Dem
48
Ties
1
GOP
51
We write fairly often about Elon Musk. Too often, for some readers' tastes. The reason we do it is that, by virtue of his fame and his ownership of eX-Twitter, he might well be the most important media figure of the current generation. The person he always makes us think of is William Randolph Hearst, who was also one of the richest people in the world, and who also mucked around in politics, and who was also a giant sh**-stirrer.
Another commonality between Musk and Hearst is that their words had consequences. In Hearst's case, he almost single-handedly created the Spanish-American War. That war left thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of Spaniards and Cubans, dead. If you extend Hearst's responsibility to include the Philippine-American War, as well, then you can increase the American death toll to tens of thousands, and you can add on hundreds of thousands of Filipinos on top of that.
Musk's words also have consequences, sometimes violent consequences. We read several pieces about the recent riots in the U.K. such as this one from The Guardian, headlined "Inciting rioters in Britain was a test run for Elon Musk. Just see what he plans for America." We propose above that Musk's ability to change election outcomes is probably pretty minimal. But his ability to egg on extremists is real, as that piece explains.
As we so often do, we reached out to our British correspondents to give us a sense of exactly what happened. First, S.T. in Worcestershire, England, UK with a general overview:
One result of the U.K. general election being held on July 4 was that the country entered a quiet period politically. Parliament barely sat for a fortnight before going into recess for much of the summer (allowing all those 300+ new MPs to cultivate their constituencies). The new Labour government is still finding its feet, though its proposals on finance and planning/housing already look like an accident waiting to happen. The Conservatives have started a leadership contest lasting till November! However, just like nature, politics and the media abhor a vacuum.
Southport is a somewhat up-market holiday resort/residential area just north of Liverpool famed for its annual flower show. On Monday, July 29, a local dance studio held a Taylor Swift themed workshop aimed at local children on school holidays. A 17-year-old carrying a kitchen knife carried out a series of stabbings at the event resulting in three children dying and several more being injured.
Under English law, the identity of those under 18 charged with crimes is not routinely made public. Possibly because the assailant was local, the fact that he was non-white appears to have emerged on the internet very quickly and set the rumor mill working overtime. By Tuesday afternoon, the egregious Nigel Farage, leader of Reform U.K., and the newly elected MP for Clacton, was asking some very pointed questions and making speculation online, which did little to abate rising tensions. When a judge finally issued the identity of the suspect, he proved to be the son of two Rwandan refugees, and he was actually born in the U.K.
On Tuesday evening, a vigil was held in Southport in honor of the victims. There then followed a probably unlinked demonstration which rapidly descended into a riot. Its main target was a small mosque serving the town's tiny Muslim community. Thankfully, and more by luck than judgment, no one was injured.
Over the next week or so, disturbances and riots dominated by the far-right, often violent, took place in a number of towns and cities across the U.K., though notably none in Scotland and relatively few in the south of England. They were often centered on mosques or hotels temporarily housing asylum seekers waiting for their claims to be processed—ironic given that the suspect was not an asylum seeker and probably is not a Muslim. Some descended into riots complete with looting. Dozens of police have been injured. Fortunately, no deaths have occurred. In some areas, counter-demonstration by opponents of racism and members of the Muslim community took place, largely peacefully. The wave now seems to have subsided and hundreds are being processed through the U.K. courts on various charges relating to disorder, riot, looting and racially aggravated behavior.
There's a lot to unpack here. The first thing to note is that rioting is an occasional feature in U.K. life. There were outbreaks in 1981 and in 2011, both—as, on this occasion—in high summer.
The second issue is whether the U.K. has a particular far-right problem. Certainly compared to other European countries, that is unproven. If you make the assumption that Reform U.K. is broadly representative of far right support—and that is probably an exaggeration—support in the U.K. (Reform got 14% of the vote in the general election) is probably similar to that in Germany or Spain, and runs below that of France, Italy or Austria. I will leave it to U.S. readers to assess the comparable figure in the States.
What is different is the way the far right seem to be operating. In the past, there have often been a number of far-right parties who have waxed and waned without achieving a significant breakthrough. And the Conservative Party has not been immune to sending out dog whistles to secure support from the right: Even Margaret Thatcher was willing to use the word "swamped" in relation to immigration. What the riots revealed was a "leaderless" movement, seemingly powered by the internet. Telegram and—surprise, surprise—"X" appear to have been the main conduits to spread rumors, falsehoods and organize protests. Elon Musk seems to have been more than happy to amplify postings which did much to stoke tension and a number of U.K. politicians have expressed their displeasure at his activities, though whether they will be able to do anything about it remains to be seen.
It is also striking how quickly the protests turned against specifically the Muslim community. Frankly, Islamophobia is now a major problem in the U.K. Some established journalists, such as Melanie Phillips, have made very successful careers promoting it and have always found outlets willing to publish or broadcast their views—particularly The Daily Telegraph and, now, the GB News television channel (which currently employs Farage, paying him £100,000 a month). On the right, it has become almost fashionable to take this stance. The conflicts in Israel/Palestine have exacerbated the problem as, indeed, has the Bharatiya Janata Party's brand of Hindu nationalism in India, which appears to be transferring to the U.K.
I doubt if the U.K. is heading towards civil war, as suggested by Musk, but it is difficult to assess where we go from here. Unsurprisingly, the Muslim community is very unsettled by recent events. It is unclear how far Reform U.K.—or, more specifically, Farage, who uses it very much as his own private political vehicle—will exploit the situation. Most interesting is the position of the still shell-shocked Conservative Party. Adopting Reform lite policies may help recover votes lost in July, at least on the right, but could further alienate those who were lost or almost lost to the left or center. Perhaps once the new leader is selected, we will have a clearer picture.
And now, A.B. in Lichfield, England, UK with a more zoomed-in view on the role of Musk/eX-Twitter:
I think both S.T. and I were slightly taken aback when (Z) first forwarded us a question over "arrests related to tweets in the UK." The emphasis on tweets, rather than on the tragic murder of three young girls aged 6 to 9, maybe showed us how the news emphasis can shift between countries. S.T.'s attempt to outline the broader context may be helpful for American readers, but if the core focus is "arrests related to tweets," I would make this much simpler:If I'm reading the query from (Z) correctly, these bare facts have been turned into some sort of culture war nonsense about people being arrested for sending out tweets. Somewhere in there, the tragic loss of three young lives has been forgotten, and the emphasis has shifted to idiocy over suppression of freedom of speech, while Elon Musk meanwhile sends out unhelpful "tweets" about how "civil war is inevitable in the UK," as if he'd know.
- On July 29, a violent knife attack at a Taylor Swift-themed dance party resulted in the deaths of 3 young girls and critical injuries to 10 children and adults.
- Because the alleged assailant was a minor under the age of 18, he couldn't be named under U.K. law.
- The gap in information led to misinformation spreading on social media, including the false accusation that the assailant was an immigrant with an Arabic name.
- It was subsequently revealed that the assailant was a British citizen born in Wales to Rwandan parents.
- The misinformation led to Islamophobic riots breaking out, primarily in England and Northern Ireland; mosques and hotels hosting asylum seekers were attacked and dozens of police injured.
- These riots were exacerbated by a network of far-right racists and (allegedly) organized criminal gangs.
- After a week and a half, the riots were effectively brought under control by a combination of a robust police presence and accelerated arrests and sentencing for those involved in the riots.
- As of this writing, there have been over 1,000 arrests, and around 400 individuals have been formally charged (some with multiple charges).
- The situation is still developing, but as of this writing, 111 individuals have been convicted, with 101 convictions resulting in prison sentences.
- A very small number of these convictions have been for using social media to incite violence. I count no more than 10 convictions out of the broader total.
- These social media convictions have been for statements along the lines of "Every man and their dog should be smashing [the] f**k out [of the] Britannia hotel" (which was housing more than 200 refugees) and "Don't protect the mosques. Blow the mosque up with the adults in it."
When it comes to freedom of speech, we have no precise equivalent to the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights in the U.K. But I'm not sure this matters much. Even if we use the U.S. context, as Oliver Wendell Holmes famously noted in the Schenck v. United States in 1919, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." U.K. courts have simply decided that, in a limited number of cases relating to recent unrest incited by far-right misinformation, online incitement to violence is little different to in-person incitement.
Again, that the murder of three small girls by a potentially mentally disturbed young man has somehow been lost in this discussion of social media free speech is one of the most disappointing and disturbing aspects of this case.
Thanks for explaining, S.T. and A.B.; this is why we go to the horse's mouth.
The U.K. might, or might not, be able to do anything about the harms done on social media in general, and eX-Twitter in particular. But keep reading for an item about a country that DID try to do something about it. (Z)