Old Holborn vs Liverpool
Old Holborn is a well-known libertarian blogger and tweeter. Let's just get it out there that he's not my cup of tea: in fact he wished me to contract Aids whilst I was having a lovely evening in Munich a couple of summers ago, after which I blocked him. I think it's fair to say he's upset a lot of people both with his general views and individual "trolling". Equally, many seem to like his "politically incorrect" views. He is generally intelligent, he is provocative, and he apparently delights in offending.
He carried out his online activities from an anonymous position that he was very proud of. He'd even managed to stand for the Cambridge seat in the 2010 General Election under his pseudonym, without revealing his real name or identity.
 |
| Liverpool. I love it. |
Around the recent anniversary of the Hillsborough Disaster, in which 96 were killed and 766 injured, he tweeted and re-tweeted a set of comments aimed at the people of Liverpool. Much of it was fairly low-grade trolling and insult throwing, about Scousers being stupid, and out of work thieves etc. They also however included comments about the murder of two year old James Bulger, which were not aimed at his mother, but which she apparently later saw and upset her greatly.
Someone in Liverpool discovered Old Holborn's real name, apparently from a Flickr photo stream he had incautiously left online. His name, address, phone number, work details and his wife's details were published on Twitter, in breach of Twitter rules. Once his identity was clear, the Police apparently became involved because of complaints about his posts. If his claims are to believed, several hundred abusive messages, including death-threats, were left by Liverpudlians on his phone, and the Police also took an interest in these. He claims that an arrest has followed.
Something Voltaire Really Didn't Say
I have read several blogs from libertarians in connection with all this. The primary theme is the mantra that free speech is (or should be) absolute and Old Holborn is doing everyone a public service by exercising his right to speak his mind. The hackneyed quote (wrongly attributed to Voltaire*) about disagreeing with your statement, but "defending until death your right to say it" is unthinkingly reeled out.
It is equally hackneyed, but worth reiterating that just because you might have the right to do something, that does not mean it has to be exercised. Old Holborn frequently tweets about abuses of power in politicians and the Police. When free speech is exercised in such a context, it's very easy to argue that this right is an absolute cornerstone of a democratic society. Without it no one is held to account and power corrupts rapidly (or to be accurate: even more rapidly).
 |
| Voltaire: would he be defending hate speech? Methinks "non" |
Let's be clear that with Holborn's tweets about Liverpool, however, this "sacred" right was not not be exercised for the greater good or to hold anyone to account. He was simply being gratuitously and deliberately offensive simply because he could be. He aimed to hurt and upset people. Most of us apply a filter, being mindful of others. To him, his right to say whatever he feels, apparently is the justification for his doing so. He is not a free-speech martyr for (indirectly) causing distress to the mother of a murdered two year old or for (directly) causing distress to plenty of other individuals. He is quite simply, an arse.
Why anyone would want to go out of their way to do what he did (he implies it is for his amusement) is beyond me. My partner is from Liverpool. For what it's worth I think it is an amazing city where people have a warmth, pride and sense of belonging that I've never encountered elsewhere in this country. I love the place. However, even if I did not, why would I go online to spew bile about the place, knowing that it would upset people? Why do that - just because I can? I have the right to go up to the elderly woman who lives opposite me and tell her, for no particular reason, that I think she's an ugly fat old bag, but I don't. It would upset her for no reason and I wouldn't want someone to do this to me. I at least try to live my the standard "do unto others" and think it makes the world a more pleasant place. Thankfully so do most members of society.
Legal Restrictions on Free Speech
Free speech is of course not an absolute in this country, nor is it almost everywhere. It is expressly protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - but society has also agreed there should be limits, which are reflected in that text. Racist speech, incitement to hatred, language that threatens public safety etc are all obvious valid restrictions that the law has chosen to spell out. It's worth remembering that all laws are, is an an attempt to codify what the majority of members of society feel and agree is the correct thing in a society. Laws can be, and are, frequently refined and changed.
Apart from these "red lines", the crossing of which society has decided should carry consequences (and which I am broadly glad exist), I would always come down on the side of the law giving the most freedom as possible, and trusting that most people will exercise their rights responsibly. The law cannot and should not seek to determine every time someone opens their mouth whether it is to be deemed "right" or "wrong". We have to do that ourselves. Most people do the right thing, most of the time.
Did Holborn cross the line with his comments? Well he has recently deleted a particularly charming post of his entitled "Co*ns and Muslims" (you can still see the heading) but if you do a search there are plenty of tweets with content such "Sleeping with black men gives you AIDS" etc. He, and other Libertarians, can set out his argument for an absolute right to say anything, but if they do cross the red lines set out they will find out there are consequences. Unless they persuade society that the rules should be changed, that's the deal - most people have a clear enough idea of the law on hate language is and if they want to become "Free Speech Martyrs" by paying fines as a result, so be it.
As for the comments on Liverpool, I don't know (and strongly suspect not) - at least in terms of the law. I guess the Police/CPS will determine that. In moral terms I come back to: why do this? They were expressly designed to hurt, upset and distress other people and he didn't have to do this. He chose to do so. The photos on Holborn's Flickr account show a man surrounded by friends and family at his wedding. I bet there are plenty of people who can vouch to his being a nice guy and will testify to his kindness and decency. Humans are complicated, and as much as we want to label them in polarised ways as "good" or "bad" they aren't. We all do good things and bad things to greater/lesser extents at various stages in our lives. All I will say is that Holborn's years of tweets have created the image of someone who isn't terribly kind or happy, and that is sad.
A Bankrupt Philosophy
It's been of interest to me to see how Holborn's case has shown up several key "mantras" to his libertarian beliefs to be flawed. These are:
1) Do no harm. Holborn repeatedly says language doesn't harm: physical acts do. This simply isn't true. Words can upset, distress and cause long-lasting harm. I think that he and "Mrs Holborn" experienced this first hand with the threats pouring in. It's entirely possible a slap in the face you receive as a kid, which then heals up, will be less formative and stick less in your mind than years of taunting or bullying. I'm sure if Holborn is honest he knows the harm his comments may have caused to James Bulger's mother and I doubt he's proud of them.
2) You choose to take offence. Another line trotted out is that words aren't offensive; people choose to take offence. He, and others, fall back on the "block" argument. If you don't like it, don't listen and block. That's what I did 2 years ago with him and paid him little attention until all this came up. The argument is true, but only to a certain extent. People who these tweets were not directed to chose to get involved and to get upset. However, when he tweeted me in Munich I didn't have the option of ignoring it. It was before I had blocked him and doing so didn't take away the upset he caused me deliberately and voluntarily at the time. I'm guessing James's mother didn't know who he was before his comments were drawn to her attention. The situation is a lot more complicated than this simple attempt to defend the right to be vile to others.
Holborn says he doesn't mind the abuse he receives all day, but he draws the line at threats to burn his house down. Why? Those threats are "only words" after all. His house hasn't actually been burned down. This is therefore either an acceptance that words can do harm and he is "choosing" to be offended/threatened (if so, why does he condemn others for feeling the same?); or that words do actually on their natural meaning carry offence (and his assertion is nonsense. He is simply placing the bar higher.)
3) Take Responsibility. Libertarians love taking people to take responsibility. The Greeks should take responsibility because they're tax-dodging cheats, and shouldn't be bailed out. People on the dole should take responsibility and shouldn't have children, etc. There is no compassion, no understanding and precious little humanity in these beliefs.
People sometimes do things they hope they can get away with. They exaggerate about their income on mortgage forms. They engage in dubious tax-avoidance schemes. They break the speed limit in the middle of the night. They send out abuse from anonymous Twitter accounts. They expect not to get caught. When they do, presumably they should just live with the consequences. Threats to burn your house down? Shouldn't have sent the tweets, should you. Remember it wasn't you or I who had 700 angry Scousers phoning us up: Holborn chose to do what he did, and expected to get away with it. He didn't.
4) The Police. The police are, as far as I can see, a major object of dislike to Holborn. He sees them as organs of the State, and an expression of their power. Yet when he is threatened, he talks to them, voluntarily provides them with information, and assists them because it suits him to. I don't blame him for doing so: but then I don't fill my timeline with assertions that they are a corrupt, damaging force in society. I have rather a lot of faith in most of them.
Threats and Ugliness
All of this said, I was possibly in a minority when I saw what was happening to Holborn the day of the threats. I was genuinely horrified and upset at the though of what he and his family were going through. I cannot imagine how terrifying it must have been to have had a mob apparently doing what it was doing.
There was no obvious general public interest in publishing Holborn's real name/address and I'm deliberately not repeating it or them. If people chose to blog and tweet anonymously, and they are not breaking any laws or holding themselves out to be something they are not, so what. There is of course an unresolved question, which is not for any of us to determine, about whether he did break any laws. The fact he has deleted his blog about "co*ns" indicates to me he thinks he might have done. It would be nice to think other online characters who post similar items might think about about how safe they are hiding behind anonymity.
The reason people published his name (and worse, his address, phone number etc) wasn't to hold him to account with the Police, however. It was because of anger and outrage at his Liverpool insults. What it led to was a nasty, threatening mob after him some of whom apparently threatened to kill him and burn his house down. It's possible to have been upset and extremely offended by his comments, but not leave death threats on his phone. I'm sure thousands in Liverpool and elsewhere fall into that category, myself included. It makes me sick to imagine what poor James Bulger's family and those connected to Hillsborough felt, but I'm also sickened by what was done to him. Sure, he absolutely should not have written what he did, and he is the one who caused this. But if we want to put it in the most simplistic terms "two wrongs don't make a right". Or, ugliness begets ugliness.
It really tests the limits of your compassion when you end up feeling sorry for someone who has continually expressed views that are abhorrent to you. I genuinely feel that about Holborn here. I've highlighted what I feel is the lack of humanity in the simplistic "take responsibility" line he churns out. I don't share that philosophy and I'm sorry anyone had to go through this, no matter how much of an idiot they were. I'm also sorry for everyone who was upset, particularly in Liverpool, and who witnessed all of this.
"Do no harm" is of course a wonderful philosophy. If anything good comes of this, it's a vain hope that people aren't such utter kunts to each other online. We really, really, don't have to be.
* It was actually Evelyn Beatrice Hall who penned this line almost 130 years after Voltaire's death
