“Goodreads” will return you over 400 quotes about freedom of speech – so I am not going to repeat them here. Actually, many quotes I couldn’t repeat here given the likelihood that such historical quotes from such people may (and probably would) cause offence to those who would choose to be offended by such things said in the past by those long departed.
Worse still, such may not only result in vilification in the very social media that so concerns me – but might even lead to charges of criminality irrespective of the factual basis… or so it seems is the direction we are heading.
I would not purposefully, nor deliberately seek to cause harm nor offence to anyone– however few of us could claim to have never (absolute “never”) said anything later regretted. I would encourage the many social media protagonists to take the time to read Eric Blair’s (pen name George Orwell) book “1984”, before doing the same with respect to Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New world”. I would be of the opinion that free speech should come great responsibility; sadly, a responsibility not given due consideration.
It reminds me of a fridge magnet my sister once gave me that said “Everyone has the right to stupidity – some abuse that right”. And so, it is with free speech. Many often do abuse that right. I would however, prefer to live in a country where I at least have that right (at least for the time being, and against weight of social media) to free speech.
I wouldn’t say that I have mixed feelings about social media. I am fairly adamant that it is the poison of the modern age from which little good comes – in the same light that I’d consider gambling. Whilst there are those that would claim it’s benefits and look to the vast industry it supports; the flip side is the immense damage it does in eroding civil liberties, to freedom of expression; and in the many lives, careers and enterprises laid ruin in its wake.
Such a statement seems alarmist and extreme, however there were two recent articles I read in the media that highlighted my concerns and should act as a warning to both individuals and the companies that such people represent; and the reason I believe this is of relevance to us as Professional Engineers:
Firstly, was the BBC article making reference to a teacher, Mr. Price who was “Struck off” in Wales last March for professional misconduct in relation to his “anonymous” (not so, it would seem) gossip blogs that made some fairly ill-advised and derogatory general comments regarding students at his school. Following a hearing, it was reported that Mr. Price was handed a prohibition order banning him from teaching – his chosen profession.
Whilst I wouldn’t dispute the insensitivity, stupidity and irresponsibility of such act (I haven’t read his blog, nor do I want to) – and the damage such actions cause to children that he should have given greater consideration towards – what concerns me is the level this sets the bar at with respect to having one’s career and livelihood removed.
If this BBC article is true, then one could take the opinion that extrapolating this ruling infers that any of us professionals can and may be stripped of our profession and livelihoods given enough people take offence to something we say/write (or are recorded saying) in a public forum outside of work.
I would in no way condone what Mr. Price did, however would tend side with Colin Adkins of NASUWT in his statement that the ruling was “chilling in that it has inhibited freedom of speech” – be it an abuse of this freedom – none the less. But is that sufficient to remove a person’s livelihood, as in this case it seems it was?
Hypothetically, should I choose to dispute the belief that many of the “Flat Earth Society” followers have; and enough of them choose to be offended by my counter-view – then does this mean I risk being stripped of my FIChemE and lose my professional status as a Chartered Engineer should enough of them become “outraged” at such a position? Curious what the IChemE’s take on that would be?!?
Does it even matter how much support I’d have in science as to my belief that the earth is in fact not flat (if that was my chosen position)? And what of those coming to my aid in defending my right to have an opinion counter to those who chose to weaponise social media in support of the earth being flat? If the recent Piers Morgan incident is anything to go by, then we already have an answer to that question.
I am personally not a “fan” of Mr. Morgan; don’t often care for his opinion and rarely take note of his public dialogue. It is of little concern to me personally that he is off his media soapbox for the time being – what does however deeply concern me is that like dominos, Ms. Sharon Osbourne (someone whom I share a similar view to Mr. Morgan of) also lost her job for supporting Mr. Morgan’s right to have an opinion. Where does it stop? Could I face losing my career for supporting the view that Ms. Osbourne should have the right to support the right of Mr. Morgan to an opinion/view?
The other part of this sad saga that also concerned me was the statement from Ms. Underwood (Ms. Osbourne’s co-host) in “It is not the exact words of racism, it’s the implication and the reaction to it”. Wow – perhaps Ms. Underhill should take another read of Mr Orwell’s novel “1984”?! So, are we to be judged not by what we say, but what people “may or could” imply (either rightly or wrongly) – and the subsequent reaction to it (if I am to “imply” correctly from Ms. Underhill’s comment)?
How can any of us control what others may (or may not) imply from any public statement we make; or what possible reaction may follow in this “Brave New World” of social media? By what gauge are we to set what is, or isn’t going to “imply” offence and /or be seen as the initiator for a public reaction – either good or bad? Do we simply say noting and refrain for any opinion public or professional? Is that the road we wish to travel?
Given recent events tend to imply that government policy can and is set by the weight of social media (in the case of Mr. Rashford’s noble campaign for school meals) outcry, does this also infer that laws, regulations and social acceptance are to be set in a similar way?
Whether or not it is, or should be the government’s responsibility to directly provide food isn’t a debate I’d enter in to – point here is the worrying precedent of government policy being directly influenced by the flow of a particular social media viewpoint at a particular time.
If someone implies that, or deems your personal opinion offensive, then, is it? Does this mean that we can’t have a public opinion at all (irrespective of factual basis); given often it isn’t possible to know what someone may, or may not find offensive… or as I may be “inferring” Ms. Underhill as “implying” is offensive?
Sadly, what I find quite ironic (and concerning) here is that at a time when we have so many alarmists and those choosing to be “deeply offended/outraged” by people such at Mr. Morgan and their opinions; that this same social media driving “the chorus of the outraged” is the same vehicle being used for some of the most vile and disgusting racism and abuse that I have seen in my life thus far.
Furthermore, it is also the same vehicle being used to promote disinformation and falsehoods in relation to the Covid vaccine role out – something that is directly putting lives at risk…. Yet Mr. Morgan is the focus of this “outrage” and not those to peddle disinformation or vile racism.
Technology is a tool best embraced rather than shunned, however like all tools some can and are used in ways most find inappropriate. VAR seems a classic example of this given how few seem to find that it has made the game of football a better spectacle.
Same for Social media. For all the benefits it could bring – has it? I take the view that the best response to social media is to simply not be part of the churn. It matters not to me should I face the wrath of the “Flat Earth Society” on social media for the apparent view I with respects to the earth not being a planar surface.
I don’t have a presence on such so wouldn’t notice. Worrying trend is that perspective employers probably do and might not care whether the noise has a factual basis… Just that there is noise.
