failing to meet this challenge.
By coincidence her report came just days before Scotland introduces a new hate crime law , which critics argue will have precisely the impact Khan describes. The measure extends the nebulous offence of “stirring up hatred” to protected minorities not covered by existing law. The ruling Scottish National party says the bar to prosecution will be set high but the chilling impact of a call from the police will be felt and even incidents not prosecuted will remain on police records. Feminist opponents of the trans rights agenda fear that the new law will be used to stifle debate and were alarmed by reports of a police training exercise which appeared to be based on the novelist and sex-based rights campaigner JK Rowling.
Khan argues persuasively that allowing harassment to silence political disagreement undermines democracy. This creates rifts in society which hardliners will use to foment anger and build a divisive narrative of people losing their country to progressives or immigrants. Conversely the Batley teacher case shows intimidation being used to foment religious unrest and bring in backdoor blasphemy laws.
Some of those now weaponising the free speech debate are also behind efforts to undermine faith in major institutions. Far right groups have used mistrust in the media and misinformation to stir up racial hatred in communities with false stories.
A poll for Khan’s report shows 76 per cent of people say they have restricted their views in public for fear of harassment. She sees societal danger in all those who feel silenced by fear of losing their job or facing online pile-ons, death threats, doxxing or just relentless abuse.
Not all her recommendations will be supported. But her core point is one which needs to be digested and acted upon. Social cohesion will not be found in a raft of proscribed behaviours which set the police on to otherwise law-abiding citizens, but in a commonly shared set of rules and values which are seen to apply to all. One of these is a basic belief in free speech with only dangerous or malign behaviours restricted. Wrong opinions cannot be legislated away. They have to be defeated in argument.
And while governments, guidelines and laws can all play a part, the only solution — sadly the hardest to secure — is an unrelenting, unified defence of this core democratic principle.
This means political and civic leaders standing up in support of the harassed and defending a social norm. It demands careful use of hate crime laws. It also means universities and — especially important — businesses showing fortitude in defending their staff from unwarranted attacks and ensuring that the well-intentioned and important inclusivity agenda is not misused in ways that swap one injustice for another. A liberal-minded desire not to give offence must not calcify into a right not to be offended, nor should expansive definitions of “safe spaces” be used to stifle debate.
This also demands consistency. A government which has made itself a champion of free speech should not be trying to cancel protests over Gaza or denouncing them as “hate marches” in pursuit of a wider culture war.
Sometimes defending free speech will feel uncomfortable. But the alternative to addressing this harassment is that moderate debate is crowded out — as much already is online — and the field ceded to those who thrive on division. Harassment must be seen to fail. The danger otherwise is that the cause of free speech ends up mobilising that side of the country which responds to being told it is no longer allowed to say what it thinks.
We have tried that degree of polarisation in recent years. Does anyone think it is working well?
robert.shrimsley@ft.com