When people are using social media for violence we need to stop them. We are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality. Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill.
– David Cameron, British Prime Minister calling for censorship of social media, which he claims helped foster the riots in the UK.
This is so wrong-headed it is crazy. Free speech is free speech, whether it is online or not. Represive regimes have been brought down by social media. See, e.g., Egypt. So when a democratic government doesn’t like the results, it attempts to ban free speech. Surely this will be the approach cited by dictators when they choose to shut down social media and the Internet generally.
And yes, free speech has consequences. But any rationale person believes that the costs of free speech are greatly outweighed by the benefits.
This is nothing like yelling fire in a crowded theater, and if one believe it is, then existing laws are certainly sufficient to handle the problem.
Update: More from the BBC.
Related articles
- Anonymity and social censorship in the UK riots (businessinsider.com)
- How can rioters be banned from social media? (technolog.msnbc.msn.com)
- A social media crackdown is the wrong response to riots | Jeff Jarvis (guardian.co.uk)
- Riots prompt social media review (bbc.co.uk)
- U.K. prime minister talks social media crackdown (news.cnet.com)












