BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

The Politician, His Cow And His Mother: Some Thoughts On Freedom Of Expression

This article is more than 5 years old.

Devin Nunes is a Republican Congressman from California who presided over the Intelligence Committee for a time and was part of Donald Trump’s transition team. His Twitter account has almost 400,000 followers, but he has a problem: his cow’s account, properly called Devin Nunes’ cow, has more than 600,000 and has unleashed #themooovement, while the account Devin Nunes’ Mom has been suspended, and the alternative, Devin Nunes’ Alt-Mom, has so far attracted more than 40,000 followers.

Needless to say, Devin Nunes’ cow didn’t open a Twitter account; his mother may or may not have a Twitter account, but if so, is neither of the above. These accounts satirize the politician, and, in a classic illustration of the Streisand effect, have shot to popularity after Nunes decided to sue Twitter and whoever opened the accounts for negligence, libel and insult.

In other words, it’s a freedom of expression issue: basically, establishing the difference between satire, humor or legitimate criticism of a public figure, as opposed to defamation, libel, incitement to violence or insult. Establishing where one begins and another ends is not easy: for Twitter, which once defined itself as “the free speech wing of the free speech party,” the attempt to impersonate, incite violent behavior or the publication of personal data is unacceptable, but if the account is clearly labeled as a satire or a parody, practically anything goes.

If you are a public figure and feel insulted, harassed or defamed, you can of course claim legal protection, but you will have to take into account not only that you will attract attention you might not otherwise, but also that your lawsuit will be dismissed within the context of the anti-SLAPP laws, which protect the public against lawsuits that seek to silence public participation. In addition, if you are criticized, it is more than possible that you will have to suck it up, because in countries like the United States or Mexico (link in Spanish) there are already legal precedents that prevent any politician from blocking citizens' access to social media account potentially used for important announcements. Criticized, and forced to watch it in your timeline: yeah, it goes with the territory.

That said, context is everything. In Turkey, for example, if you anger the president, it won’t just be your Twitter account that is closed; the whole network will be shut down. In Russia, Vladimir Putin has just promulgated very strict laws against anyone who publishes “unreliable significant information”, referring to anything his government considers fake news, or against anyone who insults a public official.

Twitter has done even less to protect those of us who do not hold public office, even when we face insults, harassment, slander or defamation. As a rule, society tends to accept that one person’s freedom ends where another’s begins and that relationships “between equals” are governed by the generally accepted standards of behavior.

When elected officials are involved, we tend to accept that criticism, as long as it doesn’t include threats, insults, disclosure of certain personal data or calls for violence, is part of the job. Basically, anything goes. But should anything go? My approach is to apply the same rules that existed before social networks: if newspaper or a television station subjected a politician to insults, harassment, slander or defamation, wouldn’t the law act? So shouldn’t the same apply if social networks are being used to insult, harass, slander or defame? Why do we treat some media differently to others, if the impact of, for example, an insulting tweet can be greater than an insult on prime time television?

Should we demand that everybody on social networks behave moderately and avoid inflammatory language or gestures, even when criticizing politicians? Should we consider camping out on somebody’s doorstep, or, as they say in Argentina or in Spain, a escrache, a lawful and justified political tactic? In short, just what are the limits to freedom of opinion and expression?

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedInCheck out my website or some of my other work here