Far-right agitator Tommy Robinson has a talent for making headlines—and probably nothing else. Whether he is harassing journalists, disclosing sensitive court materials, advising the leader of UKIP, or running for election as an MEP, it is hard to avoid his presence in news media.
Tommy Robinson, pictured, has been convicted of assault, drug possession, public order offences, and contempt of court. Photo by courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
On social media, however, that seems set to change. In line with Twitter’s decision in March 2018, Facebook and their subsidiary Instagram have also decided to ban Robinson from their platforms. This means that the only major social media platform to which he has access is YouTube.
Robinson and his supporters have argued that the decision undermines his free speech and is part of a coordinated state-media campaign to silence him; these claims are not to be taken seriously.
At the other end, the perceived slowness of social media platforms in addressing Robinson’s hatefulness has led to calls for an independent social media regulator—but is this government’s place?
Tommy Robinson’s name is actually Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, is an English far-right activist serving as a political adviser to the Leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). He is a co-founder, former spokesman and former leader of the English Defence League (EDL) organization.
He also has a criminal record with convictions for a number of offences including:
He has been to prison on multiple occasions, including in 2014 for mortgage fraud.
In May 2018, Robinson was jailed for 13 months after breaking contempt of court laws for live-streaming a Facebook Live outside Leeds court. He was initially arrested on suspicion of breaching the peace.
Contempt of court – an offence of being disobedient to or disrespectful toward a court and its officers in the form of behaviour that opposes or defies the authority, justice and dignity of the court.
Breach of the peace – a crime usually defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one’s actions. Can include creating loud noise by fighting, disturbing others by loud and unreasonable noise or using profanity. It is often punishable by either a fine or a brief term in jail.
Since his imprisonment there have been protests to #freetommy, claiming he's a victim of censorship in the UK.
Facebook confirmed that Robinson had violated their standards on supporting or appearing to support organized hate groups on his page, which had amassed over one million followers. The social media giant said that Robinson’s Facebook page had ‘repeatedly broken these standards, posting material that uses dehumanising language and calls for violence targeted at Muslims’.
It said that it had not taken the decision to remove his page lightly but added he would not be allowed back on the platform. The ban means that Robinson will not be allowed to set up an official Facebook page or Instagram profile in future.
When ideas and opinions cross the line and amount to hate speech that may create an environment of intimidation and exclusion for certain groups in society - in some cases with potentially dangerous offline implications - we take action Facebook, in a blogpost
According to Facebook, a written warning had been sent to Mr Robinson last month about a number of posts on his page that had violated its community standards, including:
In March 2018, Twitter banned Robinson and explained that his account was suspended on the basis of breaking its ‘hateful conduct policy’
In November 2018, PayPal stated that it would no longer process payments for Robinson. The company said that it cannot be used to ‘promoted hate, violence, or other forms of intolerance’.
The move comes after online petitions demanding the firm stop processing payments for the activist gathered thousands of signatures. But Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – who said he had been using the platform to collect donations to fight his legal battles, branded the ban as ‘fascism’ and expressed: ‘they just don’t like my opinion and want to silence me’.
Striking the necessary balance between upholding free expression and open dialogue and protecting principles of tolerance, diversity and respect for all people is a challengePayPal
As alluded to by PayPal, it is extremely difficult to toe the line between upholding freedom of expression and fighting censorship and protecting groups who face discrimination and promote respect for all. However, it is crucial to remember that freedom of speech is not a duty to offend.
Tom Watson, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and shadow secretary of state for digital, culture, media, and sport, has stated, ‘the public interest demands an end to laissez-faire regulation, so we can create a place where reasonable debate can take place without trolls, extremists and racist thugs seeking to damage and undermine society. That requires an independent social media regulator with teeth.’
Watson and Labour are hardly a lone voice in this matter, however. Ofcom have suggested that their regulation of TV and radio broadcasting and mobile networks should be extended to cover social media sites and the internet.
Proponents of extending regulation point out the illogicality of strictly governing some media but setting no standards for social media. They also point to the platform these services provide to hateful figures, like Robinson.
There is, however, a lack of clarity or consensus on this question at the moment. And with little in the way of concrete policy proposals being taken up by government, it is unclear what, and how much, should be done to extend regulations to social media platforms.
Facebook’s decision to ban Tommy Robinson from their platform has given added weight to calls for a social media regulator and brought discussions on this topic to the fore. It remains to be seen how this policy might come about.