What You Buy With Free Speech.

Yesterday, a young man in Sunderland was arrested, for making an insensitive,  and disgusting joke on Twitter, at the expense of those killed in Glasgow's George Square.

I won't mention his name, nor will I lend him a platform for his bile to be spread further, by copy-pasting his tweet. I do this out of respect for the victims of the incident- one of whom I knew and worked with. Jack was a kind, generous, talkative and genial soul.

In the wake of his arrest- many Twitter users (Twits?) are claiming injustice, and protesting it with the ever predictable cries of "it was only a joke" and "freedom of speech". 

Such nonsense makes me groan.

Yes, it is important to maintain freedom of speech- even if it is a view we disagree with, we must fight for people's right to say it. However, having freedom to say something, and exercising that right, doesn't  absolve a person of all responsibility and accountability for their words. Furthermore, when you sign up to a social media site, you agree to abide by the terms and conditions of use, including conduct.

The fact of the matter is, this individual grossly insulted not only the victims, their friends and family, but their whole nation. It caused a large amount of people considerable distress and upset. It violated Twitter's terms of use, and apart from anything else, it was also racist and thus in contravention of the law.

As for the comedy aspect- I agree that there should be no boundaries in what can, and cannot be joked about. Tragedy and comedy have always gone hand in hand. Invoking humour- especially around the darker events in our history and humanity- makes life more bearable. It is an important part of our culture, and it helps in how we deal with such events emotionally. However, comedy has a qualifier. If people don't find it funny, it's not a joke- despite what your intentions were. If you have to explain why it's funny, the joke has failed. If it's set out to hurt some people and make others laugh, I'm not sure that meets the criteria of a joke either- and it should be noted that this is profoundly different to being the butt of a joke. Jokes should not aim to have a selective audience- surely they should aim to entertain all? Humour is very individual, but comedians all have one goal; to entertain. This is why despite not appealing to everyone, the likes of Frankie Boyle and Ricky Gervais are an important facet of the genre. 

I recently wrote a post about offence, and I feel I need to make a differentiation between what I am saying here, and what I was saying there. When I go on the attack in my writings; I attack ideas, not people. Ideas do not have rights- people do. Sometimes, in support of my criticism of ideas, I may invoke an opinion or criticism of someone- but you will never find me sincerely wishing someone physical harm or relishing in suffering. It's also important when making criticisms, to restrict oneself to use of the facts, and refrain from use of ad hominem attacks, which undermine your point. 

So before you leap to the defence of someone exercising their "freedom of speech" or decide to do so yourself:

Think.