This is the story of three white men who lost their jobs. SBS sports reporter Scott McIntyre, for a series of critical tweets on Anzac Day; British lawyer Clive O’Connell, for a tirade captured on video against fans of the Liverpool football club, and people from Liverpool generally; Sydney hotel supervisor Michael Nolan, for posting abuse on the Facebook page of feminist writer Clementine Ford. I could have chosen other examples, but hopefully these three recent ones are sufficient to begin to map a very contemporary set of concerns, at the intersection between social media and the debate not just about freedom but the very nature of expression.

One of these things, of course, is not like the others: few would class the torrent of vile and often violent abuse directed at Clementine Ford, and feminists and women more generally, as a form of ‘opinion’ worthy of protection. Yet a characteristic of this debate are the slippages between different forms of speech. Not only overt abusers like Michael Nolan but also critics of abusive language on social media are routinely described as bullies, or a lynch mob, or accused of policing speech. Broad equivalences are made, most notoriously perhaps in Jon Ronson’s book So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed, in which disparate events are classed under the same rubric. Specificities are elided, so that a general point can be made, be it about ‘shame culture’ or online abuse.

Thus on the surface, these are all stories about men losing their jobs because of something they said. If we force ourselves not to make distinctions between the circumstances that led to the three firings, we’ll be much more likely to take a position against any of them happening at all. However, each case is underlined by a very different power dynamic.

McIntyre lost his job for expressing anti-militarist opinions which were publicly lambasted by then-communications minister Malcolm Turnbull, who also got in touch directly with McIntyre’s boss the day before the firing. Even though McIntyre’s (state-funded) employer cited breaches in the company’s social media policies, there is reason to argue this was in fact a case of state censorship.

An agreed-upon code of conduct was also adduced as the explanation for Clive O’Connell losing his private sector job for causing embarrassment to his employer – an embarrassment which could translate into the loss of clients.

As for Michael Nolan, it is not enough to observe that he brought his firing upon himself. The chain of events is more complex than that, and passes through Facebook’s continuing failure to effectively address abusive behaviour by its members. Frustrated with this abdication of responsibility on the part of the owners of the communications infrastructure, Clementine Ford had tried reposting some of the abuse she received on her own Facebook page, only to have her account suspended for 30 days for ‘violation of community standards’. Ford’s eventual decision to report Nolan’s behaviour to his employers may be construed as a misplaced form of retribution, but is in fact the consequence of a failure occurring elsewhere in the system – a failure which is political in nature.

The fact that the discursive spaces on the web are so unsafe for women, LGBT or people of colour is a mirror of the lack of safety across society at large. One of Jon Ronson’s informants tried to make this point to him in a passage of So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed that was cut from the final, published edition. In the exchange, a female user of the 4chan message board explained the culture of online shaming as follows:

4chan aims to degrade the target, right? And one of the highest degradations for women in our culture is rape. We don’t talk about rape of men, so I think it doesn’t occur to most people as a male degradation. With men, they talk about getting them fired. In our society men are supposed to be employed. If they’re fired, they lose masculinity points.

In another passage which did make the cut, developer Adria Richards expressed a similar idea through the famous quote of Margaret Atwood’s – ‘Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them’ – an analogy forcefully rejected by Ronson. Yet the distinction goes to the heart of this particular debate, for it grounds it in an understanding of the forms that social violence takes.

When we talk about freedom of expression, we must always remember that this expression is met unequally, and that censure, criticism and ridicule are fundamentally different from threats of violence and rape, or state and police repression.

From this constitutive distinction descend the others: dissent and criticism expressed from a subaltern position, such as when a journalist questions the myth of Anzac heroism, are not the same as a tirade against the fans of a rival football team, and by extension the people from the city the team hails from; just as losing a job in journalism with a public broadcaster for expressing dissenting views is not the same as losing a job in the private sector for embarrassing one’s employer. Moreover, the particular consequences of these kinds of speech – however serious in terms of one’s immediate livelihood – in most jurisdictions allow for recourse to employment courts (McIntyre is bringing such a case), which further sets them apart from psychological and physical abuse.

It’s not just that I don’t think we could draw a single lesson from the three stories I have asked you consider: it’s that I don’t think we should try, for it would require erasing too many of these distinctions.

We live in an age of precarity, which certainly contributes to viewing loss of employment as a grave existential threat; the growing tendency to equate all manners of workers with public relations professionals simply by virtue of their having a social media presence – hence the ubiquitous ‘opinions are my own’ disclaimer – will also fuel this anxiety. These things are real. But loss of employment isn’t the only consequence of online speech: the perpetuation of patterns of social violence is a far more common one, and the task of recognising and neutralising this violence, more urgent.

To the extent that I’m willing to make a general claim, it is this: safe spaces are also critical spaces. And for critical spaces to exist, we must not only protect the right to genuine dissent – as opposed to hate speech or abuse – but also ensure that the people who have been historically marginalised have a chance to speak. Beware of anyone who tries to convince you that those voices are the real threat.

Giovanni Tiso

Giovanni Tiso is an Italian writer and translator based in Aotearoa/New Zealand and the editor of Overland’s online magazine. He tweets as @gtiso.

More by Giovanni Tiso ›

Overland is a not-for-profit magazine with a proud history of supporting writers, and publishing ideas and voices often excluded from other places.

If you like this piece, or support Overland’s work in general, please subscribe or donate.

Related articles & Essays

Contribute to the conversation

  1. Your assertion that ‘safe spaces are also critical spaces’ seems fair enough; however, that is not how the concept of ‘safe spaces’ is used in practice, as far as I can see. The ‘safe spaces’ that students and others are demanding on many campuses in the US (and their extension in the form of ‘trigger warnings,’ ‘microaggression reporting systems’ etc) are essentially spaces where people are protected from ideas they find offensive. This can only hinder the necessary task of confronting, arguing with and defeating those ideas. (Just to be quite clear: IMO freedom of expression does not include the freedom to make threats and abuse people, and never did.) There is a big difference between mobilising a demonstration to protest, say, a campus speaking engagement by a Donald Trump (or a John Key), and trying to force the university to cancel the engagement or disrupting the meeting. The first opens space to confront and defeat Trump’s ideas; the second prevents that happening. You seem to imply that there is some way to neutralise the patterns of social violence in this society other than by overthrowing capitalist social relations, which constantly produce and reproduce those patterns.

    1. Apologies for the over-use of italics. Only ‘protected from’ and ‘confronting, arguing with an defeating’ were supposed to be in italics. Now I don’t seem to be able to undo it.

    2. Yes, interestingly enough when Jacinda (Overland’s editor) proposed this topic to me she saw it as being connected to trigger warnings on US campuses. One of the pieces she suggested (by Reni Neutill, you may have read it: has rather brought me around on this topic, along positions similar to yours.

      When I say that safe space are critical spaces, I mean exactly that, insofar as non-critical spaces are doomed to replicate the relations that exist in the rest of society. The broader question of whether social media, which unlike as recently as fifteen years ago are entirely in the hands of private business, can be used critically and oppositionally, is a very thorny one. But it seems to me we simply have no alternative but to try. It’s not a field we can abandon.

        1. Yes – I believe it was originally meant in opposition to Gothic, and associated with the prevailing Italian style of writing. (We don’t call it that of course, we call it cursive.)

  2. OK, I seem to have misinterpreted your remark about ‘safe spaces.’ I totally agree when you say that non-critical spaces are doomed to replicate the relations that exist in the rest of society.
    I hadn’t seen the Salon article – very interesting, thanks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *