DAN HODGES: Musk and his social media military ought to be sincere

America’s shock jocks have really got it in for us. ‘Britain is turning into “Soviet Russia“,’ the populist commentator Joe Rogan blasted to his 17 million YouTube subscribers, responding to the police’s stern crackdown on violent rioters and those espousing hate speech online last week.

‘Civil war [in the UK] is inevitable,’ Elon Musk proclaimed to his 194 million followers on his social media platform X.

Fortunately, these outbursts have been proven to be hysterical hyperbole. But they have framed a debate that is going to dominate our politics as we start to move forward from the recent riots: how do we draw a line between free speech and reckless societal vandalism?

To his credit, Robert Jenrick has picked a side. A former Home Office minister famed for his robustly unremarkable centrist positions, his bid for the Tory leadership has suddenly seen him recasting himself as a standard bearer for the new-Right.

But a few days ago he made a brave, bold and creditable intervention.

‘I thought it was quite wrong that somebody could shout “Allahu Akbar! on the streets of London and not be immediately arrested,’ he told Sky News. The statement saw him pilloried from both Right and Left, with his Conservative colleague Baroness Warsi raging: ‘This language from Jenrick is more of his usual nasty divisive rhetoric.’

But though it was controversial, Jenrick had affirmed an important principle. Which is that the right to free-speech is not, and has never been, absolute. Where it morphs into incitement – and in turn promotes active violence – it needs to be constrained.

And as the recent riots have proved, the right to free expression does not extend to rushing into a crowded cinema and screaming ‘Fire!’. Nor does it give anyone the right to incite others to burn down a hotel full of migrant women and children.

Those who condemned Jenrick claimed the phrase ‘Allahu Akbar’ is used daily by practising Muslims as a form of prayer. But as he correctly pointed out, context matters. If used in a place of worship, that’s fine. When screamed by a mob of masked men parading down a local high street it is not. And that distinction needs to be robustly policed.

In the wake of the sentences handed out to those involved in the riots, a number of commentators have sprung to the defence of those imprisoned, pointing to seemingly innocuous phrases they circulated on social media. But again, context is all.

In the 1980s, I went to a south London comprehensive school that was targeted by the National Front because of it multi-ethnic character. One of their favourite chants was ‘There Ain’t No Black In The Union Jack’. 

In the context of a discussion about national livery, such a statement is accurate and innocuous. When uttered by people trying to start a race riot it becomes vile hate-speech, and needs to be dealt with accordingly.

And until the past fortnight, there was a broad national consensus on that. Since Britain first became a nation of laws, there has never been a time when we have had unlimited freedom of expression.

That’s why we have had blasphemy laws, decency laws, race hate laws, libel laws, defamation laws and contempt of court legislation. The strength and focus of that legislation have waxed and waned as social attitudes have shifted. But restrictions on expression have sat on the statute book for centuries.

Indeed, in the past few years the need for them has been thrown into even sharper relief. The rising threat of political extremism – driven partly by hard-Right extremists, but primarily from Islamist fundamentalism – has seen politicians of all persuasions clamouring for action. 

That’s why hate preachers like Anjem Choudary have been jailed. And organisations like Islam4UK and Muslims Against Crusades rightly banned.

One of the drivers for those bans was a recognition that there is a difference between genuine peaceful protest and divisive provocation.

In 2010, the tiny Wiltshire town of Wootton Bassett found itself at the heart of a solemn ritual. The bodies of fallen soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were driven slowly through the streets, where they were met by crowds of local people who stood silently to honour them as they passed.

Islam4UK issued a threat they would march through the town ‘not in memory of the occupying and merciless British military’ but for the Muslims ‘murdered in the name of democracy and freedom’. There was national outrage, and a week later the group was proscribed.

I can’t believe anyone seriously thinks that was not an appropriate response from Ministers to what was a clear attempt to incite public disorder. But for some reason, those inciting public disorder on our streets over the past fortnight are seeing numerous apologists flocking to their defence.

One of their main criticisms appears to be that our new Government is somehow being selective in how it polices hate-marches and hate-speeches. ‘Two-Tier-Keir’ becoming their go-to soundbite.

But that overlooks two rather important facts. The first is that Keir Starmer has been consistent in his response to those creating, or inciting, disorder. As head of the Crown Prosecution Service, he led the response to the 2011 riots by establishing the 24-hour courts that helped bring calm back to the streets – a model used successfully again last week.

Similarly, as Labour leader he defined himself by directly tackling the anti-Semitism that had blighted his party. And far from appeasing radical Islamist elements on the far-Left, he sought to drive them from his movement. Which is precisely why Starmer and his candidates faced a vicious campaign by Islamist extremists and their fellow-travellers in numerous seats during the election campaign.

The second key fact is the crackdown on hate-speech is not the preserve of the new Government. It was Suella Braverman who sought to strengthen the Prevent anti-extremism initiative by accurately stating: ‘Non-violent extremism can certainly lead to violence, but it’s a problem even where it does not. It undermines our values and divides communities’.

It was Michael Gove who fought to introduce a new definition of extremism by stating that ‘the liberties that we hold dear, and indeed the democratic principles that we are all sent here to uphold, require us to counter and challenge the extremists’ even though ‘most extremist materials and activities are not illegal’.

Even Liz Truss, who earlier this week was defending Elon Musk’s increasingly bizarre social-media rants, committed her government to pushing ahead with the Online Safety Act before she was booted from office.

The principle has long been established. The right to free speech is not unfettered. And at times of heightened community tensions, careless talk can literally cost lives.

So if Musk, and his army of social media warriors want to recast the nature of our public discourse, fine. If they really are intent on replacing the established media with their brave new brand of citizen journalism, so be it.

But then, with their new-found power comes new-found responsibility. They need to practise what they preach. And if what they preach is hate, leads to social disorder or interferes with an ongoing investigation into one of the most barbaric crimes in British history, they need to accept the consequences.

Words matter. Words have power. So there’s to be no crying. No whinging about ‘Stalinist Starmer’. The keyboard warriors have to own what they say.

And in the wake of the riots, they should be honest about what they are actually demanding. Not the right to free speech. But the right to peddle prejudice. The right to spread malicious information that could impede an ongoing murder investigation. The right to incite people to riot.

There is never a time in the history of our nation when we have enjoyed that right. And fortunately, we never will.