Stifling social media

We are now witnessing the true ingenuity of our not-so-representative leaders. Public officials in the UK and the US are already using the riots in London to advocate for and experiment with restrictions on free speech in order to maintain "public order and safety". The role of social media (Twitter, Blackberry Messenger, etc.) in coordinating both the violence and the cleanup in the UK is by now widely known. So now David Cameron is pushing for government powers to control those types of communication. He said:

“Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. And when people are using social media for violence, we need to stop them.”

And an official Manchester police Twitter account said:

“If you have been using social networking sites to incite disorder, expect us to come knocking on your door very soon.”

And in the US---in San Francisco of all places---they are even beginning to experiment with such controls. Last week BART shut down cell phone service to thwart a planned protest against a fatal police shooting of a 45-year-old man. And it worked.

The hypocrisy is disturbingly palpable, and those governments accustomed to being scolded for their control of social media are striking back. A Xinhua editorial points out Cameron's February speech in Kuwait, in which he said that freedom of expression should be respected "in Tahrir Square as much as in Trafalgar Square", and goes on to ponder:

We may wonder why western leaders, on the one hand, tend to indiscriminately accuse other nations of monitoring, but on the other take for granted their steps to monitor and control the Internet.

Of course, while it criticizes Cameron, the Xinhua editorial fully endorses the proposed policy. And it is the policy of suppressing free speech that is the problem, as the evident parallels to Tahrir Square and other protests make clear.

Like Egypt, like Tunisia, the rioters are reacting against an elite that is organizing society to ensure its continued enrichment at the expense of the poor. In the UK, the response has been inchoate and violent, and it has focused on expressing the freedoms and obtaining consumer goods ordinarily denied them. There are many theories out there trying to explain the nature of the riots, but I'm quite certain the Cameron's own explanation is inaccurate:

"Irresponsibility. Selfishness. Behaving as if your choices have no consequences. Children without fathers. Schools without discipline. Reward without effort. Crime without punishment. Rights without responsibilities. Communities without control. Some of the worst aspects of human nature tolerated, indulged - sometimes even incentivised - by a state and its agencies that in parts have become literally de-moralised."

Unless, of course, he is talking about himself and his colleagues, some of whom have "misappropriated" government funds and acted irresponsibly and selfishly with regard to the distribution of social costs and benefits. No, the rioters (and the communities from which they come) have been systematically denied quality lives. And they are striking out against a condition created by Cameron and his predecessors, a life situation in which they are denied freedoms (as the police regularly stop and search them) and denied the resources needed to sustain a reasonable life in the UK. It is not the individual failings to which the government must attend but rather to the social foundation of those failings: a society that protects the rich and punishes the poor.

The urge to suppress freedom of speech is an urge to repress the social unconscious. It is an attempt to retain power in the face of deep social contradictions. And repression will only amplify future violence. Metaphorically speaking, this time it was Trafalgar Square, next time the UK may face its own Tahrir Square.