Censorship, Tom Moore and a liberal approach to Nazis - Beer Christianity (the newsletter) issue 7
A long read about a short tweet with a medium sentence
Hey there! I hope this finds you well and safe and happy. Here’s a long-form opinion piece that covers free speech, heroes and standing out from society.
Thanks for reading!
J
The limits of free speech if you’re a bawbag
Ugh, supporting free speech is gross.
You always end up standing shoulder to shoulder with icky people: pornographers, religious extremists, casual racists, Ricky Gervais...
And this week I found myself in the position no-one wants to be in: agreeing with the Daily Mail.
It makes the skin crawl, but this week the Mail was the only paper I could find that had published details of a mysterious and supposedly ‘grossly offensive’ tweet that had landed its author in trouble with the law. Most of the news sites I perused referred to a 35-year-old mand from Lanark, Scotland. The Mail, rather unnecessarily, gave his name. The other papers shied away from disclosing what the tweet said, the Mail steamrollered ahead and revealed it. I’m not going to post a link to the Mail but here’s another news piece about it.
The tweet was about Captain Sir Tom Moore, a recent addition to the canon of ‘national treasures’ Britain likes to collect in lieu of taking meaningful steps to fight climate change (in the case of David Attenborough), smashing the patriarchy (in the case of Maggie Smith) or paying frontline workers a decent wage (in the case of Sir Tom).
Captain Sir Tom (the ‘Captain’ is important for the Mail’s support, I think) rose to fame with the speed of a bemused artillery shell when, he undertook that most British of endeavours, a sponsored walk. What made it cute was he did it in his garden because of Lockdown. What made it impressive was that he was 100 years old. The icing on the cake was that he was raising money for the beloved NHS.
Papers and other media that regularly denounce frontline workers’ unions (but encourage us to stand outside once a week to clap for them) loved Sir Tom. And so did we. He was a nice man, doing something sweet. And it wasn’t his fault that a national health service in one of the richest countries in the world even needed charity support. Sir Tom set out to raise a thousand quid and ended up bringing in 32 million. When he died on 2 February, he was sent off as an uncontroversial hero. A bit of sunshine for everyone to smile about in fond memory.
Naturally, the internet decided to f**k that up.
‘35, Lanarkshire’ decided this was the time to quip that, as Sir Tom was a British soldier, he was probably in hell. Not what I’d call comic genius, or in particularly good taste, but in the context of the recently napalmed cesspit that is the comment section of most social media posts (or the giant all-fire, all-cess, all-day nightmare that is much of Twitter), it was relatively meh.
Don’t get me wrong. The man who posted it is, to use a Scottish term, a ‘bawbag’ (or was, in the moment he sent that tweet). But being a bit of a scrote is not a reason to arrest a man. Or, at least, that’s what I thought.
The law
The law around this (as is so often the case with censorship laws) is unhelpfully vague. It is, according to the Communications Act of 2003, illegal to send a message that is “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”. Which will be news to anyone who has recently visited a porn site or, for the truly brave, the comments section of a popular YouTube video.
But Lanark cops thought this meant they needed to charge the squaddie-bothering numpty of Lanark. Or did they? Was it, as the existence of unpunished indecency and menace dripping form all of the internet might suggest, not so much about breaking the law? Might it have been because the target was not a wannabe influencer being told to kill herself but everyone’s idealised hero grandad?
I think it was, I think it is what the Westminster Government wants and I think it should worry those of us who value a free society.
Let’s be honest. Arrest and charge by police (and being featured in the Mail, even ambivalently) is punishment when you have bills to pay and are not wealthy. It causes disruption, it could lose you your job and, consequently, it is terrifying. From the moment you’re arrested you are powerless and become a different species to free people. It is a necessary power to keep the strong from abusing the weak, but it should not be used lightly.
I am profoundly unsure that offending people (considering how profoundly subjective offense is) should ever be punishable by jail. I am utterly convinced, though, that legislating popularity contests (and that’s what it is when you cannot speak ill of the esteemed dead) is wrong. And that is what is happening here. There is not enough space in Her Majesty’s prisons for people who have committed this ‘crime’ against less popular dead people. Or perhaps I missed the news of mass incarcerations around the time of Jimmy Saville’s death.
For me, the fact that you are a sweet old man should not be enough reason to criminalise a disdain for you, particularly when you are too dead to hear it.
Similarly, if the arrest of ‘35, Lanark’ had more to do with the fact he said the only good British soldier was a “deed” one (ten points for writing in your accent, btw), then two things occur to me.
1. That is some A-grade, made-up-medals-on-the-chest, missile-parades-every-Saturday authoritarian junta shit right there.
2. If the monster you’re trying to defeat is people who don’t love what the British military has done, from Ireland to Iraq, you are going to need a bigger boat.
If, however, the argument here is that it was ‘too soon’, then we are allowing police and prosecutors, good people all I’m sure – but not the first people I go to for a chuckle, to be the arbiters of what is funny.
I don’t even want to get into the aspect of this that could alarm some Christians, namely the bit where someone has once again been arrested while invoking the prospect of Hell. Regardless of your theological position on the afterlife, freedom of religion that does not free one to believe and express unpopular things is no real freedom at all.
The icky ‘allies’
Do I particularly like the Christians making our witness all about Hell? Nope. Do I think British soldiers are evil? No, though I’m sure a creer in killing for any country will take a moral toll. Do I personally want to make tasteless jokes about the recently dead? Not as much as you’d think.
But do I think you should be allowed to? Yes. Not without consequence, not without limits, but without risk of handcuffs and holding cells, yes. Emphatically yes. Without a fundamental freedom of conscience and expression, moral fads, viral hate and popular hysteria could easily drag us into an era of witch trials, inquisitions and Koala courts (not proper Kangaroo courts, but a close relation).
And that’s where we come back to the grossness. One would expect the Mail to crucify anyone who disrespected a popular hero (and a soldier at that), but they didn’t. This might be because right wingers currently believe (or pretend to believe) in free speech because it’s ideologically convenient. Championing free speech has become a staple of the Right. It gives them space to condemn those who are offended by Clarkson or homophobes or misogynists. ‘Free speech’ is for casual racists/ misogynists/ homophobes/ transphobes/ poor-shamers, though, not for poppy-burners. Still, the Mail has walked an interestingly unbiased line, both outing the accused and quoting free speech campaigners copiously.
Unfortunately they also quoted a B-list actor who has been prominent in the kind of ‘all lives matter’ tone-deafness and ‘I just speak my mind’ posturing that shores up all sorts of unhelpful societal attitudes (whether intentionally or not). It’s similar to the way the infinitely smarmy Ricky Gervais is often trundled out of his cave of human flesh and award statuettes (or wherever he lives) to defend the right of tasteless people to say ugly things. Sadly, they are right.
The moment we accept the idea that someone can be sent to prison (Lanark, 35 faces six months or a £5,000 fine) for disagreeing with a popular opinion, we must just flex our imaginations a little and see ourselves at odds with a popular opinion, and ask whether we deserve to be banged up for it. We must think of the minorities and marginalised groups against whom such laws will certainly be used. We must try to imagine occasionally not agreeing with the herd. And we must get over our knee-jerk reactions to having people we dislike on our side.
As Christians we are promised that we will be at odds with society regularly if we follow Christ. Too often we have taken this as a challenge and created discord where there was none as a kind of badge of nonconformity. So, truly free speech is good for us, as well as pornographers and people with different belief systems from our own.
Moore, Marx and Mugabe
Is there a limit to free speech? Of course there is. You don’t get to incite violence. But this tweet was not inciting violence any more than saying you’re glad a paedophile or Robert Mugabe is dead would be.
And that sentence (and the gross feeling it gave you) is the core of this issue. This is not putting Tom Moore and Bob Mugabe in the same category. Nor is it condoning joy at an African leader’s death. It is recognising that some people might not love or hate the same things we do, and that a decent society must allow that. That people should not have to agree with us to be free to speak their minds.
The limits of free speech are, I think, more complicated than ever. I was glad, for instance, when Donald Trump was kicked off most social media platforms and Amazon refused to host Parler’s servers. But I’ve been dismayed to see young Marxist Leninists ‘zucced’ and banned from posting on Facebook for comparing DPRK’s militarism to Britain’s. I am alarmed that centrists and liberals without ideology are always so keen to equate and equivocate when it comes to the ‘extreme’ sides of the Left and the Right.
Its not just that I’m partisan (though I am). It’s that I believe the heart of the matter is important: the ideology motivating the meme or tweet or joke. If it is based in an ideology of genocide, it deserves a shorter leash. If it is based in an ideology of the centre or the left (Capitalism or Communism) whose death tolls were never the end goal, then the leash can be longer. Ultimately, though this makes me a bad revolutionary, I believe in free speech, even for reactionaries, capitalists and bootlicker lovers of strongarm authority. And, though this makes me a bad liberal, I believe that we must draw the line with fascism.
I am not sure how this should look in practice. Jailing people for beliefs (however disgusting they may be) alarms and horrifies me. Allowing Nazis to organise, recruit and wheedle their way into acceptable public discourse, knowing that their end goal is always genocide and oppression, terrifies me.
So perhaps we might legislate to protect those who fight fascists, without legislating against fascism itself? Not so much to bring the law down upon them, but for the law to be lenient with those who shut them down
How about this. If you carry a swastika and perform Nazi salutes without irony, I am not sure the state should prosecute you. But if someone decided to stop you from waving that red, white and black flag that symbolises a remorseless thirst for human misery, then I am tempted to say you get what you ask for. And punishments for those who punch Nazis doing these things could be softened and reduced as with any act of self-defence. A burden of proof to prevent random attacks, but a lower status of protection to the genuinely genocidal. Believe what you like. But if someone reacts badly to a view we have designated evil (not just a fringe ideology but one that intentionally murdered people on grounds we already constitute as hate-based), you simply have to accept that the ‘Master Race’ shouldn’t go running to Mommy when it gets its nose bloodied. Could that be a solution?
Is that too weak and liberal to secure a just future? Or is it a potentially useful compromise to protect freedom? Probably not. Too many people would resort to “Kill ‘em all and let a Norse god sort ‘em out” tactics. And while that’s a solidly funny phrase, it’s not a sentiment I can support as a love-your enemies Christian.
Is Boris to blame?
I think the reason why ‘35, Lanark’ got done was because too many of us (including cops, not always praised for their subtlety) have bought the clever propaganda of Westminster. That propaganda seeks to distract from government failures to fight Covid with a divide-and-conquer approach that has us blaming and informing on our neighbours. As if individuals could truly be blamed for the horrific death toll. They want us to believe that problems like Covid, climate change and economic inequality can be solved with small individual acts, thereby absolving them of the need for systemic change only achievable at the national and international level.
If we focus on individual acts and responsibilities, we won’t look too closely at the policy decisions that have killed tens of thousands. That’s why individual ‘heroes’ must remain sacred and their image may not be tarnished. If the shine were to go off them, we might look to our leaders for some leadership. Or, worse, we might hold them accountable rather than waiting for the next Sir Tom to save us (or at least make us feel better).
Personal individual responsibility is praiseworthy and important. Movements of mind among the people can propel a democracy towards positive change. Let’s have heroes to look up to. Let’s even encourage respect for people we disagree with. Let’s get excited about people doing small things in the face of huge problems.
But let’s not be fooled by foolish men and women in our Government into believing every one of our soldiers is a hero or that disagreeing is an act of violence. Let’s not fall for the flimsy logic of ‘one million Elvis fans can’t be wrong’ elevated to some pan-social moral law. Take That had millions of fans, too. As did the Nazis. They must both pay for their crimes.
That’s a joke, by the way. Please don’t report me. I can’t stand the idea of having the Mail on my side.
More mails, fewer features?
Help me out.
I love magazines. I love the fact that you get to read things you would never have sought out and I love the variety. That’s why, in previous issues of this newsletter, I’ve included interviews, news, recommendations and reviews.
The pros of this are all about that magazine life, but also you only get one email in your inbox a week.
The cons are that you might want to share a review but not a commentary piece but there’s no way of separating them out. Or you may not love reviews of 1930s movies or obscure radio drama, but you might like the op-ed.
A few of you got in touch to ask about this so this week I thought I’d try separating the op-ed from the rest. This will often mean you get more than one email a week, but also that you could choose based on the subject line which ones to read or to ignore.
I’m giving it a shot — if you hate it or prefer it, let me know.
On the Podcast
New episode alert!
Beer Christianity is also a podcast. Who knew. We released a new episode this week, all about listener feedback, epiphanies, alcohol-free beer and whether church is church if it’s not in person. We laughed a lot while making it. You might too.
Listener discretion: we’re quite sweary in this one.
You can find all the places to listen, read and otherwise interact with Beer Christianity in the section below.
Follow, engage with and support Beer Christianity
Follow Beer Christianity on Twitter: @beerxianity and Instagram. Listen to us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube and Stitcher.
Leave us a question or comment to be included in the podcast at: speakpipe.com/beerchristianity.
I do this for free and for the love of getting to talk to you. If, however, you’d like to help out or show your support even more than by reading, there are two options:
1. Tell your friends about the newsletter and the podcast, share them on social media, leave reviews, all that kind of stuff. It is so encouraging. And makes it more worthwhile.
2. Buy me a beer. That is to say, you can make a donation to help support me doing this stuff. You really don’t have to, but it really does really help. And if you’re doing it specifically to support the podcast, I promise to buy drinks for Laura and Malky too if you like! Please leave a message if you do! But also no pressure! Good Lord this is awkward.
Anyway
Thanks for reading, for listening and for being interested!