He writes:
'Technology has given fresh energy to old hatreds and pustulent sectarianism' Alex Salmond told the Scottish Parliament last week.
Iain continues:
Facebook, YouTube and Twitter operate within a jurisdiction, and are therefore subject to the law of the land, otherwise it could be prevented from operating here. The problem here isn't one of law, but of enforcement. So far the police, politicians and crucially the law officers have not sought to enforce the law on the net. But the truth is that no one has really tried. I’m not sure why - they know where they live.
Furthermore:
The police relentlessly pursue paedophile rings that work over the internet with the co-operation of hosting sites and service providers. If it is possible to trace and prosecute child pornographers it is possible, surely, to pursue anyone who breaks the law, given the will.
You can find the full article here.
It's a subject that needs discussing, that's for sure, and so I responded with a comment of my own:
Iain, do you honestly believe that the way to eradicate sectarianism as a social issue in Scotland is for the police to spend their time scouring Facebook and Twitter for 'sectarian language' amongst the deluge of inane conversation?
If you want my opinion, political rhetoric in the press is never the most informed place to start when researching any issue that involves the internet. A knowledge gap exists that I suspect will only close when more politicians have grown up with the technology themselves. Although by then, I imagine there will be another scapegoat/hobby horse to replace it with!
I'd have to disagree with you, about current police presence online. They don't have a strong record when it comes to dealing with, using your example, child pornography either. The bulk of arrests appear to originate more from accident than by design - victims/aquaintances/colleagues reporting the crimes, as oppose to any orchestrated 'clamp down' involving Internet Service Providers, who continue to maintain that it's not *their* job to police the web.
When the police have tested civil liberties, and moved aggressively, the results have been disastrous eg Operation Ore. Innocent people had their lives ruined.
If they are pressured into adopting a similar strategy with regards sectarianism, I fear the worst.
As much as I admire Alex Salmond, this recent rhetoric appears to me to be simply a way of appearing 'tough' on sectarianism by picking easy targets, that yield quick (if inconsequential) results, and that make few waves.
For example, are we to take it for acceptable that sectarian songs are regularly sung by huge numbers at football grounds, as long as the clubs involved express regret and vow to change? Flippant remarks made on social media are on the other hand pounced upon without mercy, because it's very much simpler to make an example of isolated individuals than to actually tackle the inherent culture itself.
Why am I seemingly defending bigots on Facebook/Twitter? Because we all say stupid things we don't mean in the heat of the moment. Comments made on social media are not set in stone, they should not be taken as someone's final word on the subject.
It is akin to comparing a well considered and heavily researched article like the sort you would publish in a newspaper, to a throwaway piece of drunken banter we might overhear down the pub. Are we to hold pub banter to the same standard as an article in the mainstream press? Higher, even? I don't see anyone pulling the Daily Mail up with regards their constant irrational bigotry towards our current crop of immigrants.
That paper carries much more influence than some wee gadge on Twitter ever will. Too often we forget that the likes of Twitter only has relatively low 'circulation', and that the only way these insignificant, and for the most part unread, comments ever have a chance of infamy in the first place, is by reproduction in the press.
Policies that affect social change are the only way forward in my opinion. It can be no coincidence that the areas of Scotland and the UK where bigotry thrives, are also those in most urgent need of rejuvination in general. Give people a better quality of life, and they will stop blaming their problems on the other tribe.
A simplification, but you get my point.
The trouble is that social change is affected slowly, even when done effectively. Too slowly for it to be considered 'sensational', or lend itself to headlines a First Minister might want at the beginning of his term.
Instead the debate is reduced to soundbites and rhetoric about policing the internet. Meanwhile, the real work to eradicate sectarianism continues behind the scenes, we hope.
For whatever reason, my comment was removed. I'll give Iain the benefit of the doubt, and assume there was a software issue. It did occur to me though, that had Iain simply deleted my comment because it was something he disagreed with, such an act perfectly illustrates the very nature of freedom of speech online.
If something is written online that you disapprove of, it can be deleted in an instant. It's not a bomb that requires careful defusing. At worst, you never revisit that page. You never need to look at it again. You filter your own content. You supervise your children's online behaviour. You take responsibility.
I have read sectarian remarks on football forums, even newspaper comment sections. The response they receive is often so overwhelmingly negative that the culprit will certainly think again, and this I find encouraging, rather than worrying. Most forums self-regulate, and will ban and/or block users who indulge in such behaviour. This can be done quickly and easily, and is. The police are not involved, but if someone is ostracised by their peers, that acts as a deterrent in itself.
Meanwhile, on the supposedly 'unregulated' Facebook and Twitter, there is a high degree of self regulation too. Public debate is normally conducted within relevant user groups or pages, and is monitored by at the very least an admin.
Even if remarks are not removed, the speed at which social media moves, coupled with its relatively small scale, ensures that their exposure is limited. It's the equivalent of daubing a wall with offensive graffitti, only for an hour later, something completely different has been painted over. And this wall, is only visible to a tiny portion of the population in the first place.
Posting an unrehearsed throwaway comment online cannot be considered the same as publishing an article. It simply does not have the perminance. If you are sectarian on a forum, they will ban you. If you are sectarian on a comment section, it will most likely be deleted. If you are sectarian on Facebook or Twitter, very few people will likely be subject to it, but if you violate their Terms and Conditions, you could lose your account.
So if the argument is that throwaway, off the cuff remarks should carry consequences. They do. Sectarianism online doesn't need to carry a jail sentence. All it requires is for the rest of us to collectively hit 'delete'. And that is, for the most part, what happens anyway.
Only when such behaviour is reproduced for sensational effect in the mainstream media, does it suddenly obtain any kind of powerful influence. Because then it is published for all the world to see, and we no longer have a choice.
______________________________________________________________
As an addendum, here is an article from STV news reporting on two recent arrests for online 'sectarian breach of the peace'.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/244843-police-raid-homes-after-sectarian-abuse-appears-online/
The two men arrested, a 23-year-old and a 27-year-old, were held after the raids in Paisley and Dalmarnock in the east end of Glasgow. Both of the men have been charged with sectarian breach of the peace.
Police are continuing to investigate more than 50 people in a bid to crack down on "violent and hate-filled" comments being posted on the internet.
Speaking after the raids, Superintendent Kirk Kinnell of Strathclyde Police's Anti-violence directorate told Radio Clyde: "We have been working in the background, from both the internet sites for approximately six to eight weeks and it's culminated in all of the inquiries getting to the point where we obtained warrants late last night and went through the doors first thing this morning.
"We obtained three warrants last night and they relate to sectarian abuse towards Neil Lennon and also some racial abuse towards El-Hadji Diouf.
"We have evidence from around 50 internet postings so far and they will eventually culminate in us going through people's front doors.
What this hopes to achieve, beyond grabbing a few headlines, is anyone's guess. I am quite confident that when the term 'breach of the peace' was coined, it wasn't intended to be used as a means of confiscating a person's hard drive, simply because they made an offensive remark online.
