Recently, I was quoted in a Newsweek article discussing Elon Musk’s controversial comments regarding a potential UK civil war and Keir Starmer’s subsequent legal warnings about online violence. The full article can be read here Could Elon Musk Face Legal Action For UK ‘Civil War’ Post?.
Given my deep interest in technology, law, and free speech, I feel it’s crucial to talk about the contradictions in Keir Starmer’s stance on this issue, especially when we look at his past policies as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Unrealistic legal threats
The notion that someone making an observation about a potential civil war could be prosecuted is utterly ridiculous. Starmer’s recent comments are nothing more than a populist approach, lacking any real substance or legal backbone. Such rhetoric is completely unsuitable for a Prime Minister, especially when he knows very well that in a democracy, you cannot criminalise an observation or opinion simply because it is unpalatable to the government.
Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with Musk’s comments, the substance is irrelevant here. The key issue is the attempt to stifle free speech under the guise of protecting public order. This is particularly hypocritical when considering Starmer’s previous stance as DPP.
Thousands of victims of online abuse and harassment had no recourse under DPP Starmer
As DPP, Starmer set out guidelines for prosecuting online abuse, which effectively meant that many victims of severe online harassment were left without justice. The CPS was directed not to prosecute unless there was a credible personal threat, a policy that caused significant harm to many in the UK.
He then went on to publish astonishing CPS guidance on prosecuting online offences while social media had been pretty much excluded from police work. This has resulted in tens of thousands of victims of online abuse and harassment having no recourse.
Some, in the meantime, took their own lives, others tried to deal with the situation through civil injunctions, having to bear the costs entirely on their own or rely on pro bono work by law firms such as mine. Here is a bit of what Starmer’s has said in his public statement and then in the CPS’ policy document:
… the CPS has the task of balancing the fundamental right of free speech and the need to prosecute serious wrongdoing on a case by case basis… In some cases it is clear that a criminal prosecution is the appropriate response to conduct which is complained about, for example where there is a sustained campaign of harassment of an individual, where court orders are flouted or where grossly offensive or threatening remarks are made and maintained. But in many other cases a criminal prosecution will not be the appropriate response. If the fundamental right to free speech is to be respected, the threshold for criminal prosecution has to be a high one and a prosecution has to be required in the public interest.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121005143914/http:/www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_statements/dpp_statement_on_tom_daley_case_and_social_media_prosecutions/
A hypocritical stance towards free speech and protection from harassment
Starmer’s shift from protecting free speech to advocating for the prosecution of comments he finds disagreeable is a blatant double standard. It reflects a willingness to change principles based on convenience rather than a steadfast commitment to democratic values. Such inconsistency is concerning and undermines trust in his leadership.
Having defended victims of online abuse for over two decades, I wonder what has caused Starmer to wake up and become so sensitive to online posts. No longer fearing the loss of free speech, no longer fearing the loss of liberalism and democracy. There is so much online harassment and abuse that is going unprosecuted, causing people to fall into depression and even take their own lives. This sudden shift in Starmer’s stance raises critical questions. Why now? Is it a genuine concern for the well-being of individuals or a political manoeuvre designed to gain favour?
The reality is stark and troubling: the lack of consistent and effective legal action against online abuse leaves countless individuals vulnerable. The emotional and psychological toll of sustained online harassment can be devastating, leading to severe mental health issues and, in some tragic cases, suicide. Victims often find themselves isolated, with little to no support from the legal system. Many are forced to seek civil injunctions at their own expense or rely on pro bono work from dedicated law firms like mine, which strains the resources available to address these pervasive issues.
The fluctuating approach to free speech and online abuse does a disservice to the victims and undermines the very fabric of our democracy. It’s time for a clear, unwavering commitment to addressing online abuse with the seriousness it deserves, ensuring that justice and support are accessible to all victims.