More like this
Fry’s ‘twitch-hunt’ of Moir sets press freedom back
In Stephen Fry’s hands, Twitter has become an authoritarian tool to police thought crimes
So Stephen Fry, Britain's most famous Twitterer, now "feels sorry" for Jan Moir.
Having triggered the mass Twitter uprising against Moir over her Daily Mail column on Stephen Gately, Fry says he now sympathises with her, understanding what it is like to "make a monumental ass of oneself" and to "yearn for a rewind button".
And well he might feel contrite, or at least a little red-faced, over his role in the Moir Affair.
Because his actions, his Twitter-based call to arms, his spearheading of perhaps Britain's first-ever 'twitch hunt', has revealed the dark side of the Twitter phenomenon and how a social network can quite easily turn into a virtual lynch mob.
Moir is a ‘vile bitch’, said one blogger; she’s an ‘evil witch’, said another
Fry's initial expression of disgust for Moir's column, in which she argued that there was "nothing natural" about Gately's death, had an instant snowball effect.
The commentariat visited their wordy fury on Moir. Twitterers and bloggers and discussion-thread stalkers expressed outrage with the Mail, coaxing Marks & Spencer and others to pull their ads from its website.
And in their thousands - 22,000 to be precise - they complained to the Press Complaints Commission, imploring it to censure the Mail.
The more the anti-Moir sentiment spread through the blogosphere and the Twittersphere, the shriller and more intolerant it became. Moir is a "vile bitch", said one blogger; she's an "evil witch", said another.
She is a "vile and disgusting piece of filth", said a contributor to one of the many Facebook pages set up to denounce her, and "it should be lawful for the public to lynch scum like her".
The denouement to this unedifying spectacle of self-righteous outrage came with a complaint to the police. The Lesbian and Gay Foundation grassed up Moir, claiming her column insulted not just Gately but the gay community "as a whole".
The end result of this twitch-hunt could well be an even bossier PCC
So her words weren't just wrong or prejudiced - they were potentially criminal. I thought it was only authoritarian, Orwellian regimes that treated thoughts and speech as crimes?
The end result of this twitch-hunt could well be an even bossier PCC, more police interest in particularly opinionated op-eds, and a more cautious, punches-pulling media.
The whole debacle was driven by a herd mentality. Twitterers slavishly followed instructions from on high - from Fry and other Dear Leaders of the People's Republic of Twitter - and even circulated readymade, pre-written complaints to the PCC. The desire to complain, to join the in-club of fashionable Moir-maligners, came before any careful thought about the content or the consequences of such a twitch-hunt.
There were double standards, too. When the Daily Mail last year encouraged its readers to complain to Ofcom about Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand's bad behaviour on BBC Radio 2, liberal commentators denounced it for being censorious. This is the "dawn of the dumb", said the Guardian's Charlie Brooker of the Mail's "full-blown moral crusade".
Yet this time round, liberal commentators led the censorious charge. Indeed, Brooker called on his readers to complain to the PCC about Moir's "hateful idiocy".
It's not only Moir who would like to press a "rewind button". Those of us who value rationality, open debate and freedom of the press - even for the Daily Mail - would also like to turn back the clock, to a time before Twitter was used as a tool of pompous outrage. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Am I the only one to notice the irony that Peter Simmons, after having rightly identified and denounced a lynch mob mentality, is promptly treated to the same online kicking?
"He dares not to agree with us. String him up!!"
Exactly the point the point he was making.
Wake up people!!
On of the things seemingly over looked; free speech has consequences. Jam Moir and the Mail exercised their right to free speech, then people exercised their right to free speech and complain about what was said. Yes, there are always going to be people who'll scream 'flog them, then hang them' (usually in the Mail) but the high lighting of Fry is random pillorying. I complained (as is my right) follwing reading the Moir article and then Charlie Brooker's comments on same... so if I was 'organised' it was by Brooker, not Mr Fry. Looking at Twitter trends (which the author of this is quite technically savvy to do himself, but heaven forfend fact getting in the way of a good story) the Twitter verse was alight well before Fry's near parabolic reference was made. TBH, this simply highlights how, even 'respectable' journalists treat reality like it's a soap opera. Fry becomes a 'rabble rouser', some hack wrapping her self in the soiled cloth of free speech becomes the victim. No. She wrote something that was published and reaped what she sowed. Big fat hairy deal. All we need now is someone to post along the lines of Godwin's Law and someone else to wring their hands and cry 'Will nobody think of the children' and we'll have nearly every cliche going.
Whether it was Fry or not who started the avalanche, what the whole thing has demonstrated is that unregulated social media can be quite dangerous, and high-profile participants need to consider their commentary before embarking on any action that encourages 'mob rule'. I like Stephen Fry, but he has been elevated to a position of immense power and influence without any sense of responsibility.
Brendan, throughout your rant - sorry, article, I can find no constructive comment on Moir's article.
Do you agree with it? Do you disagree with it?, or don't you really care one way or the other, providing that no one else dares to comment on it.
You must be living in cloud cuckoo land if you seriously believe that journalists should not be held accountable for their writings.
By all means write whatever you like, but if people find it distasteful don't expect an easy ride. That's called freedom of speech - from both sides.
"So her words weren't just wrong or prejudiced - they were potentially criminal. I thought it was only authoritarian, Orwellian regimes that treated thoughts and speech as crimes?
The end result of this twitch-hunt could well be an even bossier PCC, more police interest in particularly opinionated op-eds, and a more cautious, punches-pulling media."
Twitter & Fry resisted Orwellian authoritarianism. It was the mainstream media, politicians and police who propel this horror foreword. Millions twitter, tweet, bleat, burp; they express. Just as fascists used freedom of speech to promote its abolition, some twits tweeted that the PCC, even the police, should censure Moir and the Mail.
So what? They were just a few words amongst many words.
The threat to further restrict speech (we never had anything remotely approaching free speech) came from Parliament; each year it spews out ever more constraints on speech citing spurious grounds such as terrorism, hatred, pornography, commercial confidentiality, copyright, trademarks, privacy, etc.
The mass media colluded in this silencing, eagerly reinforcing mainstream political propaganda, abusing their privileged power of speech.
It was mainstream media's reaction to Twitter's tweets that threatened to further constrain speech, along with the political-corporate state they so supinely subordinated themselves to.
Mail, Moir, Marks & Spencer; monied, privileged, protected, expensive speech.
Tweeters railed against that paid-for-the-privilge speech.
Interestingly my previous comment on all this, which defended the right of people to live and behave and speak as they choose, and which questioned the role of the Editor and Sub-editirs in the Daily mail's article, wasn't 'published ! Was this just an 'oversight', or is one not allowed to criticize these senior newspaper people ?
It takes an incredible leap of logic to suggest that ordinary people - be they ignorant, excitable, or mischievous - voicing their opinion is somehow anti-democratic. It sounds more like journalists not liking the fact they're responsible for their words, and people like Peter Simmons wanting to dismiss sincere moral outrage as "all gays looking at what all Muslims do, and thinking LET'S DO THAT BUT ON TWITTER" (paraphrase)
You are very wrong Peter Simmons. You insinuate that posters here are all part of some bullying twitter mob who are trying to deny free speech.
Let me try to educate you a little at least about my own situation. People like me are harrased, abused, mocked and assaulted by both the media and by some members of the general public for being what we are. This is often fueled by media articles showing us as freaks and perverts and unnatural as the Moir article lamely insinuates Gately's death to be, and by association so would be homosexuality. I see you had at least one christian heterosexual as they termed themselves agreeing with you, another group that claims homosexuality as being perverted and unatural. They are the reasons people objected strongly as they detest the sort of bigotry and prejudism this woman showed. Not some sort of fantastic twitter conspiracy. Oh and I personally am not that sure what twittering is apart from some old lady like me rabbiting on.
Peter Simmons writes: "you may not have seen anyone here asking for Brendan to be censored, but if this comes to the attention of the Twittermob, it could happen"
That's a presumptuous statement you make there, just because you expect the worse in other people does not mean it is going to happen. You make quick generalisation based on a small number Muslim extremists who has no association with the "lynch mob" you're against. And aren't you rather hypocritical to be incensed by other people's right to reply/protest and then claim freedom of speech for journalists like Moir and O'Neill at the same time?
This is a prime example of #fail on so many levels.
The use of twitter is not part of a lynch mob, it is about giving people a voice - a voice they never had before.
Previously when the Daily Mail churned out its usual hate, there was nothing anyone could do about it. You could write to the editor, but that was a waste of time.
What twitter has done is to turn the tables on teh media. The DM was very happy when hundreds (not 22,000) of people complained to the BBC about Jonathon Ross, but now people are complaining about them, well all of a sudden it "a threat to free speech".
No it isn't - by all means write your usual twaddle, Daily Mail, but the difference is we now have a voice.
robin aldridge
No one minds anyone being a heterosexual christian. What people objected to was the distortions and prejudices in the appalling article Moir wrote. And even Daily Mail readers slammed it in their droves, long before Stephen Fry posted anything about it.
Peter Simmons I did not ask for Brendan O'Neill or anyone else to be banned from First Post. The fact that you make sweeping judgement on "all the posters here as part of the lynch mob" says a lot about you so why don't you take your own advice and read my whole post before you comment on it. Finally just to be clear, I'm neither gay or have ever taken part in a Twitter lynch mob - so there.
Dave Hughes - you may not have seen anyone here asking for Brendan to be censored, but if this comes to the attention of the Twittermob, it could happen, there have already been calls for physical attacks on Moir as well as her sacking. I don't read the Mail. How many of those self righteous twitterers do? What I am opposed to is the mob mentality of deluging something you find offensive with calls for banning, including to the IPCC. No one is objecting to people expressing their opinions, that's what it's all about, the tens of thousands who rushed to cvondemn this weren't expressing their opinions, they were putting their boots in where a lot of boots were, joining the mob. Fry put himself in this position, don't blame a journo for putting him in the centre of an article, which was not solely about him. Try reading it again. I used the term 'the gays' as that is clearly who the majority were, they have deliberately made the case they are a group/minority/purchasing bloc/brotherhood, how else can one refer to them? The point I was making was that they were taking a cue from Muslims who routinely now go out on the streets screaming whenever anyone ruffles their feathers. I think a lot of people should stop being wusses and toughen up. Sticks and stones can break my bones ring any bells? I've had plenty of abuse in my life and I got over it. There are far more important issues needing attention than one journo's opinion of gays. The fact that a 33 year old man dying is not natural causes and the lack of any cogent cause for his death is what fueled this whole thing. No, I'm not a 'fan' of any group, least of all a manufactured boy band to milk the little girls of their pocket money so a sleezeball Irish fixer can get ever more rich. I hadn't even registered the name before all this, and will forget it soon enough.
Well said Peter , I am also disgusted and sickened by the current mass hatred fired up by Stephen Fry and yes it now becomes a crime in some peoples eyes to be a law abiding heterosexual christian , speaking your mind.
Peter Simmons - posters are having a conversation (I don't see anyone asking for Brendan to be censored) I just think this was a piece of lazy journalism, having a go at a celebrity to generate traffic rather than to articulate a well reasoned point of view. Having been part of the 'Lynch Mob' last weekend, (don't expect you are a Boyzone fan, so you won't get the irony), the majority of the conversations on Twitter were reflecting people's instinctive distaste at what was, on any level, a pretty tasteless rant based on supposition, generalisations and lazy prejudice. Then again, as you some people as 'the gays', I don't expect you to understand that people can express strong views about what is written in a national newspaper without it threatening free speech.
I assume all the posters here were part of the lynch mob so take the article personally. Whether Fry instigated or just joined the mob is neither here nor there. The main thrust of this article, if any of you care to read it more carefully, is that this kind of bullying is a threat to our freedom of speech. Once you start wanting to ban people - and many have called for Moir's sacking or worse - or articles, or newspapers, or books, you are on a slippery slope to fascism. Seems to me the gays have learned from Muslims that acting like bullies en masse is perfectly ok. To me it's a nasty lynch mob mentality that has no place in a free society. I have often disagreed strongly with O'Neill, but would never call for him to be banned from First Post or for his views to be censored. To attempt to disguise this mob mentality as 'common sense, a sense of decency and justice' is self deceiving claptrap MSV what conspiracy theory? The article mentions no conspiracy. Are you in touch with reality?
So If I understand this right, A woman wrote an article speaking her opinion. Which is her right in a 'free' country, people were offended and complained which is their right also. But, for the press to complain and say that this is against the freedom of the press is bollocks! If you do not want people to respond to a reporters comments then don't say anything worth commenting on. She knew what she was doing, she knew she would get a reaction, so don't moan when its not the reactions you were after. That is true freedom of press, when the general public are in a position to answer and reply to any point the press make. The problem is that they only reactions the press want is agreement, when they don't get it that they whine. One more thing WHAT DID YOU REALLY EXPECT FROM THE DAILY MAIL!!!!! That has to be the single most depressing paper on the market, I wouldn't use it to line my cats litter tray. The Daily Mail make the BNP seem open minded.
Brendan O'Neill your conspiracy theory is laughable. The fact that you choose to highlight the backlash rather than providing the whole picture as it unfolded proves that journalism today is not what it should be. Fact is Jan Moir used and abused her freedom of speech/press through her column by conciously slandering Stephen Gately. The backlash that followed is the result of common sense, a sense of decency and justice most readers still have, unlike some people who claim to be journalist.
To me it all sounds like an awful lot of fuss about very little....
Get things into perspective people - there are plenty of more important things to concern yourselves with.
Quote:"Fry's initial expression of disgust for Moir's column, in which she argued that there was "nothing natural" about Gately's death, had an instant snowball effect."
Didn't Moir start rolling the snowball?
Ironic that an "independent daily online news magazine" should so misunderstand what happened here, but the clue to the old media club was the reference to an "even bossier PCC" - when has the PCC ever shown any teeth other than passing on Fabio Capello's request not to be papped? The point here is that unlike the Ross incident, there was no single media outlet or figure campaigning like the Mail did in that case, just lots of ordinary people like me (Fry et al came later) from across the political spectrum who were amazed at such a scurrilous piece of invective being published before the subject (target?) had been buried . Get used to it Brendan - media is no longer fire and forget, if you deliberately go out to offend don't complain when you get the blowback.
What I find interesting is Stephen Fry's choice of subjects for his twittering. They tell you a lot about him and what he considers reasonable. They do not show him in a very good light.
Freedom of the press? And what about the freedom of the people to voice their opinions? It is the abuse of so called free press by dictatorial big headed arrogant stuck-up-their-own-behind journalists that has led to so many people choosing to find their information on the internet. The newspaper industry is dying and it serves it right. How many journalists investigated the dossier of lies before this country was taken into an illegal war, resulting in the deaths and injuries of countless tens of thousands of human beings lives? People power wouldn't have allowed that, but then the bit time proprietors go hand in glove with the oil companies and governments that wanted it. Disagree? I don't have a franchise on the truth and neither do the media. It's just my opinion and it's called free speech. Journalists can join in, or just wither and die.
Well said David - both Jan & Brendan (to a lesser degree) have used controversy to suggest newsworthiness and show a distinct lack of comprehension of what Twitter is about and allows people to do - yes PEOPLE - the CONSUMERS of the media they write for. THE AUDIENCE HAS CHANGED and they now have instruments to register complaint and peer-to-peer communication that allows concerted action to make a difference.
As for an orchestrated online campaign? If I managed to achieve that much digital interaction and engagement commercially I would be looking at a payment of £150K + (+) Underestimating the sophistication of the audience is what brought this about (and woefully lacking editorial control at The Daily Mail) - please let's not confuse this as an attack on Press Freedom - it is a crass insult to all those PEOPLE who actually made a complaint - you can be assured there we at least 5 times that amount who were offended but too busy to register complaint.
Oh dear.
Wow, I'm seriously impressed by the degree of FAIL shown by this piece.
Obviously the author knows very little about social media, clearly didn't research the piece and prefers the Jan Moir school of hacking bits together without any basis in reality.
Go and actually read how the furore unfolded on Twitter and try to understand how "orchestrating an internet campaign" is akin to herding cats and you might actually be in a position to comment on the events.
As a Trans woman and one of the countries smallest minorites, I and those like me have frequently experienced the abuse and innuendo the media has heaped upon us, all in the name of a good story, and increasing circulation.
What is a laugh, at our expense, for the media, and the hate and abuse the bigoted and prejudiced stories produce is a horrible experience for us.
I frequently see the media commenting that if you become a star also, you have to accept bad treatment by the media also as the price of stardom.
So forgive me if I cannot feel sorry for a reporter who in the search for self aggrandisement and increasing circulation and fame, is prepared to write such a biased and prejudiced article that had very little to do with a persons death, but only to cast slurs on the nature of that death and linked it to a moralistic stance that showed her intolerance and dislike for her subjects lifestyle.
Welcome Ms Moir to the hate and abuse that your type of writing instigates against the gay and trans communities every day of our lives somewhere in tolerant UK.
Brendan O'Neill - the man who told you that the USSR routinely chemically sedated its entire population - now comes out in support of a homophobic Daily Mail nutter. The sad truth, Brendan, is that the non-sedated public have woken up to the lies and hatred they've been fed by journalists like you and Moir. You may remember the phrase "mad as hell and not going to take it any more". It's you they're talking about, Brendan - despite your badly tarnished self-image as Rick in "The Young Ones".
NO NO NO again! If you actually READ Fry's blog he points out that he 'late to the party' on Moir.
He WASN'T the one who caused everybody to crash the PCC website or to set upo the Facebook group.
READ his blog and follow the link to the actual timeline of the evnts and you'll see that you're just following the herd on this. Fry WASN'T an instigator. He merely added his voice to an already swelling wave of revulsion.