Twitter: An Anti-Rights Lightning Rod

As statists plot -- while paying lip-service to free speech -- to deny Twitter its property rights on this side of the Atlantic; opponents of speech scored a victory on the other side, when a Scottish man was found guilty of a criminal offense for ... a tweet.

Image by NASA, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

Joseph Kelly, 36, posted on the social network Twitter on February 3 last year that "the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella buuuuurn".

Kelly, of Castlemilk, Glasgow, was found guilty of sending the "grossly offensive" message following a trial at Lanark Sheriff Court -- with Sheriff Adrian Cottam saying his "gratuitous insult" about Sir Tom was made "with only offence in mind".

The news story goes on to discuss how beloved a national figure the deceased "Captain Tom" (the "dead soldier") was in Britain, how much money he raised to fight the pandemic, and the hurt feelings claimed by a neighbor who saw the tweet.

The only mention of rights, such as the fundamental individual right of free speech -- which the government should have protected -- is in a sidebar, where there is a link to a story titled, "Prosecuting Man Who 'Sent Captain Tom Tweet' Could Breach Human Rights."

That r-word never made it into the article itself.

The moral stature of neither Captain Tom nor of the attention-seeking loser who was found guilty has any relevance here: As far as I can tell, this verdict demonstrates that there is a law on the books in Britain that can penalize individuals simply for saying things someone deems "offensive" -- as opposed to libelous, threatening, or inciting remarks, which should be illegal because they violate the rights of others.

Freedom of speech protects the crucial right of dissent, which, incidentally, can make the difference between a society proceeding down the path to tyranny or finding its way again through open debate.

The prospect of losing government protection of this right should alarm anyone who values his freedom and prosperity. As Ayn Rand once put it, when discussing another popular excuse to "limit" free speech:

It is not very inspiring to fight for the freedom of the purveyors of pornography or their customers. But in the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with the suppression of a given right's least attractive practitioners. In this case, the disgusting nature of the offenders makes it a good test of one's loyalty to a principle. [bold added]

For the record, I, too, am appalled by Joseph Kelly's words. But he has the right to them, and has only broadcast to the world the ill-coded message I am an ass. Notice me!: He has neither harmed nor threatened anyone. He should be free to spew his bile.

To anyone in Britain who values freedom, this verdict is a warning, and it should be a call to action.

-- CAV