Tonight, I made a very nerve-wracking appearance on the Moral Maze on BBC Radio 4. The script totally deviated from what I had been primed to talk about, namely abuse on the internet, the reasons behind it, the effect it has, what, if anything, can be done about it, in the light of the sentence handed down to Liam Stacey who was convicted of sending racist tweets following the collapse of the footballer Frederick Muamaba.
It’s well-documented what I have been subjected to. Death threats, rape threats, violent threats, a prolonged campaign of harassment and smearing, my family have been targeted and at least one person has set up a spoof blog ostensibly to tell others how ugly I am and list all of my various faults and frailties.
The reasons behind it?
Too numerous to mention – most obviously, the Catholicism, not being able to square the person who seems reasonable, articulate, friendly and intelligent, with their pre-existing prejudice of the rabid bigot, foaming at the mouth, wishing to hate and condemn everybody to the fires of hell. I am clearly not stupid, or brainwashed, so perhaps I must be mentally ill? One of the most common insults is that I am some hardline religious zealot, wrapping my hatred, bigotry and prejudice in the cloak and garb of reason.
Another factor is undoubtedly jealousy – difficult to strike the right tone here, but let’s just say I’m not bad-looking, I’m articulate, intelligent, well-spoken, have managed to conceive three beautiful children with no difficulty, a fourth is on the way, I have a happy marriage and manage to get the odd gig writing in the national media. Like everyone I’ve had my share of difficulties in life, at the moment life is challenging in many ways but I have the comfort of my faith and my loving supportive family.
Why do people turn into monsters on the internet?
Because they can. Though many people use the internet under the garb of anonymity for perfectly legitimate and understandable reasons, tweeting under an assumed name emboldens people and enables them to act in ways that they wouldn’t dream of if they thought they could be discovered. It takes little courage to be a keyboard warrior under an assumed name. The internet, twitter in particular, is a great leveller. We know that it’s real Members of Parliament, journalists, celebrities we are talking to, most people do not have a person managing their twitter, and this can give a misleading sense of power. People think it’s their right to be heard, which in some respects is true and under the garb of anonymity all the simmering tensions can come to the fore. The format of Tweets, which are limited to a mere 140 characters, does not allow for nuance or complex arguments, which is why so many of us blog. It gives us the space and opportunity to expand upon our arguments and explore them in greater depth. Tweets and Facebook updates demand brevity which means substance is often sacrificed to style. Everyone is searching for that perfect soundbite, to sum up a situation in 140 characters and grab the attention of those who may be listening. Twitter is a great medium for those who feel politically disenfranchised to feel powerful and listened to.
As there is no face-to-face contact, all social conventions fall out of the window. Normally when we are talking to people, we gauge how to pitch our conversation by unconscious body language cues such as gestures and facial expressions. We tend to respect each others personal space and unless we are in the throes of a full-blown row, avoid shouting and hostile gestures. All of these subtleties of human interaction and discourse are totally lost via social media. We literally become our words, which take on a whole new import. With no social conventions to govern us, it is all too easy to become self-indulgent, shout at other people, give unfettered opinions, use hostile and aggressive language, including profanities, which it would probably never occur to us to use in a real life situation.
Take the prolific tweeter and MP Louise Mensch. Though we might discuss her in private, if we wanted her to know our views, we wouldn’t suddenly run up to her in real life and shout personal abuse at her in order to get her attention. However this is precisely what happens on Twitter. People think it’s perfectly acceptable to randomly abuse or flame someone out of the blue and then get irate when they are blocked. The best way to engage with people in real life is via respectful discourse, and yet these rules are too frequently forgotten on the internet. If I wanted Louise Mensch, Nadine Dorries or even David Cameron to listen to me, I would try to engage with them in ways that showed me to be a reasonable and respectful person, not an utter sociopath. Let’s face it, if your first introduction to someone is them shouting abuse at you, or being extremely hostile out of the blue, it’s not going to incline you to be open to their views. The shutters will instantly come down.
The effects of the abuse
One of the things that I failed to get across, given the limited time, was the sheer scale and speed of the abuse. Though Kenan Malik was correct when he stated that racist abuse has always existed, people have always shouted abuse at each other, growing up in the ’60s and ’70s he experienced racist abuse being shouted at him on the street. The difference between then and now is that though the effect of abuse is no different, be it shouted on the street or typed on the internet, it still feels like a violent assault regardless of medium, what the internet and twitter in particular, enables people to do is to incite mob violence or hatred against a particular individual.
As has happened to me on more than one occasion, a person who takes against your views, is able to incite their thousands of followers in a storm of protest and outrage against you. The effect of this cannot be underestimated as it means every time you go on Twitter you are faced with a barrage of indignation and abuse all stemming from a comment taken out of context. Sticks and stones don’t break our bones, but it is more than a little disconcerting to be faced with a storm of misplaced outraged accusing one of bigotry or worse and ad-hom insults and abuse. I’ll be honest, it drove me almost to a nervous collapse, at a time when I was feeling particularly vulnerable. The answer might be to switch off the internet, but most of us have smartphones and the impact of a non-stop barrage of “you are a bigoted piece of sh*t” and similar sentiments, couched in profane language was akin to a physical assault. It is acknowledged in cases of domestic abuse, that emotional abuse can be every bit as harmful as the physical. Receiving constant hate-filled messages was like being at the receiving end of a verbal mugging. I was literally shaking, crying and too scared to switch on the computer. If I took a break I was accused of cowardice or not having the intellectual ability to defeat the arguments, if I expressed my hurt and anxiety and the effect this was having upon me, I received further abuse for “playing victim”. It was horrendous.
What augmented the situation, is that, as Neil Addison is happy to confirm, having advised me in a private capacity, is that I have been the subject of a pernicious hate and harassment campaign. Various people have been carpet-bombed with allegations pertaining to my mental health. At this point, I need to state that I have no history of mental health problems whatsoever, I do admittedly sometimes suffer a touch of ante-natal depression during pregnancy, but I have never needed or received any treatment for mental health problems. Various strangers were emailed with a series of very unpleasant allegations, a national publication was bombarded with abusive phone calls and emails about me and Neil Addison was sent a series of disturbing and increasingly rambling allegations regarding my mental health and also my family. Every time I had a disagreement with anyone on Twitter, they were sent a series of allegations about my mental health and behaviour, several of them quoted and named the offender behind the campaign. “Caroline Farrow is a nutter with a track record of mental health problems, I have been emailed about her” said one. “What about **** ******’s blog?” said another. Other Catholic bloggers were also contacted and “warned” about me, but had the grace and foresight to let me know what was going on, forwarding on the unsolicited messages they had received.
All of us have a right to our good name and reputation and yet the internet enables unprecedented campaigns of hate and smears which are very difficult to counter. No-one should be too frightened to speak out, in case some deranged individual attempts to destroy their life, on the basis of an ideological difference and a very personal hatred. I almost stopped blogging and came off the internet as a result. The only reason I had a volte-face was that various people – both other Catholics and even journalists in the mainstream media as well as the odd politician contacted me to express their disappointment, to state that they would miss my presence and that a voice should not be silenced or living in fear. To do that would mean that the bullies had won. Some people want me off the net, my presence makes them uncomfortable and they would rather that their views went unchallenged.
There have been times, however when despite the support of my family, the non-stop bullying, threats and haranguing have brought me to the edge. Even now, I am still receiving snarky comments as a result of resuming blogging and tweeting. My daughter’s godfather rang us the other day, he was concerned for me, having randomly met one of the perpetrators of the abuse, been faced with the vitriol and manic behaviour as well as intrusive and personal questions about my family, which seemed more than a little sinister. Fortunately he had the good sense not to let on his close relationship to us, but it shows the lengths to which some people will go and gave him an insight into how upsetting this must have been.
What can be done about it?
There is a problem that needs to be addressed. I know only too well how awful it is to be on the receiving end of such spite, so goodness knows how a really vulnerable person, such as someone with genuine mental health difficulties or a teenager would cope with such an onslaught. When one is in the midst of all this, one simply needs it to stop immediately. Hoping that the offender might get bored is not a short-term solution,because some people are very tenacious and bear grudges for long periods of time. I can well see how someone could be driven to suicide. We all have smartphones these days, so even if the computer is switched off, it’s very difficult to escape the constant notifications of yet another new message of abuse. It is only too easy to see how an adolescent gang can wage a relentless campaign against another who doesn’t fit into their clique. There once was a time that home was a safe space, a place where one could shut the door and escape, but the internet allows all its content, both good and bad to be permanently streamed into our homes 24/7. Perhaps this is another reason why the abuse feels so much worse, because it is very very hard to escape the tirade, which comes at a break-neck speed.
What the internet, Twitter in particular, desperately needs is a code of civility. We need to self-regulate and self-police infinitely better. Whilst I am all for freedom of speech, we have to remember that with freedom comes great responsibility. We need to be careful that our right to say whatever we want, is not a right to abuse other people at will. Free speech should be all about expressing ideas and ideologies, no matter how hateful or distasteful they may be to others. Whilst people should and must not be afraid to express opinions, there is a distinction between ideological arguments and ad-hominems and personal abuse and smear. Whilst some people might find my faith and the views stemming from it, hateful, that can never justify hateful personal abuse being thrown back by way of retort.
This is why I get so upset, because, as I have said repeatedly, abuse, insults, hectoring, haranguing is an attempt to close down debate and de-humanise a person. You are worth nothing, therefore you must not be listened to. Your views only show what a hateful, nasty person you are. That is prejudice and bigotry. Even if a view seems totally alien, it is always important to decipher what lies beneath it, rather than dismiss the person themselves. That is the way to change hearts and minds, and even if one is not successful in those ends, at least one gets an idea of what is motivating the other person and what in society needs to change, if anything, so that people are not driven to extremes of hatred.
Twitter is a notoriously unstable platform. It follows and un-follows people at will. Often you attempt to block people and yet they still turn up in your timeline. If I block someone, it is because I don’t want them to have the power to abuse or upset me. If I can’t see what they are saying, then I can get on with life oblivious. The problem is that despite blocking, those who want to harass and stalk, can still see your timeline. What Twitter really needs to do is implement a system whereby people whom you block are unable to see your tweets. I know that despite blocking the main offenders, they still continue to scan my timeline with alacrity and attempt to contact me. Or they then engage someone else in an attempt to incite them to have an attack. Like Facebook, Twitter needs to stop others from seeing your timeline.
The other thing Twitter needs to do, is be much stricter in its controls. I reported a sexual threat I received the other day to Twitter. To date they have done absolutely nothing about it, stating it falls under freedom of speech. Twitter, on the whole are very reluctant to take action against their users. There needs to be a code of civility which is enforced by both Twitter itself and its users, in order that persistent offenders can have their accounts removed.
A one-off offence should not merit action, however if someone has a track record of stalking, harassing or abusing others, and a number of separate complaints are received, then action should be taken, including reporting this to local authorities as applicable. None of us have a right not to be offended, but equally we do have a right to conduct our lives free of fear, threats and harassment.
The general consensus is that the sentence against Liam Stacey was way too stringent. His whole life is going to be defined by one drunken episode, he now has a criminal record, he has been given a disproportionate prison sentence, more than some careless drivers who cause death receive, and is likely to be kicked out of University. All for one drunken, ill-thought out episode. Were a code of civility in place, signed up to and enforced by all users, as well as the owners of social media itself, perhaps this would not have happened.
Journalists accept that they have a responsibility and are generally quite good at self-regulating, hence the outcry about Johann Hari and latterly Robert Fisk. Journalists understand how powerful the written media is and how harmful an inaccurate story can be, or how they have the power to whip up various storms. Social media users need to understand that they can have similar power, if they have a lot of followers and also act in a similarly responsible fashion.
Where the police do get involved, sentances should not be custodial, but should constitute formal warnings that are recorded, breeches of warnings should show up on criminal records, and just as ASBOs are issued for anti-social behaviour in society, some sort of internet version needs to be issued. A persistent abuser (and I don’t mean the pointless troll) should have their internet access revoked for a set period of time, for everyone’s good.
The internet is public space, even if it is virtual, and just as it is not acceptable if someone wishes to conduct a real life hate campaign against you, neither should this be acceptable on the internet. It’s difficult to know exactly where to draw the line, we can all behave rashly in the heat of the moment, but persistent abusers must be stopped and must have a serious deterrent. If someone sent me a letter containing a death threat it would be taken seriously, therefore it is puzzling why this is thought to be less serious or frightening simply because the medium is different.
The Wild Wild West
I have often been told that I need to grow a thicker skin. It is only now that I am beginning to learn some excellent coping strategies. Though the internet should remain a largely unregulated space, it is at times beginning to resemble the Wild West, where only those with the loaded gun dare go out on the streets, the women, children, the elderly, the vulnerable stay at home.
This is not a situation we want to have on the internet. Though no-one has the right not to be offended and everyone should have the freedom of speech, it is a question of balance. One person’s freedom of speech should not be interpreted as a licence to bully. Swearing at people, using capital letters, using demeaning names, this is all bullying coarse behaviour which should have no place in a civilised enlightened society. Your freedom to call me a “dumb bitch” or a “piece of sh*t who doesn’t deserve to live” or worse still call for people to sexually assault me, may dehumanise me, but it may also make others too afraid to join in the general discourse and conversation for fear of what they might receive. That is a freedom of speech issue also. If people are too afraid to join in, either because of abuse, or because they fear their views are too counter-cultural, I know that my views are an anathema to the chattering liberal classes and because the government has regulated what may be seen as an acceptable view, then that affects us all.
What we need is some general common sense, more good manners, courtesy and civility. We need to remember that these are other human beings behind the computer screen. We need to highlight and shame bullies and abuses, not just accept it as an inevitable flip-side or consequence of the net. If only the emotionally strong should venture into the saloon bar of twitter, where public discourse on current affairs and politics is the order of the day, then an important voice is denied to the weak. That is not democratic and nor can we be said to be truly free.
13 thoughts on “Moral Maze”
Sorry that you didnt get to say all that you wanted to in your interview.
It is interesting that the sorts of individuals who commit the sorts of psychological violence are the same types of people who support and commit other types of violence.
I have lived away from the UK for nearly 10 years. When I returned a few short months ago, I realised straight away that this country is in real trouble. Seriously, there has been such a moral decline that this is no longer a nice place to live (and I live in quite a posh area!). Over the last 25 years, I have lived in quite a few countries thanks to my job and i have to say that the UK has some of the nastiest and malcontented people out of anywhere Ive been. Makes me ashamed to be british to tell you the truth.
Recently, I added a prolife message to my email signature. Pretty much immediately the abusive emails and phone calls started, but I am shrugging it off because I take a great comfort from knowing that if – in my support of life – I have caused someone to behave violently towards me then I know that what I am doing is right: no sane, rational or healthy human being would ever attack someone because they oppose treating human life as garbage.
So the “other side” as I like to refer to them, can make as many enemies as they like amongst people they try to “recruit” the fact is, that there are enough people left in the world who dont share their views and that they need to commit essentially criminal acts is further proof that these people should not be entrusted with the power to make moral decisions.
Regarding internet regulation, I completely agree. i have rfelt for the longest time that freedom without consequence is just a word. like “rights” without responsibilities (how often have you heard a prochoicer use the word “responsibilities”?!). People need boundaries and thats a fact.
p.s you’re still a hero to those of us who arent dysfunctional!!
I don’t know what the answer is…I always ‘talk’ to people online in the same way I talk to people in real life…i.e. I wouldn’t shout or swear at them, and even if I disagree I won’t let the conversation escalate. Some people don’t seem to have any self-restraint, both online and in real life…
Snap! Which is why I’ve found all of this so unfathomable.
I think there has been a coarsening in society which is reflected by the Internet.
Yes, I thought it was also notable that some of the points you mentioned – including some that were far from trivial (the outrageous nature and extent and quantity of the threats that you have received, above all) that really were barely taken up by the panel at all. I’m not sure why that was, as they were far from being of minor importance, and were closely related to the ostensible topic of the programme. My impression was that Claire Fox was mostly responsible for leading the discussion astray during your interview, but I may be mistaken..
(But: 2 out of 4 of the panel being former members of the Revolutionary Communist Party ??? Surely that can’t be right? Or usual One – fair enough. But two? Ludicrous)
Melanie Phillips *did * take up the question of the limits of free speech and of civil behaviour in her questioning of Padreig Reidy (I hope I have spelled his name correctly…) – but this was quite narrowly focussed on questions of racism.
I had been hoping that you might have responded “the reformation” in response to the question as to when this coarsening of society had begun. Of course this would be a simplistic answer, but no more so, and more broadly accurate, than the suggestions of the 1970s that yer erstwhile RCPers were chucking about…
While the contemporary (well, post 18th century) discourse of “rights” that is so dominant increasingly eschews any consideration of any concomitant responsibilities
I quite like the comments of Ani Wandarian (@goldentent) about the positive side (and purposes/uses) of Twitter, both in the attached post http://sidfernando.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/twitter-discussion-with-joe-morris-over-lunch-in-manhattan/ and in the comments thread below it
Well done on your appearance on R4. I was going to say that surely that code of behaviour is the simple practice of not saying to someone online anything which you wouldn’t be prepared to say to their face.
I guess I’m just an idealist.
Thank you 🙂
You’re exactly right. One wouldn’t start shouting or swearing or inciting other people against another in a pub, so why do it online?
I often wonder whether or not I am an idealist as well? I think when I first ventured online I expected it to be a neo-platnoic symposium or like something out of the histories of Herodotus! Maybe in another world…
Hi, I heard your appearance last night. A remarkably articulate, level, mature and calm interview under immense pressure from an intimidating panel. I was so very impressed by your ability to keep your head Caroline. Well done.
I caught the Moral Maze on Saturday night. I echo everything that Psychocandy says.
Wow. I had no idea what you’d been put through. I’m not sure all your proposals are workable in practice, but certainly a stronger collective commitment to civility – and thus to challenging episodes of incivility, let alone the outright harassment you have suffered – would be a big help. I’m glad you decided to stick with it, though.
I caught you on the Moral Maze. I’m a left-wing Atheist so I imagine we’ll disagree on most things. However, listening to you on the programme you were an excellent example of the civility etc you espoused. They honed in on you because they heard the word ‘catholic’ and closed their minds to you. When one of the panel hoped to gain capital at your expense by referring to his past when people were prepared to insult complete strangers. He deliberately misunderstood that you meant the anonymity offered by the Internet can make it easier and more prevelant. While members of the panel, in my view had points linking religion and propagation of hatred against groups etc, they went at it quite hard, and even when you politely acknowledged their points in a way they had not done for you, still went at you despite no evidence that you represented views they did not like. Throughout you were civil, polite, you listened, saw their points of view and some of them just picked on you. But don’t worry. You came across better with bags of dignity intact and untouched. Portillo was nice. But then he just is. It bothers me that people’s dislike of aspects of religion or of Catholicism is often confused with the catholic person themselves. Their entire approach to the perfectly sensible points you were making was coloured by this. They let themselves down by indulging in this casual anti-catholiicism. Like thinking that burning a catholic on 5th of November is ok which it is not You seem like a highly intelligent and extremely pleasant person to me, differing views aside, and I just want to say they were not just intimidating but rude, and that, combined with your abundant and natural civility, just proved your point for you. And btw. If any of those people who threatened and insulted your family and you espoused any of my views I certainly do NOT stand with them. If I find em I’ll give them a slap for you. One of the advantages of being an atheist is that I don’t have to turn the other cheek.
Words fail. Thank you so much, that comment really made my day.
to here the abuse you suffer is terribly awful.
and at least one person has set up a spoof blog ostensibly to tell others how ugly I am and list all of my various faults and frailties.
would you provide a link here to the spoof blog that we might attempt to investigate and uncover the perp.
Hello. It was a commenter who is on here a lot called Peter Denshaw. He set up a blog called response to the Christians, which consisted of extended versions of two blog comments that I had refused to publish.
He has now taken the blog down, but here is the former IRL: http://inresponsetothechristians.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/perverse-masochism-or-noble-martyr/
It contained statements such as “she thinks she is attractive whereas the reality is that one would approach Farrow with a lump of sugar stretched out on the palm of one’s hand” and so on.
I can provide screenshots of some of the comments that I did not publish. Including nuggets such as “There is an old adage: ‘give someone enough rope and they’ll hang themselves…’Carry on weaving the rope… I and many others will cheer when the noose finally closes (the clock ticks, the rope lengthens and soon, oh so soon, your time will come!).
Recently you noted that same-sex marriage would result in children being raised without a proper mother and father, yet for five years your own child was raised without a father. So it is clear there is more than a touch of hypocrisy about your pronouncements.
The above is not true and certainly not relevant.
Then he alludes to having looked up where we used to live and knowing us.
So please desist these ‘Disgusted of Blatchington’ (or wherever you are now) Daily Mail style rants.
By the way, I think we’ve met. I have connections with St Patrick’s down the road from you (more so under Fr Alan and especial the now sadly deceased Susan than the present Steven Underdown – tho’ I knew the latter via CSWG) and I am sure our paths may have crossed at some function or other… Small world.
He posts by the name of Peter Denshaw, he has infested some other blogs, I believe his prose is quite poisonous, but other people did see his blog at the time and can verify this. I can give his google blogger ID number which is in my mail, although the deleted blog is wordpress.
Generally, I’m not minded to advertise when people want to set up nasty spoofs, I don’t like to give these things oxygen and probably because I am a sinner and I have my pride, I don’t like to direct others to a place where nasty personal comments are made about me.
This guy apparently is a former monk at Crawley Down he bumped into the godfather of my daughter at a funeral recently and said his name was “John Paul”. We were rung up and told that he had been referring to my blog in a lot of detail and making very many comments about us. Our friend felt that he was terribly poisonous, wrapped under the guise of sweetness or saccharin and it certainly made him uncomfortable and concerned.
As I said the blog has now been removed. I should have taken a screenshot and no doubt the chap will come on with another creepy comment “waves to Peter” but at the time i didn’t care to dwell on it. Others definitely saw it however. I have quite a few blog comments that he made that made me feel very uncomfortable and disturbed.