Interesting that we’ve discussed (and generally agreed on) the limits of freedom of speech, the harm principle, incitement etc since Mill wrote about it in the 18th century.
Social media is the variable which has changed.
Mill, in his example of calling corn dealers “starvers of the poor” argued that it was legitimate to say this in print, in the press, but not legitimate to say this to an angry mob outside the corn dealers’ house.
The question we’re wrestling with, is does social media operate as a de facto print publishing house, or a proxy “town square”.
Given the owners of Twitter describe it as the ‘digital town square’, and use that definition to argue for freedom of speech, it seems to me it remains subject to Mill’s harm principles.
On this basis, this Tory councillor was directly inciting violence, to an angry mob, in the digital town square.
There could maybe be some argument about the proximity of this mob. Did the councillor know that the mob was outside the hotel when she incited them? She certainly knew there were riots happening when she posted (think there’d already been one hotel attempted to be set on fire), which would seem to be important. Fact that she pled guilty indicates her lawyer thought she’d met the legal bar for incitement.
Is interesting stuff (to me, at least), as the conversation is as much about the function and role of social media, as it is about what can and can’t be said.
