Thread by @AdamWagner1

OK, wow, Miller v Humberside is some judgment, I think most important judgment on free speech and social media for years, at least since #TwitterJokeTrial.
Judgment: judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…
Summary: judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl…
It's LONG so I won't try to cover it all (thread)

Here is the official summary - I won't summarise the facts

But so you have a sense of the context here are some of the tweets which were the subject of a complaint to the police, a call+warning to the claimant by the police and a visit to his workplace

And

Long story short (and it is a mega long judgment - 289 paragraphs, 65 pages), Mr Justice Knowles said that the police policy on recording hate crimes was lawful, but the way they dealt with this case was unlawful

Judge absolutely excoriating of police. Lots of references to Orwell's 1984, the thought police, Mill on Liberty, the US First Amendment, Shakespeare... Knowles J is into this!

Basically saying free speech includes the right to offend, the police need to get with the programme

I'm not 100% convinced by this description of who the claimant's tweets were directed at. Yes we tweet to our 'followers' but Twitter is a public platform and everyone knows (and hope?) their tweets can be picked up and spread more widely

The judge is right to say that offensive and unsophisticated speech is as protected under the human right to free expression as any other speech. He (rightly, in my view, sorry Twitter) says that the debate over transgender rights is currently hotly contested

Judge also right to emphasise how severe an interference in your speech rights it is when the police explicitly warn you to stop tweeting and turn up at your work place. This is *Serious Stuff*, though of course sometimes it will be justified

Knowles J unafraid of bringing up the Gestapo, Checka, Stasi... steady on! Though he is really saying this is the thin end of a wedge.

Here is key paragraph really - Judge says the tweets weren't hate speech (I think this is at least contestable, perhaps an appeal point, I don't think there is an obvious answer as to where the line is) and in light of that there was no evidence they would escalate to hate speech

I am sure that people will pick up on the fact that Knowles J accepts at face value the evidence of an academic (Kathleen Stock) whose views are controversial but he is clear that he isn't deciding the issue, just deciding that there *is an issue*, i.e. a debate happening

Here is another really important bit. I have long been concerned with the operation of s.127 of the Communications Act in relation to social media and I think it's pernicious - Knowles J clearly has the same view.

There are some potentially appealable points in there, e.g. the definition of 'transphobic'. But generally speaking I think that it is right that the courts take a high line on freedom of speech in the social media age *particularly when the police get involved*

There is a trend on social media to 'go to law' when people are being offensive. I think police should generally be kept out and I think this judgment is right to draw a distinction between targeted personal abuse (this wasn't) and generalised unsophisticated Twitter offence

How does this fit with the Forsater judgment you might ask? Good question - they were in different arenas (equality act and human rights act, tribunal and high court) and different questions (protected belief under EA and free speech balance under Art 10 ECHR)

Arguably (but I'm unconvinced) if a belief undermines the rights and dignity of others so isn't a protected belief then it is also not protected speech. But I think the Forstater judgment probably wrong alway

To be clear: there should be a very bright line between speech which we as a society see as offensive, disgraceful, awful, hurtful - and speech which is punished by criminal law. As tempting as it is to lock up the people who offend and upset us it’s not generally a good idea

And police are not good judges of where that line should be, if it is left vague.

Counter argument is what about racist speech, which we criminalise to an extent, why is transphobic speech any different. Question is then where that specific line is and I’m genuinely not sure

Labour candidates should consider all of this by the way